toyrobots's page

Hey people,

I've been thinking about cutting out some of the time sinks in my life, and sadly the messageboards are a pretty big time sink for me.

I'm off to live life for a while. It's not you it's me, etc.

Be good to each other, try to be helpful not right.

-owen

Note that I am lazy, and searched for approximately 3 minutes before giving up.

Sometimes I have "new" ideas only to find out that someone else has already done it. I hope this is one of them.

Is there any existing "open setting"? That is, a traditional game setting and world info like Golarion, Oerth or Faerun, except that it isn't closed content?

I think it would be very a helpful thing for people who want to generate content like adventures, where you could lessen the load on the GM integrating it into a campaign.

Such a setting would have to play to as many generic fantasy game tropes as possible, and embody the letter of the Pathfinder rules while we're at it. If it doesn't already exist for me to support, I've even thought of a name: Vancia!

Has anyone tried it? Anyone interested?

Are there any non-vocal languages canonical in Golarion? If so, where can I find details?

Perform (Bellows)! The skill for accordions, concertinas and squeezeboxes!

What two skills should be usable with Versatile Performance?

I'm thinking Sleight of Hand and Disable Device, but I'm waaaay biased.

First, read this. This isn't a house rule thread, but this article by Paizo's own Sean K. Reynolds gives you a good idea how you might use this popularity contest to make a cool house rule. It should also be a good guide for new players to see the feats that are most popular or unanimously rejected in the core.

Then go here.

Pick a new column, put your name in the top cell, and rate all the core feats... or as many as you can before getting bored. Don't edit other people's columns. I'd rather not have to make it invitation only, but I will if it looks like people are being punks (or robots).

• 11+ Means it is probably too good to be a feat, should be nerfed or split into 2 feats.

• 8-10 is a "good feat" you'd probably find a use for on many characters.

• 5-7 is a "meh" feat, either overspecialized or just underwhelming.

• 1-4 might be a good candidate for a trait instead of a feat, or it's just something that should be a free or a game option, not a feat.

Don't feel like you have to match Sean's answers just because he's awesome. A lot has changed since 3.5.

You can always create a comment on a cell in a googledoc if you feel you need to explain your rating.

Any column that gives all feats the same numbers or stuff like that will be deleted by me.

I kinda doubt anyone has the patience to follow through on this. Here's hoping I'm wrong!

EDIT: I've never done a doc this public before, so let me know if you can't edit the sheet.

The game's design generally frowns on the idea of items granting feat slots, and to a lesser extent specific feats (although a handful of items do).

I think that's fine, but forget that for the present discussion.

Let's say I wanted players to be able to pay GP to acquire feats. You can think about them as feat-granting items, or maybe that they're paying for the training, whatever.

What would be a fair price? I think the answer is probably: "depends on the feat"... but what kind of heuristics would you use to make this a fair process?

I'm just going to leave this suggestion here with no real expectation of it happening anytime soon...

Having a "first post" that stays editable by the OP is a frequent request...

One workaround I've been using lately is to have a link to a googledoc in the first post, that way I can update the googledoc and it's still in a good place for people to read it.

Maybe instead of this, we could have a collapsible "whiteboard" at the top or bottom of the thread, which would be an optional space editable by the OP and people authorized by the OP.

Making the editable space visibly different from a post solves the problem of people abusing the system by misrepresenting sequence (unfairly editing posts after response, etc). You can just include a timestamp for when the whiteboard was last edited and by whom.

Monospaced font in the whiteboard would be a huge boon for house ruleswonks and play-by-post folks alike. If you could track revisions to the whiteboard, that would be especially cool as well.

In the mean time, I'm happy to use a link to GDocs. I just thought I'd put this idea out there.

This thread is for the discussion of Damage Penalties, which have recurrently cropped up in discussion of the Strain-Injury HP Variant Rule.

I hope the homebrew forums will forgive me for spamming today, but we agreed it would make everyone's life easier to have a separate thread. Happy Houseruling!

The Strain-Injury Variant is an optional rule for Hit Points in the Pathfinder RPG. It was created with the help of more than two dozen regular posters here on the Paizo forums, and it addresses some of the common complaints about the Hit Point mechanic while preserving the combat balance, ease of use, and classic feel that Hit Points bring to the game.

