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

zagnabbit's page

817 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 817 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

TheBlackPlague wrote:

Lotta cool options. Most of these options aren't persistent though, correct? As in, I can't set up a nice laboratory and have it still exist upon reopening the space.

That's an interesting idea, Zagnabbit. You wouldn't happen to have the stats on such a beast, would ye?

No stats no.

It's basically a minor artifact that is a permanent, mobile gateway to a small, personal Demi-Plane.
Pathfinder #24 "TheFinal Wish", secondary article "Decanter of Black Death"

The above article does stat that the creator made about 300 of them though, so they aren't exactly a unique or campaign breaking item.

Any permanent, inhabitable, extradimensional space that is large enough to contain several people is going to be prohibitively expensive. The ability to use it as a treasure cache is just too much in game terms (since you never need to worry about weight or storage again, plus if it's mobile you can always have every piece of mundane equipment you could ever need). A "familiar pocket" X100 maybe?
I have a home-brewed item that does just that plus some other things, it's a Staff and it's insanely expensive even with my half-assed pricing making it barely affordable for a big level player and it only provides a space that is about 20,000 cubic feet. (like a 3 bedroom house as an example).

Talk to your DM about this, if he doesn't mind a mobile spell lab it's not an unlikely get item. While it's gold cost would be staggering it can be built in such a way as to be non-game changing, beyond saving the party from nighttime random encounter tables.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Burr wrote:

I have to disagree with Isger simply because Cheliax definitely wants to keep it due to the importance of it's strategic location between the mountains and the trade routes it gives access to. If you were sent in by House Thrune to bring order to Isger that would be another matter.

Iobaria seems like a good place to me though, the lack of population, vast stretches of land, eerie cyclops ruins, and a few detailed cities. The terrifying and reoccurring plaques seem like the only down side which could still be a great plot point for the campaign.

One place that hasn't been mentioned yet is the Whistling Plains which lies on the eastern edge of Taldor and stretches from the borders of Galt to the deserts of Qadira and then to the east, deep into the heart of the Padishah Empire of Kelesh. I could see Taldor setting up a group to create a vassal state as a border between it and these nations, particularly Qadria.

I have to disagree to disagree.

Cheliax has all but abandoned Isger, Molthune and Southern Varisia. They've virtually ignored Andoran, Northern Garund. They have kept an eye on Sargava, but I think that's a distance issue and a population that doesn't want to be Cheliaxian.

Isger is centrally located. Yet if Cheliax were really worried about a neighbor Molthune wouldn't be Molthune. I doubt Cheliax has ever "controlled" the trade routes here, the Kalistocracy has because that's their thing and Isger is right next door and weak. The Kalistocracy isn't militarily expansionist but can field an impressive army.
House Thrune seems to just be in consolidation mode. They control Cheliax but not even all of Cheliax is under their boot. That's prime time for Kingdom building next door since House Thrune is one of the setting's truly great BBEG candidates.

That Isger has precious little Campaign support could be an issue but there's not much more for Iobaria or even NW Varisia.

I do like Iobaria though.

I'm looking forward to a Mikaze spin on the Orc Nation in Avistan.

In one of The Legacy of Fire APs there's a secondary adventure that not only has what your looking for but a backstory on Extradimensional spaces and how they were all the rage in Nex's day.

I believe most are like Genie lamps. But then there is Kakashon, which is a major plot element in that AP

This might help. It's older but cooler than the regular options.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think when new rulesets get bandied about people get Myopia.

I imagine there are lots of games where people just use the CORE rulebook. Some people LOVE new rules, some don't. Some ignore all the capaign fluffy stuff that Paizo sort of excells at. RPG customers are actually really varied. There is no "sweet spot" demographically.
WotC likes new rulesets because it's incredibly profitable in the short term. If they can get everyone to switch, big IF. Paizo keeps doing New Rulebooks because lots of people like new rules. New rules though complicate everything. The more that gets published, the more stuff needs clarification, the more that stuff breaks down. I do not want a new edition to keep that cycle up. It's just not economically feasible for me to keep doing an Edition Rotation.

There is stuff that needs to be addressed in the longterm with PF.
*Mostly spells, and magic (the underlying concept of it), but mostly the spells.
*feats and scaling power metrics.
*stats and their various abuses.
*the underlying math at higher power levels.
*classes and class mechanics that just step all over other classes roles.

The basic mechanics are fine. It's just that the game isn't really streamlined to be mechanically balanced over a 20 level spread, it's pretty reliable for a 10 level spread though. Most of the "It's Broken!" complaints come up in groups that play higher up. This is not a widespread issue though, at least in my experience.

Balancing the high level math though is gonna be a power up for Beaters and a power down for casters. That's not gonna be extremely popular, especially with the rabid rules consumers. It's a catch 22 for Paizo.

I'd be dumbfounded that Jason doesn't have stuff written down for a new edition already, but he likes (and is good at) fluffy stuff too and I want Razmir stuff WAY WAY more than boring math tweaks.

There is a bunch of crunchy stuff left to do in the current PF edition.
*a simple mass combat system that doesn't go all Warhammer
**a cool naval subset to go with it
*** an even cooler aerial combat subset too
*space exploration rules
*Skill system buffs
*Item Crafting rules that actually make sense, are flexible, and don't grossly favor one group over another leading to wonky power disparities.
*more NPC "monster" books
*more alternate magic systems
*alternate weapon and armor systems

That's just stuff Paizo could do, not even scratching the stuff 3PP still have left.

*specialized campaign books

I liked those old TSR boxed sets, at the time.
There was stuff in them I didn't or hardly used though.

Box sets make sense for Campaign Settings.
Box sets make sense for Super Dungeons. (Though admittedly I'm comparing the Awesome Ruins of Undermountain to the not Awesome Return to Undermountain hardback).
Boxed sets for rules not so much. BECMI, was neat but all I ever picked up was BEC. My brother did get MI though. I like the single CORE rulebook approach more than anything else ever done in RPGs, rulewise.

I've found I don't need big maps of towns and dungeons, unless they are 1inch battle maps. I do like poster sized "regional maps".

Cards are cool, but they get lost and they may not be as useful as index cards for space reasons (index cards can squeeze more info in).

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
You want to hear something really weird? I haven't run into the "CN is just an excuse to be evil without writing 'evil' on the sheet" since I was maybe 10 years old. I've seen a lot of CN as "doesn't worry too much about the future" and "isn't a really bad person, but puts too much effort into satisfying whims and thereby sometimes comes to grief" and so on.
What are the ages of those you play with? While not a sure-fire way to tell, in my experience the younger ones are the ones that play CN in that fashion. I wish I could be more choose-y in who I play with, but that's not up to me and a bit harder to do when playing over the internet with random strangers. And I know that's the biggest part of my problem.

That sound like adults.

Who are actually adults.

I play with grownups, generally, but now those grownups have kids that are old enough to play with grownups. This changes a lot of things in a game group and the type of games that get played.

In my experience, the adults with children present will shy away from the evil tendencies that have dominated their character concepts for a couple of years. Some have restrictions that go in place for game content as well. One guy who is very experienced (Wisconsin native, 20 year military, life long gamer, FLGS owner), had his kids playing early but restricted any demon/devil content and most evil cleric stuff. This seemed limiting for very bright teenagers but it's understandable.
Some other adult players balked at kids in games and the inevitable content restrictions, but most will wander back for solid play group.

I've found that kids play good guys.
Late teens like bad guys. (and Chaotic Silly)
Early 20s are a mixed bag.
Mid toLate 20s are the group that balks at alignment. This is where I find the CN(E) group.
The early 30s are where it gets interesting. The LG characters are complex and even the CE characters are nuanced and far from caricatures.
Slowly they drift towards an alignment "comfort Zone". this isn't bad role playing, they just know where they want to be for an extended time and any shifts in alignment are deliberate, sub plot elements implemented carefully.

The older guys that are more RP oriented tend towards Heroic archetypes while the ladies get more treacherous. 8). The tactical simulation people (mostly male at this point) just ignore their alignment and check with the current GM on where they're at if needed.

I wonder if that's just a unique observation from a long standing group with frequent rotations?

I'd agree with that.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
It doesn't help that, typically, the worst roleplaying I've seen has been of paladins. It's a good concept, but I've seen too many who turn it into something scary. And not the good kind of scary.
Rarely seen that. To me, the very worst comes from immature CN "murderhoboes' who do very little RPing at all, and what they do- is bad.

The murder hobos don't actually have alignments. They put CN on the sheet and assume they won't get blistered by Smite Evil. Because they are too childish to face the reality of their actions.

I tend to warn new players that alignment is a fundamental element of my game, but I don't force anything on anyone. I do however track their alignment in secret.

I'm still amazed at the LE people who are basically good guys save for the occasional atrocity. That doesn't happen with CN, they always shift to evil.

On Paladins.
Some classes aren't for rookies. I actively discourage new players from starting with Monks (for mechanical reasons) and Paladins (for RP and mechanical reasons). These are advanced classes.

EDIT: Lancelot is not the classic Knight in Shining armor hero. Gawain is, Roland and Orlando are. Lancelot is a tragic (head case) figure.

bugleyman wrote:
Hama wrote:
Won't buy, won't play. I will never, ever again touch anything with wizards of the coast logo.
You do understand that the leadership responsible for 4E (which I assume is the source of your vehement dislike) is gone, right? It seems silly to blacklist an entire company for the actions of a few, especially when those responsible are no longer there...

Actually that's the problem.

From my perspective, WotC lacks a Leader. There is no clear vision there. They need a Lisa or a Peter Adkison.

WotC has a revolving door policy on personell, people come and go at an almost comical rate. I think it's partly bean counter driven and likely the people themselves (it's nice to have WotC on your resume but it's likely sucks to work there). This is a lack of Vision and Leadership. They have great people on Staff. Mearls, Rich Baker, Jesse Decker, Steve Shoebert but I never know if those people are there at any given time. Plus they got sloppy at the end of 3.5. Ruins of Undermountain should have been aborted, the crunch wasn't even proofread. Heck they'd reprint an old feat with a different name and call it new content.


I actually FAQed this just because the lack of Common Sense application is in overdrive here.

If the player can justify it, then the character can do it.

It's not fluff, it's crunch. That's how fringe skills work. Always have. Slavish devotion to the letter of the law is silly in RPGs.

But this may not get answered just because ITEM CREATION is a BAD subset of the rules. Everyone knows it yet it doesn't matter because most people don't actually do it very often.

Master Craftsmen was a weak feat when it was introduced, it's still a weak feat. It doesn't matter and this thread has turned into the same argument rerun. X can be twisted to do Y because it doesn't say I can't. Or X can't do Y because ENGLISH IS ENGLISH.

GentleGiant wrote:

To step away from that whole IPCC argument there's one thing EVs still have to find a solution to, which is one of the things that would currently prevent me from owning one - even though it would easily cover any driving needs I have (also apart from the fact that I don't have the money to buy one, let alone a regular gasoline (or diesel) car).

I live in an "apartment complex" (not sure what else to call it), so I have no garage or similar place to plug it in. A 200 feet extension cord out my second floor window and across the lawn, walkway and parking lot isn't quite feasible.

Since I've worked for one of the "Big 3", I can attest that this point more than any other has hampered the EV development in America.

It's not the grid, nor the infrastructure, it's the the average American Household.

I remember a study that estimated that less than 40% of Americans had access to a garage that could support charging of a fully electric vehicle.