The rule text proper is hosted on GoogleDocs so that we can update it as needed:

Strain-Injury HP Variant Rule

If you're curious about how the variant rule was developed, feel free to check out the original discussion. Warning - it is over 500 posts long, contains some dead-ends, and only settles into its current form on page 8 or so.

The basic premise of the rule is to separate the Hit Point damage that represents "physical punishment" from the Hit Point damage that represents various active defenses, or "turning a serious blow into a lesser one" as the Core Rulebook phrases it. In this way, Strain-Injury is very much like Vitality And Wound Points from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana rules. Unlike Vitality and Wound Points, Strain-Injury requires very little change to the existing rules to use, and creates fewer consequences within the system.

There are two important elements of the Strain-Injury rule that are worth announcing up front:

Firstly, this variant is actually a rule about hit point recovery rates. All it does is set specific rates for the recovery of different types of damage. The rule does not include damage penalties (although that is a popular addition enough to merit its own thread), nor does it create a new damage type with special effects that will alter the outcome of combat (such as Bleed). Using this rule, 99% of your battles should resolve exactly as they would with unmodified HP rules.

Secondly, the Strain and Injury damage types are a property of damage received. A weapon or attack form never deals Strain damage or Injury damage consistently. Rather, Strain damage results from avoiding a potentially lethal attack, and Injuries result from failing to avoid potentially lethal attacks. In very extreme cases, a GM might alter damage from one type to the other, but if you have a grasp of how the system works such cases should be extraordinarily rare.

This thread exists for the discussion and refinement of the rule, in addition to clarification and answers to any questions that may arise GMs and players using it. Thanks to everyone — past and future — for contributing to this idea and making my game better.

What I want to discuss here is the role of obscure language in the Pathfinder RPG. Mods feel free to move this out of the RPGSS forum if you think it should go elsewhere.

Firstly, I want to thank the judges for being so open with their feedback.

Secondly, while this thread is in response to the role of obscure names in this year's RPGSS, I know that my item failed due to pricing issues and formatting issues.

Thirdly, I think that the judges did count down my item due to the obscurity of the word gyst. I think they were right to do so for the competition.

Gyst is an archaic term for yeast that I learned from working in a brewery, and later found in one of my girlfriend's baking books when researching names for my item. It is archaic, but not Old English, as far as I understand. Since my item was basically magical brewer's yeast, I felt that the word was perfect.

In a competition, I am working to communicate with a small number of people who almost certainly would have to look that up. Odds are, even if they looked it up, they would not find it. That is why I deserved to get disqualified, and I'm 100% okay with that.

But I think these kinds of terms belong in the game, if not the competition. If I hadn't been subjected to that moment of discomfort in my own ignorance of language, then D&D would never have taught me so much. Phylactery, brazier, unguent, periapt, mattock... these are all words that I might never have come to know if they hadn't been items. I feel like earlier editions had a higher incidence of obscure language; although that may be my age at the time of reading them.

I have noticed a tendency toward straight-forward naming conventions in the game recently, and I think that's largely a positive thing. But at times, when I see something like the spell name nap stack, I yearn for the somewhat-condescending vocabulary of yore. (With apologies to the person who named that spell, it really disappointed me.) I've also been reading some of the REH Conan stories again, and I'm struck with the sense that we are losing language, not just in this hobby but as a culture in general.

Despite my above example, Paizo quite plainly recognizes the value I'm claiming here. The GMG has that page of obscure terms! So I like to think that although it is unwise to use those terms in the competition, the game still embraces them.

I recognize that in a judged competition, using obscure language is a big risk that you may not be understood by the judges. But I also worry that, over time, we might lose the heritage of a game which is at heart about descriptive language.

It is all too easy to cross the line into obscurity for obscurity's sake, and that's certainly something the judges have seen this year. Maybe my item was an instance of that. But I still relish the use of obscure language in my game products, when done well. When someone sends me to my dictionary app and I learn a new word from it, I grow as a person and as a writer.

I hope that this doesn't sound like me whining about my rejected entry (probably does)... please take me at my word that I owe a great debt to this hobby when it comes to my own language, and that means a lot more to me than the competition.