The magic number in the car Buisness for "appeal" on new models is actually closer to 60%. That's not a guaranteed sale, that's a "they'd consider it".

On the upside, Open Source Patents for EVs is a massive step forward. So massive that some companies will immediately start to play with them in R&D only to not be behind. And I mean the "Big 6" here.

Wow this got silly.

Arguing the language implications of "the" and "can" isn't helping here.

This is one of those "Use Common Sense" rules. So if you have a weird Craft or Profession skill, come up with a viable reason to make Master Craftsman work. It's perfectly reasonable that an Engraver or Calligrapher could trace "magic script" on a
masterwork item and get an enchantment. Or maybe the Moonshine you cook up is so spectacular that when you soak masterwork jewelry in it it can stop magic missiles.


This is a very fringe feat, a double feat tax, and extremely limited.


Seebs wrote:

Yes, this feat sucks horribly. It's insanely weak. It would make more sense to just let anyone do this for free than to charge a feat tax for it.


Once you get 7 or 8 ranks go to town, you still gotta spend the gold. It would also explain all the magic junk laying around these game worlds.

TBH, I make full casters take the Craft/Profession skills to craft and no one complains.

The purpose of feats like this is to save money in low to mid tier magic games it's a bad choice in most campaigns, all PFS events and any one off game.

It does benefit a TWF build, but that's a feat intensive path already so it's a wash.

Also as a DM, with the single skill interpretation, your being a douch if you don't count Craft Magic Arms and Armor as a single skill. Thats just silly considering you will let the Wizard craft anything based on his knowledge of how spells work, without making anything of real permanent artistic worth.

I think that the level constraints would have an effect on this decision as well.

The 5th & 6th chapters of the APs are always kinda hit and miss for me. I like to finish out the story ,but the higher level a game goes, the harder it becomes to make an engaging AP installment. High level play is just hard to manage given the widely different playstyles of players and groups. How high would a 12 parter go?
I think thats the reason that so few lvl 18-20 modules get produced.

On the flip side, Paizo has done a magnificent job with the APs, even the ones I thought I would loathe have been pretty good. The only real "Miss" for me was Carrion Crown and it had alot of elements that I actually like.
So I wouldn't chicken on a 12 parter.

That said, in my opinion the best chapters for the APs have been largely placed early. If an AP were to go to 12 issues I'd really kinda like those latter parts to be more than stat blocks. Maybe a slow exp progression AP?

Craft skills are pretty varied.

Cobbler-boots and shoes maybe gloves
Silve/Goldsmith-bracelets, brooches, necklaces, bracers etc.
Tailor-vests, cloaks, jackets
Glassblower-globes, lenses, monocles, goggles

It really depends how detailed you get with the skill system. Some people let a single skill cover all kinds of things others want a pretty specific skill associated with specific product.

With QuickDraw this should absolutely work.

It's what QuickDraw is for.

The older APs have stats for them at 1,4,7,9 etc.

But they are HORRIBLY built as far as optimization goes.

Sajan the monk has a WIS of 10.

Haram has a weird feat selection.

Seoni's spells are questionable.

Amiri and her giant sword.

Lots of players will hate the way they are designed. They are story characters, not combat characters. That's not inherently bad but make sure your players are cool with that.

I very seldom get to play as a player (something I mean to amend).

My last 3 long term characters were a CN XAositect (Planescape hedonist).

A LE monk (homebrew) who was cruel, manipulative and utterly honorable in everything he did. Selfish and greedy in a way but brutally honest and not unwilling to share the burdens of his friends. The party was already evil heavy when I joined (my first experience with this long term, where it was more than a joke).

And recently a Paladin of Sarenrae. This character is heroic but in a way that is unusual. The DM is female and really dislikes the class. We discussed the character before I joined the group, which was well established with one evil member and several "morally ambiguous" types. The class fit with the goals of the storyline but it was requested that I not play a Dudley Do Right or a sermonizing cliche. I basically picked out the personality of the Eagle Scout you grew up with, but never really hit it off with who later joined the US Army and made Special Forces in less than 8 years. He's somewhat myopic in worldview. I played him just slightly sexist (we have a very vocal feminist in the playgroup, the DM suggested this) as a counter to the parties Abjuror, who he sort of pairs off with in combat oddly. His level of Moral Certainty makes him a little frightening but his tendency to account for the group's actions personally has been an enjoyable experience.

I'm not sure that Heroic has always been common place with the groups I've played with. It was when i was younger, but its slowly eroded some with time. As a DM I prefer storylines that promote choices that have ramifications in the greater scheme of things. Making those choices in a way that changes how a character views himself/herself is sort of my goal as a DM. I do recognize that sometimes a good ole' Dungeon Crawl is what's best for everyone but across a campaign Arc, there needs to be some Moral or Ethical undercurrent as these are the enemies that are actually a challenge for adventurers.

Jonathon Vining wrote:
Zilfrel Findadur wrote:
So? who knows what is the seal and what happened to it?
Not supported by anything other than the BotD1 text, I kind of figured the seal was the positive energy plane.

It's hidden underneath Kaer Maga and guarded by a monastic street gang?

Wes and Sutter shared an office back then.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually think Isger is ripe for this.
*It's decentralized government.
*Recent goblinoid war.
* It's full of bandits.
*Molthune is your northern neighbor.
*Cheliax is nearby and there are probobly imperial sympathizers all around you.
*Nobody else seems to want it.

Somewhere, I forget which Campaign Setting book (Seeker of Secrets?) there is a reference to a "Proto-Kelid" people in Isger that are still living there. This is a great source stock for PCs to come from. The PCs don't need to be conquerors but instead folk heroes who have simply tired of Chelaxian indifference and incompetence in the Capitol. This let's you play up the snobby arrogant side of the "bad guys". Could be fun.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread got me thinking, so I revisited the maps and source material and did some topolographical comparisons with Earth.

One of the things that get seriously overlooked on Golarion is the Roof of the World. They have a landmass under the polar ice. That's important because it changes the global weather pattern. Also one of the neat things about our world and water is that virtually all river systems flow towards the South. There are notable exceptions but they are all exceptions. Hydrologically, on Earth, its theorized that all water makes it's way to Antartica every couple hundred years and goes through the primary recycling phase. This is where TV pundits argue with scientists about desalination and weather patterns. Antartica and the Arctic ocean have a push pull relationship.

The Roof of the World would produce a very different effect. As a massive landmass the size of Antartica would contain a significant portion of the planets fresh water. Unlike Antartica however, it is connected to 3 other large landmasses, Avistan, Casmarron (above the Castrovin) and Tien La. Those land masses would prevent what we call the "Antartic Curtain" which keeps that continent even colder than it would normally be. The Push/Pull effect would be Different since the oceanic currents would be forced along the giant Coast lines of those large Northern Continents.

On Avistan, the Sellen inherits all of the water that runs out East of Irrisen and North and West of Iobarria. Kind of like how the Amazon drains most of South America, just larger. It's safe to say that cannon sources tell us that Belkzen, the Kodars and the Storval Plateau are an unusual rise in elevation in Western Avistan. So everything East of that drains towards Lake Encarthan. Which actually explains it's size. Geologically Encarthan is big enough to be a "sealed system" with no outflow, relying on evaporation to cycle water. The Roof of the World however would strain that sealed system though, forcing ice South. The Age of Darkness would have been cold with little to no solar gain, this would explain the Lake of Mist and Veils as a glacial lake from that time period. As the world warmed up, the Roofs extended Icepack melted pushing South flooding the River Kingdoms and breaking through a low point in the eastern Five Kings Mountains.
Thus the Sellen gets an outflow and the largest fresh water system (that we've seen) floods into the Inner Sea. That's all speculative.

I think Paizo may have thought ahead on this one. The river system makes sense in that respect. We still need to see what Northern Casmarron looks like and the real shape of the Castrovin Sea. That the Castrovin effects the weather in Avistan is cannon and it could explain the wet nature of the River Kingdoms as a whole. Especially if the rain it produces is counter seasonal to the inevitable flooding of something that drains an entire continent. That would help explain the complete lack of floods in the written literature.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Congrats Mark on the new Job!
(You poor poor bastich.)

Generally speaking Paizo locks threads that run their course.

I don't mind The divide and I think it's purely a forum division. I've yet to see this really impact games. But I understand this stuff is more for PS people that fear the alternating DM.

Right now the Sorceror works with everything under the sun

Nothing else does. But I'm a home DM with no power. So my opinion is limited in reach.

James Risner wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

He burn a 1st level wizard spell to fuel Preferred spell and cast CLW.

By the text of the feat it is possible and allowed.

By the text of the feat it is not possible and not allowed.

Nothing in the feat says "this does allow you to use slots on one class to cast spells from another" so it is the "it doesn't say I can't" vs "it doesn't say I can" problem.

I agree in principal James.

Until someone showed me the clarification on Sorceror Bloodlines. It's not an issue in my games and I'm still a PS virgin so this whole thing has zero impact on my group.

Bloodlines appear to be worth dropping a caster level. They are that good. The spontaneous heal isn't but could be under some circumstances. The Preferred Spell feat is so specific as to not matter.
Diego likes the Theoretical puzzle of these weird interactions. I just say yes or no, and seldom have it bite me in the rear. I do follow the Rules discussions primarily to curb someone new sitting in with my group and having some crazy interaction and derailing an actual game with rules lawyering discussions, which I hate during playtime.

The Bloodline thing made me reevaluate some of my preconceived notions on class feature interactions. I'm in the camp that multiclassing full casters is generally just cheese and seldom a story driven decision but, gaming mechanical advantage is a common playstyle and pretty much what 3.5 considered standard. PF couldn't remove that underlying reality while retaining backwards compatibility.

On topic.
This is a feat. Feats are character specific not class specific. So it doesn't matter if it's a (single class) fighter with Metamagic or or a (single class) wizzy with TWF. The feat is still theirs.
A Metamagic feat is a blanket ability. So is Brew Potion.
Now the example above is incredibly unlikely for a spell choice. No one is likely to choose a Preferred Spell from a dip class. It's not impossible though. To curb the potential cheese though the CL should be class specific. The "fuel" doesn't matter. The ability to cast that spell does. If there is overlap in the spell lists (ex Prot from Evil), it's not unreasonable to require the spell be "known" to the class that gets the big CL.

No where in the rules is this specifically covered. (That I can find.). Likely because it's a default assumption that characters are single classed. That's not how people play though and they never really have. Jason designed the CORE classes in a way where multiclassing was a "power down", that's reversing with all the archetypes and new base classes.
It's an extension of the mess that magic becomes beyond the basic elements of the CORE rulebook.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think you have. When the other thread came up, I kinda thought about Preferred Spell as well, it being a feat cuts into it's relevance though. But this actually came up in a game awhile back.

We went with the relevant class getting the CL.
That interpretation actually softens the issue in the other thread since a CL of 1 and limited spell access (a CLW only in that case) would actually be a non issue.

It's not a bad choice for a FAQ but the stuff getting FAQ requests lately has become silly.

The way it's worded I'd say no.
But at home I'm just saying no it doesn't work.
I can't believe it will pass in PS games either.

Shadowkire wrote:
Tryn wrote:

Regarding the Paladin:
I can only say it again: Lawfull don't mean to obey the laws of the land, it means you stay true to ONE special code, if it's yours, your orders or the one of the King doesn't matter.

I think people would be supprised how much (normal adventuring) you can do without "falling" as a paladin.