Congratulations to the top 32, and to the judges on a job well done!

Anyone care to take a stab at this? No need to include those you are not familiar with.

The Holiday-beast ate all my monies.

I'm tired of feats.

They used to be kind of fun, but there's explosive growth in the number of choices and most characters just don't have enough slots.

Making matters worse, new feats that codify something random and cool that players might want to try in combat discourage those options for creative play. I used to consider it a smart use of the rules when a PC would ready a standard action to attack a foe when they used reach. The Strike Back feat comes out, and of a sudden players "forget" that they always had that option. Now you need to spend a feat for it, and believe me that limits it to the occasional fighter who would even consider spending the slot on it.

Little by little, the creative applications of the rules are being locked away behind feats.

Martial characters get locked in to a single style whether it works or not, and they are completely unable to adapt as they level up.

It isn't fun anymore.

Has anyone experimented with a replacement system that lets us use the rules for feats but without a static slot system? Any ideas?

For some reason, I feel like Bardic Masterpieces would be better as feats that were available to any character who meets the prerequisites.

Accordingly, the Bard would receive bonus masterpieces. I was thinking one at 2nd level and every three thereafter (5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th).

Obviously, the cost in rounds of performance for many of the masterpieces would need to change, in order that it might be performed by non-bards. I'm thinking that the entire category of Masterpiece feats may carry some kind of limitation equal to perform ranks.

What are the obvious and subtle consequences of such a change?

When I try to reply to an existing thread using the "Add New Post" link at the bottom on my iPhone, I get sent through to the URL but the page is blank.

I'm getting the error splash screen:

"You have made too many requests for the same page too quickly.

Please wait a minute before trying again."

When I attempt to see who favorited a post of mine. It happens to a number of different posts, but here's one.

I couldn't stop myself. (still locked out of office)

Okay, Powerpoint and similar technologies are awesome tools for giving presentations... but my department at the university has gone totally overboard.

I have TWO group presentations in the hours from noon to 4pm today, and another tomorrow.

The presentations are freaking meaningless. One or more people in the group always slacks off and gets the same grade as everyone else. The presentation does nothing but have us regurgitate what we presumably learned.

It's gotten so bad I find myself wishing for a traditional exam in at least one class.

What the heck is going on? Is it just easier for professors to assign and grade group work? I understand that presenting is an important skill, but I feel like the sheer quantity here is undermining the educational value.

It's my understanding that in the work place, you do presentations sometimes but then you have to get back to actual work. I weep for the future where businesses full of people waste time presenting about presentations to eachother and nobody ever actually makes anything. </rant>

The "Does anyone else" movement speaks to the desperation and loneliness pervading the forums in our time. We've moved on from the Manichaen need to categorize whether any given action is "evil", and — having failed to answer that question — we now ask the much more existential: "Good, Evil, Meh. Does anyone out there share my feelings?"

In this thread I have hijacked the discussion. I want to move it here.

The beginner box was created with a meticulous eye toward learn-ability and playability. I cannot commend the staff enough for the accomplishment.

I personally feel that the Core Rulebook (CRB hereafter) needs a similar treatment. I outline my major grievances with it here and here and ad nauseum throughout the thread.

What do you folks think about a rulebook product that does not obsolesce the existing CRB, but re-formats the information for maximum utility in the hands of intermediate (that is, post-beginner box) players. It would have every single rule from the CRB (and perhaps some latter-day expansions). It would be created through the same kind of play-driven approach as the Beginner Box.

Give me your opinion, and here's mine: I'm increasingly frustrated with the game at 12th level, after GMing multiple campaigns since Pathfinder Beta. I blame the organization. I think the game (3e) was laid out to reward rules mastery instead of promoting easy gameplay. I think the only section of the book that had any kind of usability sense was the Combat chapter (like 3.5 before it) and that has really distorted the play experience.

I have finally, after a long stint of fidelity, started running other RPGs. I broke my promise to finish my Pathfinder AP campaign first.

At this point, I am only interested in rules products that make the game easier to manage. The last two rulebook releases were terrific in their own way, but each seemed to compound my complexity problem. It is now too much. I know readers of this post will have a number of suggestions (mainly ignore content) but it's just how I feel.