- sneaking toward a orc camp to infiltrate it instead of frotnal assault, possible
- starting a good-old bar fight - possible
- working with a criminal organisation to bring down a tyrannt - totally legit
- Even working with a devil to defeat a arc-demon who wants to bring armageddon to the land o f the living is totally legit

I say you can do all the "normal" adventurer stuff while being Lawfull Good, without any change of falling!

Unless your DM says that sneaking around, rabble-rousing, or consorting with evil for even a second is against the code, then you fall.

And the Anti-Paladin is Chaotic evil and sticks to a code, so no dice on your defense of the lawful restriction.

The DM you are describing does not understand the MECHANIC of ALIGNMENT.

Alignment is more than Damage Reduction. Reducing it to that is just lazy and or cheating.

The Anti-Paladin's code is that he is supposed to just ruin everything, that's not hard for an exemplar of EVIL. It's also got a Chaotic escape clause for extra Evil.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@K177y C47

The Original Cleric is based on the Knights Templar.
He wore Plate Mail and carried Big Heavy bludgeoning weapons, since his medieval precedent carried big heavy bludgeoning weapons. They wore Proscribed from using edged weapons since "spilling blood" was bad or something.

His original spell list was full of biblical stuff like making bushes burn, turning sticks into snakes and parting water.

The Cleric has never been the religious Wizard traditionally, that's actually a very modern interpretation relative to D&D.

I may have come off too preachy in my previous post.
Sorry about that.

However, it's pointed out above that the Anti-Paladin is a bad to terrible PC class, and does more harm than benefit to a party.

That's going to be true of any "Pure Virtue" class.
A LN paladin is a tyrant that will kill the fun of everyone else.
A LE paladin should seek to dominate his peer group, if they resist they get broken.
A Neutral paladin is a stupid idea.
A CG paladin is a Lone Wolf that dumps his playmates at the first sign of inadequacy, the freedom angle falls short since freedom is less important than good, sucks but it's the truth.
A CN paladin will get everyone killed in his life long quest for true anarchy.
A CE paladin is an Anti-Paladin, which has proven to not play well with others.
A NG paladin is a regular paladin that couldn't cut it.
A NE paladin is a CE paladin.

The LG version is the only one that really works within a party dynamic, he will accept the failings of others to effect the greater good, he knows they can't keep up, but trying is want matters.

If you can't be GOOD all the time don't bother with this, the class isn't that great mechanically without the GOOD part included.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Let's just start off with a caveat: The following is my opinion.

The paladin is not the champion of lawful good. The paladin is the champion of Good. It is the strict adherence to the Paladin's code that makes him lawful. The Paladin is Good and only Good, no exceptions. Chaotic and Neutral Good allow for exceptions.

I think a lot of the "Paladin Hate" comes from players who want to play a character how they want to (which is fine, not trying to present that as a negative), while a paladin has to be played as their code dictates.

So again (in my opinion), a Paladin is not Lawful Good. A Paladin is Good, lawfully.

This is the best OPINION ever posted on the board. 8)

He gets it.
The point of Codes of Conduct is that they require an internal discipline. The ability to put aside personal needs and desires to adhere to a structure that has a purpose.
This is not to say that Chaotic or Neutral characters cannot adhere to a code, however the defining trait of Chaotic is the personal takes precedence over the group. Neutrals choose the decision that best fits a situation or the default to the other Axis.

They're is already an EVIL counterpart to the Paladin.
So the desire to strip out the alignment restriction on Paladins is not so much an issue of "Mechanical Justice" it is an issue of not understanding Alignment as a Mechanic. If a player cannot Play a Paladin as LG, that player really can't play a Paladin. Not for Flavor; they can't play the character who places everyone and thing ahead of his own well being as a mechanic.

Alignment is a Mechanic in PFRPG. It's not flavor. If you don't understand the Alignment system then you don't understand the Mechanic. It means something. Understanding what the various combinations of the Alignment Permutations do is actually more than just the Devils of Hell want to subjugate and oppress or that the Axiomites want to impose "Pure" order. The alignment of these creatures determines their actions, determines how they play. The Paladin is closer to the Devils and Demons in this respect than they are to Wizards or Clerics. Even Clerics of their own faith are tied to dogma and church Politics, the Paladin is not a creature tied to an ideal or concept, the Paladin IS the ideal or concept.

Taking that away from the class is a waste. You might as well have Solars killing babies, Demons rescuing puppies from the streets and Devils letting mortals make mistakes as learning exercises for personal growth.

One of the true downsides to Alignment is that once you fully understand it, you might have to actually reflect on your own real world behavior and face the fact that you may not be one of the "Good Guys".
Gygax added alignment to prevent D&D from turning into a pre-pubescent S&M fantasy. At the time it was going down that road. With the Heroes doing some pretty awful things, even by our standards. We may play "Murder Hobos", but I doubt the players in this thread regularly indulge in Fictional Rapes, Fratricide, Infanticide and human sacrifice. That crap happened, not infrequently, once. Alignment was installed to dillineate the moral and ethical lines that get crossed in the game. It may seem quaint in the age of Grand Theft Auto and movies where villains are the protagonist but those mediums have limitations on behavior this medium does not.

This Blog post is absolutely necessary for any Monk player.

The answer is no.

They are completely unrelated. They are also partitioned.

The feats are similar to FoB, but not identically designed. The Monk can make all of those attacks with a single weapon, the TWFer cannot. This has been an issue of contention for a long time but it's not going to play out.

There are huge downsides as well, the penalties stack and the Flurry of Misses crops up.
This is why it's not actually tried very often. Add to that the very restrictive weapon list for FoB.

The only advantage to taking both is access to the entire TWF feat tree, which does have some nice things. The Monk doesn't get them without the largest Feat Tax in the game.

The reason for that is FoB is superior in several ways.
*A single weapon may be used for the entire routine.
*The monks BAB actually goes up with FoB, instead of Down.
*The Monk's other abilities actually make flurry even better. (Though this would be true with all of the TWF feats too).

The single weapon Flurry is not really liked by the developers. But they HATE the stacked TWF tree and FoB.

BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Cure Critical Wounds is not an advantage over Greater Invisibility, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Extended Greater Magic Weapon, Enervation, and about 10 others.

Except the wizard would still have access to all those spells and any cure spell at a moment's notice.

The point is he would have to give one of those up to cast the cure critical. It is a bad choice everytime. It is a power-down, not a power up. And, it is a power-down that COSTS the wizard a caster level.

This rules interaction has several issues for me, but balance is not one of them.

No it's not (a bad choice every time). You would have (whatever arcane spell) prepared and would not convert it to a cure spell unless you needed a cure spell. Adding options is not a "power-down."

So you have two scenarios where the wizard would "need it"

(1) In combat. It has been demonstrated time and time again that in-combat healing is sub-optimal. The better choice is always to kill the enemy first. Swapping a buff, control, or attack spell for a cure is a poor choice in that scenario. In this case, the cure swap is a trap option.

(2) Out of Combat. The bard/ranger/inquisitor/paladin/cleric/oracle/you use a wand of cure light wounds and keep your spells for better uses later.

So it is never better in a "needed" situation. It is useful at the end of the day, right before the wizard is going to rest. He can expend his spells to heal the party so that a cash resource isn't being spent. That is nice, but at that point he is trading his caster power for party wealth. That too has been shown to be a poor option overall.

There is no balance problem. On the whole, the lost caster level isn't worth the
versatility and the specific spells you swap are never worth the trade.

That's an opinion.

People trade off a single Caster Level all the time.

Balance is not simply about a class to class or peer to peer comparison. The wizard is already unbalanced. He is the Poster Child for the disparity in class power. This rule interaction just makes him More Versatile, which in game terms is More Powerful.

To make that point clearer, if the specialists were completely LOCKED OUT of their prohibited Schools, they would take a hit in relative power.

This entire thread is actually a lobby for the removal of the Sorceror's Bloodline abilities affecting all spellcasting. That's the easiest fix for this issue and all of the other issues that have cropped up.

If this interaction stands it poses far more problems than Spontaneous Cure swaps. There are likely 30 or more abilities mixed into various caster archetypes that could do a serious Stupid Hex on games.
(Diego's example of Diminished Casting is the real standout).

Spellcasting should revert to a Class specific feature with NO interaction at all.
Simplicity is the answer to all the people seeking perfect rules.

It's a setting specific mechanic but in Golarion, many Druids get spells from the deity Gozreh.

In Forgotten Realms it was Silvanus.

Greyhawk it was Obad Hai.

Druids are frequently powered up by deities. They can be just generally juiced by nature. Theoretically the Cleric can get his power from an ideology or a concept like Humility or Bravery. The Core rules are designed to run without a Pantheon of Gods of any kind.

BigDTBone wrote:
seebs wrote:

I would say it depends on the ability. I would say the cleric ability is letting the cleric-class-abilities cast a spell, sacrificing energy from another slot, while the sorcerer ability is purely altering how a spell works.

You know.

If you allowed the cleric/wiz to sacrifice prepared spell slots, but only for levels of spells the cleric could cast, that would actually be sufficiently weak that it would make no sense to worry about it.

::shrug:: I'm not concerned at all with the power level of the this option at full force. The wizard list is already far more powerful than the cleric, so he will already be using better spells than cures in his slots. You could make a rule today that says all wizards can spontaneously swap haste for cure serious and it would be a giant trap option. Add to that the fact that the wizard is now a casting level behind for his whole career and it becomes clear that this option doesn't have any real teeth compared to the power of a straight wizard.


This is incredibly problematic, because of MATH.

Intelligence is more valuable than Wisdom. Just based on what stats do. This allows a maximum WIS of 11 in all POINT BUY, optimized games. The issue is that this, as worded, enables access to spells while dumping a stat. Cure Critical Wounds is not game breaking but it's still a major advantage, IF NO ONE ELSE CAN DO IT.

Also the wizards can activate Divine based Spell Trigers now. (So Heal, and Raise are still options from the magic mart).

I'm also assuming it would extend to the Druid's Spontaneous Casting ability. You can argue that Cure spells are sub-optimal all day, but SUMMONING spells are not Sub-Optimal, most players would agree I think.

So what is really at stake is a 19Wiz/1Druid.
The Wizard is a specialist who takes Conjuration as an opposed school but now gets to swap spells for SUMMONING spells, All day long.
That's maybe worth losing a single caster level.

That this allows the Wizard to replace yet another class in the party, is just wrong. It isn't balanced, screws long standing "Flavor" tradition, and is kinda tacky.

I agree that as worded, it works. It shouldn't. Now if the argument was that it allowed a swap to a Cure/SNA that the character could actually cast, it's no big deal, but that is not the wording.

The easiest, simplest and cleanest answer is to use the class that has the spell on it's list.

In example#1 the CL is Cleric-1, as the spell only appears on the cleric list.

In example#2 the CL is going to be Magus-9 if it's a spell known to the Magus. If it is a spell that the Magus has not learned it should not be a Preferred Spell to start with in this example.
The caveat of Spellstrike/Spellcombat being exclusive to Magus spells only serves to make this example murky.

The presence in the (wizard class) spell book should not matter.

I realize that their is an ulterior motive to this question. I'm aware of that discussion and it's ramifications. This is a corner case and that is a corner case. This is a feat and that is a class feature. This one does not offer the power wrenching ability of the other.

I would say yes.