If the aforementioned streamlining of the core rules were to happen, I could have my cake (less rules suffering) and eat it too (shiney new book). Right now, it's about the only thing I can imagine paying for. When I say streamlining, I mean presentation only, not omission of rules from the current core. Please read the bolded sentence twice.

Paizo does a great job, and this should not be mistaken for an ultimatum post, or a "I'm taking my toys and going home" post. I will always be a Pathfinder player. But until it becomes a little less high-maintenance, I might have to keep seeing other games on the side. ;)

See what I did there?

I know there are probably a hundred great features on the to-do list that come before this, but... being in the enviable position of "user" I get to say "wouldn't it be nice if..."

Wouldn't it be nice if the original poster had some kind of distinguishing mark when posting in a thread they created? I often have to scroll all the way back to the top (or worse, go back to the first page) to check and see if a post is the OP answering the response or just a similar poster.

*tosses this thread on the pile of specific evil lincoln feature requests*

Hi ho Paizo

It has been 16 days since I received the shipping email on this order. Any chance it got bounced back to you?

Sift

School divination; Level bard 0, inquisitor 0

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range 30 ft.

Area one 10-ft. cube

Duration instantaneous

Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

You examine an area at range as if you were searching for fine details with the Perception skill. Make a Perception check with a –5 penalty, modified as normal for conditions. No penalty is applied for distance. Apply the result against the DC for any hidden features, such as secret doors, traps, or hidden treasure. You must be able to see the area you are attempting to search, and you only find details that can be perceived with sight or touch. Sift detects only objects and features, not actual creatures.

It allows you to inspect details from a distance of 30 feet, but at a -5 penalty. Is it just me, or is that the same as the penalty for inspecting from 50 feet?

The perception skill offers no special rules for examining fine details, it just refers you to the modifiers table. If so, what good is this spell?

Look at this one.

And this one.

I used to try and update the Runelords content thread. It was a total nightmare. Quoth the infomercial: "There has to be a better way!"

Content threads are the jewel of these forums. A necessary as moderation tools like flagging are, it saddens me that trolling produces features before the user-produced content does.

Features like tagging for organization, attaching maps or other resources, OPs that are editable in certain (non-controversial) forums (like AP topics)... These would be worth considering. I know we have some listing functionality for users, but they come up short if you want to make something like a list of Runelords add-in adventures, then have people actually find it in the Runelords forums.

It is hardly urgent, but Content-driven threads are really good kinds of threads for the community to have, and they encourage a different kind of contribution, so they definitely deserve to be nurtured in their own right.

Of course, there are workarounds... they only occur to me now that I'm publicly bemoaning the lack of content features. What say you all?

Why is it that threads with an OP that is flagrantly silly and aggressive are more likely to spur polite conversation than do OPs that are coherent and polite?

The more I think about it, the more I want to just use the differential between (modified) Stealth and (modified) Perception.

If the differential is a positive number: multiply by 10 to get the distance where the perceiver normally becomes aware of the hider. The hider may approach even closer, but can no longer take 10 on his Stealth check. If hider and perceiver are both aware when combat begins, use normal initiative. If either party is unaware, use a surprise round.

If the differential is a negative number: the hider can "sneak up behind" the perceiver. This means the hider does not need concealment or cover to hide in for one round.

I find spinoff threads to be very useful for keeping things on topic.

It might be nice if there were an option when replying to a thread to check a box or something and create a spinoff automatically. This would make a new thread with the OP as your quoted post, and leave a generated link to that new thread in the old thread (the link would be the name of the spinoff thread).

I've had to do this manually from time to time, and it usually turns out well.

I know people might go crazy with it. I just think I would find it useful personally.

Just a notion.

EDIT: You would probably want a drop-down list to select which forum it would go too, since often times spinoff threads can deal with different topics, that's what made them OT to begin with.

When, if ever, may you take 10 on Stealth checks?

Spinoff from the stealth playtest thread.

It's happening on and off. (might read "It's happening on and o .")

Like it says.

I'll bet that got your attention.

This is a game.
.
.
From the entire Pathfinder library, select:

3 Cantrips or Orisons.
10 1st-level spells.
9 2nd-level spells.
8 3rd-level spells.
7 4th-level spells.
6 5th-level spells.
5 6th-level spells.
4 7th-level spells.
3 8th-level spells.
2 9th-level spells.

...that you think the fighter "would be able to cast" to do his job independently. Arcane, Divine, no matter.

If this makes you want to post a polemic on how "fighters shouldn't cast spells, blah, blah, Bo9S..."—I've never read it, and you have no idea what I'm driving at.

Many of you are really smart people. Tell me the spells that a fighter needs to do his job better. Don't hold back on account of themes or flavor, just tell me which tools they need to be self-sufficient. Not to beat everyone else, but to be self-sufficient.

Hey Gary, Ross, et al

The Ask JJ thread just exhibited weird behavior. In the recent posts sidebar it said something like (1772 new) and when I got in it looked like there were that many pages. I clicked through the newer ones, and recognized them as older pages.

Just a heads up.

RAW is a commonly used acronym for "rules as written", which signifies the absence of house-rules relevant to the discussion.

I play by the RAW. Well, not exactly, I have a short list of house-rules, but most of those are new feats or non-invasive clarifications. Compared to some people on the forum, I play incredibly close to the RAW.

There are those who claim the the RAW is borked, unusable, and imbalanced. One popular claim regards the caster-martial disparity, which is highly relevant to this discussion. However, that issue tends to bog down detailed balance discussions. Luckily, it has its own thread now. Here we will discuss the C-M D only as it relates to GMing the RAW. Feel free at any time to verbally banish people to the C-M D thread if they get bogged down in the details.

With that out of the way, here is how I would like the discussion to work:

I believe the RAW works, but there are certain implicit rules that the GM must follow in order to preserve the balance of things. The rulebooks over many editions have done a pretty poor job of consolidating these rules and presenting them to the GM in a useful manner.

Some believe it to be broken, and I'm going to name-drop Kirth here because he is a well-known forumite with prodigious house-rules, who often makes the case against the RAW (I think). I don't think these people are "wrong" in any way, they just have demands of the system that aren't being met, and in some cases (such as low-magic), might be impossible to meet.

I would like to discuss the "hidden" rules that make the RAW work, but we can only do that with a little cooperative tension between the two sides. If you think the RAW is broken in some regard, present that problem. Let's try to keep them bite-sized, orrr... let's call it encapsulated and make my CS professor happy. I would like to discuss the "hidden" rules that make the RAW work, but we can only do that with a little cooperative tension between the two sides.

With any luck, the ensuing discussion will be useful to both GMs trying to play very close to the RAW and GMs looking to shore up weak-points in the system with new house-rules.

In Rise of the Runelords, the PCs encounter a small pool of the substance "ethillion" while on an arcane laboratory demiplane. The substance has the ability to drain magic from items and recharge other items. This ability was great in 3e, since there was no other efficient way to recharge items. In PF, with all staves having the ability to be recharged, it is less impressive.

A word about my campaign:
I already allow magic item abilities and charges to be transferred from one item to another via ritual.

The wizard PC and longest surviving character is an Abjurer who dabbles in Thassilonian Sin magic.

There is also a warforged PC, which I introduced as a surviving artifact from the armies of Edasseril. The basic rationale is that the runelord of envy was so frightened of spies and subversion, she would employ automata wherever possible. This association between constructs and the negation of magic prevails to this day in the spell immunity exhibited by golems.

One last bit of context: my entire gaming group has read R. Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing series. In the series, there exist small artifacts called chorae. Though magic is insanely powerful in that setting, the touch of a chorae will turn a sorcerer to salt (a disintegrate spell, basically) and a non-caster possessing one is immune to magic. They are fantastically expensive.

To be continued...

Would it make sense to have a feat or feat chain that allowed you to grant extra actions to other creatures? I wouldn't rule out a class ability, but let's call it a feat for now.

There's plenty of precedent for this in spells, obviously, and in some prestige classes (Pathfinder Chronicler, I think).