I found that mix and matching the Aldori works better. We have a lot of variant feats for them now though.

And the art is likely grounded in modern Swordmanship where the recovery is much faster on a 2 handed grip.

The High End LEDs should run all night with sufficient charge.

If you look you'd be amazed at what high end LEDs can do. The cost is still way up there though. A light bar for a 4x4 to ordeals at night is routinely $1000 USD. That's what they'd need for clear visibility. They need that price to come way down.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now see I'd fund Solar powered Ninja JediBots.
Practicality be damned.

There are some Ladies in Paizo's employ who are very skilled at debate. So yah sexism can get em going. Also there are a surprising number of Homosexuals here, at least one of which is very conservative and loves guns! He's a good debater too.

People defend their views and lifestyle choices. They also defend their faith, guns and economic views.

As a rule of thumb, you should expect to see a diametrically opposed view in almost any OT thread.

But the military already has ground based Rovers for short range reconnisance. They have batteries but field charging systems in the military are pretty varied.
Currently there are liquid fueled generators, Methane fuel cells, solar and even some small remote wind turbines.

The military is way ahead of the general public on alternative energy. I drive past fields everyday that have something like Canola that powers M1 tanks, in an extended field study.

Spanky, I was unfamiliar with Thunderfoot.
YouTube is dangerous.

Incidentally I live 40 miles from Camp LeJeurne and they can do that stuff right now.

I'm a consumer of current year Solar Tech. I actually use Solar Tech not daily but more than once a month. I own a Thin Film system and 2 Hard Cell systems.

What these people have is a bold idea. One that may be worth exploring. But the idea of replacing roads with solar cells just isn't practical. Asphalt is cheap comparatively and it's super expensive on a Macro Scale.

More importantly. This is not a private investment thing. Roads are generally public property and that means public money. Tax Dollars. The morons in Congress haven't actually passed a budget in a Decade, this is seriously a Space Program project. We basically killed NASA for budget.

Solar innovation needs to be practical. Cost effective.
I've been reading their FAQ. It's got some, interesting, claims. His power distribution claims are not grounded in reality or in achievable near future technology. From what I can tell there would be a battery pack every couple 100 feet. Batteries are expensive. The "localized" Power Grid sounds great but that's a major Battery suite in every building in America.
Ive done my homework on this, with current technology, to get my 2000sq ft home off the grid and switched over to a solar power system that would keep nominally off the grid is about $25,000 and that's if I do the work. Right now I'd have to own my home for nearly 2 decades to break even (assuming a static electric bill, which isn't reality either).

One of the challenges I do not see addressed in his plan is battery capacity. Neither is the Converter addressed. Who's paying for that?

Running utilities under an elevated roadway is a neat idea, but think about that. Every roadway in America, elevated. Of course the Utilitiy companies like the idea, piggybacking in his protected environment is a win/win, their lines are shielded, accessible and best of all someone else pays for it, the taxpayer. All they have to worry about is the cost of the Line, which is considerable. There's a reason there is still mostly aerial cable in this country, it's cheap.

Traction is an issue. Stopping a car at 40 miles per hour is great. Now do it 10,000 times. Glass is soft, it degrades. Sea Glass can be produced in relatively quick periods. Glass is not a great idea it's doable in a prototype.

. I'm not a tire engineer but I spent several years in a Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge service department. My boss races stockcars and motocross and I got to do the tire orders. I've got more than a passing familiarity with tires/traction and suspension systems. These surfaces will require a reengineering of the entire tire line up. Aside from All Terrain/ Multi Terrain tires and industrial tires most all tires are designed for asphalt, not concrete, not gravel. The D rated tires that get used in heavy truck applications are already expensive but they are formulated for asphalt. Reformulating tires for a new surface is an end cost to consumers.

I realize they are in prototype stage but he's already spending money on unnecessary add ons. LEDs aren't that bright, you can barely see them in the daylight. Much less at 45mph. As a proof of concept sure knock yourself out but not practical. Even with LEDs dropping in price annually it's still adding $20 per hex for little practical benefit.

If the panels came in at under $200 bucks I could maybe see doing my Driveway in these. That's still a $10k investment. They will have to prove them more efficient than roof mounts (which the laws of physics will make hard) or be 10 times as durable to win out in the marketplace. Banking on govt contracts is a fail in the American political arena. This need to look good to people like me who are already sold on solar.

They need an economist to go with the next round of R&D.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Off topic, I pulled Aussie Constitutional outta my butt.

But maybe Dingo was kicking around in the back of my mind. I like his topics even if I can't really tell where he's going with it sometimes. He adds something special to OT.

What's funny about the whole of Paizo forums; is that the Rules forum probably requires more MoD attention than OT. Abortion may be a hot topic but it's nothing on Pallys Failing or Flurry of Blows interpretations.

Alright I skipped most of this thread, quick read it.

I own several small Solar Systems, for Backpacking and in my Camper. I LOVE solar.
I'm very familiar with curent tire technology.
I have a better than average understanding of both Gas and Electric.

The entire premise of this project is NUTZ.

The most effective way to use solar panels is to angle them at the sun.
No giant leaps in solar technology will alter basic physics.
The flat mount for roads is dumb.
Solar panels start to seriously taper down in efficiency the farther North you go.

Roads tend to be busier in the daytime. Empty at night. Gridlock prone roads will simply not produce power (think SoCal, the I-95 corridor between Philly and New York). Parking Lots are the same but basically in a constant state of gridlock.

Now commercial fleet parking lots for electric vehicles could be a viable client, but why not just mount the solar on an angled "Car Port" covering like they do, right now, in Several locations. The car port has the added benefit of keeping your car cool (I grew up in Florida) and being angled.

Sidewalks maybe. If the cost gets brought way down per unit. Hard to do considering road applications are a non starter.

Wet tempered Glass is basically "Black Ice" year round. I don't care what texture it has.