What if there were a low level feat that let you sacrifice a standard action to grant another creature a free move action. It would get better from there, both by sweetening the action granted (maybe standard at 6th level) and alleviating the cost (move action, then perhaps even in place of an attack on a full attack run), increasing the number of creatures affected, and the range of the effect.

Limitations; of course the creature needs to understand your language. I don't think the action should be useable for spellcasting, although I would consider a caveat that merely limited the utility of this. Maybe a spellcraft roll is necessary for the commander to grant a spellcasting action?

The feat would have a charisma 13, pre-req, but I would build it with an eye toward houseruling it in as a bonus feat for any class that doesn't have full- or bard- spells per day.

Lots of potential here. What do you all think? Anyone tried it?

Tosses some goodwill down to the OTD.

.
.
.

*clank*
*clank*
*clank*
*clank*
*clank*
*clank*
*clank*
*clank*
*clank*
*thud*

Keep up the good work.

I feel like skills deserve more love in Pathfinder.

Lately I have noticed a number of class features, feats, and maneuvers that really should be expanded skill applications. This is nothing new, really, it's been a problem since Leadership.

But in some sense, it hurts characters for whom skill mastery is a major part of their package. Of course I mean the Rogue.

I understand that having new skill applications in books can get out of hand, but it looks like a few very reasonable things got passed over. Any taunting mechanic should have been skill-based, in my opinion, and yet we have Antagonize as a feat. Stealing things in combat (and stealing in general) should have been an application of sleight of hand, and yet we have the Steal maneuver.

Some experimentation is perfectly fine, but must it come at the expense of a robust skill system? It leads to a feeling of paralysis, where characters can only perform in areas they have specifically invested in.

Just a thought I wanted to share. Anyone feel similarly? Disagree? What what?

For some reason, I want to stare this medusa in the face.

The other caster-martial disparity thread was very formal and well organized.

I want this thread to be a total clusterfunk.

So bring it.

You think casters rule the roost? Defend your case. (should be easy, you're right).

You think martials bring the pain, and casters will die without them? I'd like to see your evidence.

Dance, forums. Dance for my amusement!

EDIT: No personal attacks, nothing below the belt. If someone goes limp, or taps out, the fight is over.

I can only take the Combat Trick rogue talent once...

but can I use another talent to take the Ninja Trick rogue talent... and select the Combat Trick ninja trick?

The funniest part is that I am asking about this for my Bard (Archaeologist).

Oh, UC...

Stage voice
School illusion; Level bard 1

CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S

EFFECT
Target self
Duration 1 minute/level
Saving Throw harmless

DESCRIPTION
This spell causes sounds emanating from your person to project with incredible volume and clarity. Any Perception DCs to detect these sounds are decreased by 1 per two caster levels. In addition, the effective range of all bardic performances with audible components is increased by 5 feet per caster level.

Can a bard use ventriloquism to change the point of origin for her bardic performance effects, provided it was an effect generated by her voice?

Why or why not?

I love me some archetypes. It is really great to be able to customize a character from level 1.

But there are a few rules about archetypes in general that strike me as a little too restrictive. Why can't you mix and match archetypes more easily? Why can't you trade any power for any equivalent power, through two or even three archetypes until you have the exact powers you want?

Has anyone tried a system that treats all the archetype abilities for a given class like a big buffet, where you can freely pick and choose from thematic abilities?

I'm thinking it would be pretty great, so why not? And if it is doable, how to go about it?

Big Beautiful Map.

So big, I am having a hard time finding a wall for it! My "reading room" is the second floor of a Cape-Cod-style house, so the walls are all sloped. :(

Anyway, I was wondering... has anyone tried removing wrinkles, mounting on a single piece of cloth, or foamcore, or other?

Framed it?

A suspension maybe?

Please describe whatever crazy thing your spouse has permitted you to do with this crazy huge map. Bonus points for pics.

Traps and the finding of traps are kind of strange and kludgy to me. Would anyone like to take some time to explain to me exactly how you handle traps at the table? Who rolls, what is secret, how do you handle trapfinding abilities, the consequences of success, failure, etc. I'm looking for a plain-english, no-nonsense treatment of the encounter type. Thanks for any discussion!

Leadership.

Anyone else seeing that? Is that on purpose?