These things are never getting installed in heavy snow areas. I don't care what kind of "heating" they use. That's not cost efficient. It tends to be really overcast in snow season. Overcast=Bad.

Tires need grip. The better they grip at speed, the faster they wear. Current Low Rolling Resistance tires will be made completely obsolete by tempered glass roadways. We would all be buying racing tires, not Z rated tires, RACING tires. The end cost to the consumer would be staggering over a 20 year period.

With current automotive technology our cars leak. They leak motor oil, axle grease, antifreeze and condensation from the AC. All this crap accumulates on the roadway along with exhaust particulates. This is not a good thing for a roadway that needs to be basically clean to effectively transfer energy from the sun to the cells. This will still be an issue even if the American population suddenly makes an about face and switches to Electric Cars, because there is still axle lubricants and break dust, not to mention old fashioned dirt.

Oh yeah, Glass is Expensive. That's why your Mt Dew comes in a plastic bottle.

Now if a super strong Plastic could be developed that also angled light (like a prism) and could withstand the rigors of road travel, maybe. That material would need to be cheaper than glass, which isn't likely given current materials.

Then there is the issue of energy transfer.
On my camper, the panel is portable, the farther away I put it, the less efficient it becomes. In this scenario we are talking about 100 feet (my longest cord). The battery system wasn't cheap either.
This is a high end Kyocera Pannel, Blue Sea solar controller, and a dual Deep Cycle Battery system. I didn't skimp.

Transferring the generated electricity to a usable point is going to be expensive and materially intensive. Our current grid is old and inefficient. It's in place though. The video offers that the road integrates a new grid setup (including water movement for recycling and treatment?) that's ambitious. A fully integrated system.
Sounds toooo good to be true.

There is some interesting ideas at play here. But the challenges facing this program are as significant as manned deep space exploration. There is a very real possibility that we could put people in orbit around Saturn and it's Moons, repeatedly, like in tourism, for less money than switching out Americas current asphalt roadways.

Our electric infrastructure is lacking. It needs a serious upgrade. Our roadsystem is oddly current, but our bridges, tunnels and River locks are in serious need of upgrade. An all in one solution is worth researching but not an economically viable solution for cash strapped State Budgets and Federal dollars that will inevitably be awarded to the lowest bidder.
This idea is geared for large govt purchase orders. Given our current political landscape and the "starve the beast" mentality of half of Congress, this company needs a new Buisness strategy altogether.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When did it get weird?
I thought we still had Communist Goblins, Aussie Constitutionals, New England Liberals, Western Gun Lovers, Closet Conservatives and Economic Progressives all engaging in topics that would go nuclear anywhere else?

Have y'all been out on the interwebz? Those people are CRAZY.

I may not post but I lurk, oh I lurk. This is likely the most civil forum on the wide webs world.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I enjoyed the DL novels. It did not like the setting for games.

Once Hickman and Weiss turned it over to others it lost it's "magic".

I loved Planescape, I've never read The Module though. I think that the setting was abandoned was telling though. They didn't know what to do with it or they'd lost the people who did. The Fan Website Planewalker kept me entertained for a long time. The novels were weird and modules were just bad, but the setting stuff was awesome.

I loved the Forgotten Realms, the Grey Box did it.
The setting was brilliant. The Modules were good. The novels were decent to above average. They made a mistake early though, they let novels radically alter the setting. Evereska destroyed, etc. That was a mistake. Earth shattering alterations should be the province of players.
Then there was "Canon", the canon nazis got out of hand. They'd sit at your table and argue with you about you're own game. They'd argue with designers, heck they'd argue with Greenwood I'd wager if he didn't use that weird charm and just shut them down.

WotC wrecked that setting but it was inevitable.

The beauty of Greyhawk is stasis. It's always the same year until you play.

I liked Basic D&D
I wanted more so I bought Hardbacks.
I liked 2ed, it was a Realms system! Cleaned up the mess in AD&D.
I missed most of 3.0 but I bought it.
Then I bought 3.5, because I needed too. I bought a lot of 3.5. Too much.
I played 4.0. I got rooked into running the showcase at the FLGS. I bought the PHB. That's it.

I bought Pathfinder, when RotRL came out. The first really good module I'd read in a decade other than the Red Hand super module.
Then I bought some setting stuff.
Then I bought a campaign Hardcover.
Then I bought more setting stuff.
Then bought a CORE rulebook.
Then I bought some setting books.

What's important to note that with Paizo I'm buying more fluff than crunch.

With WotC it was Crunch over fluff. They got bad at fluff. They cranked out crunch. More Crunch than I ever used. I didn't need it.

They did it with 4e I'm told.

Crunch is not what I need. Nor what I really want.

D&D Next may be slick, simple and easy. But they are in the Rule Buisness.

Paizo is in the Game Buisness. Their approach is more natural.

For rules; I like the OGL. It's easy and I can look up ANYTHING that comes up without having to drop $40.

So far Golarion isn't perfect, but it's nice and adaptive and varied.

So far Paizo has avoided the missteps of WotC(Hasbro). They honestly engage with customers, even if it's me and SKR arguing and being snarky. They respond to the needs of customers instead of telling me what I want.

I played D&D Minitures Skirmish. I got burned there and the managers of the Mini line knew it, and there was nothing they could really do about it.
I've had a total of One problem in all my time with Paizo, and Vic fixed it himself in lime 30 minutes and Lisa was aware of it before I knew it was done.

Customer Service is a lost art in America.
Those who understand it, succeed.

The same God.
Yet somehow cursed to exist at different poInts in time. Or perhaps as an attempt to undermine Asmodeus he deliberately unfixed himself from the timestream.

Lol. The CR 25 Dragon with his own personal army wasn't enough huh?

1 to 50 of 817 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.