>>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<<


Off-Topic Discussions

1,451 to 1,500 of 6,833 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Mark, what are your thoughts on the Raging Cannibal archetype for barbarians and races that already possess a bite attack?

Part of the archetype is that at 2nd level the RC must take the Animal Fury rage power, granting them a 1d4 bite attack while raging, which is superfluous to races that already possess a bite attack such as Skinwalkers and the Kuru. Would it be too much of a stretch to allow those races to pick a different rage power as normal or simply have Animal Fury buff up their own bite attack?

Honestly that archetype has a bunch of other factors in it too that make sense to adjust in a game (for instance, due to an almost certain flip-flop error [temp hp from multiple sources do stack and from the same don't], it seems like you could generate thousands of temporary hit points by yo-yoing an enemy's health back and forth around 0 (thus generating more rage rounds to continue the process and also taking you back to maximum, assuming you're capped at maximum because it doesn't explain). In a home game if I was the GM, I would insert sanity check adjustments to consume vigor and feed from fury and then probably allow another rage power (but not for the purpose of doubling up on another archetype that usually needs the 2nd level rage power).

That would have to be a very sadistic healer in your group to keep bringing the enemy back so the barbarian could keep nomming on it. And

Feed From Fury (Ex):

At 5th level, a raging cannibal is empowered by eating her enemies during combat. When a raging cannibal confirms a critical hit against a creature of the same creature type as herself with her bite attack while raging, she gains a number of temporary hit points equal to her barbarian level. These temporary hit points stack with other temporary hit points gained from this ability, but not with those from other sources. These temporary hit points fade after a period of time equal to 10 minutes per barbarian level.
didn't strike me as that bad due to the circumstances needed to set it off.
-Must be Raging.
-Must confirm critical hit with bite attack.
-Must be against creature of the same type as the RC. (With just the blatant Humanoid tag that could be nasty but I would see it including subtype such as Elf or Dwarf to be more fitting.

Maybe Consume Vigor was meant to just refill already spent rage rather than generate new rage?

Thankies for the reply btw :3

Designer

Rysky wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Mark, what are your thoughts on the Raging Cannibal archetype for barbarians and races that already possess a bite attack?

Part of the archetype is that at 2nd level the RC must take the Animal Fury rage power, granting them a 1d4 bite attack while raging, which is superfluous to races that already possess a bite attack such as Skinwalkers and the Kuru. Would it be too much of a stretch to allow those races to pick a different rage power as normal or simply have Animal Fury buff up their own bite attack?

Honestly that archetype has a bunch of other factors in it too that make sense to adjust in a game (for instance, due to an almost certain flip-flop error [temp hp from multiple sources do stack and from the same don't], it seems like you could generate thousands of temporary hit points by yo-yoing an enemy's health back and forth around 0 (thus generating more rage rounds to continue the process and also taking you back to maximum, assuming you're capped at maximum because it doesn't explain). In a home game if I was the GM, I would insert sanity check adjustments to consume vigor and feed from fury and then probably allow another rage power (but not for the purpose of doubling up on another archetype that usually needs the 2nd level rage power).
That would have to be a very sadistic healer in your group to keep bringing the enemy back so the barbarian could keep nomming on it. And** spoiler omitted ** didn't...

Yep, it says creature type and not subtype or race in the archetype. I was assuming it was a troll or something.

Silver Crusade

Oh!... poor troll.


here's a q

the 'SLA ruling' allows for interesting ways of qualifying for, say, mystic theurge earlier than normal (so-called 'early entry').

people play with this for two years.

now it's gone.

why?

or, to put it another way, why not sooner?


Le Corbusier or Alvar Aalto?

Silver Crusade

Mark do you see any problems with the following spell I took enlarge person and changed the target to outsider.

Infernal Transformation
Devine Transformation
Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 277 (Amazon)
School transmutation; Level alchemist 1, arcanist 1, bloodrager 1, investigator 1, magus 1, ,sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, witch 1
Casting
Casting Time 1 round
Components V, S, M (1 drop of an Outsiders blood)
Effect
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one Outsider
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
Description
This spell causes instant growth of a Outsider creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8. This increase changes the creature's size category to the next larger one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a –1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size.

A Outsider creature whose size increases to Large has a space of 10 feet and a natural reach of 10 feet. This spell does not change the target's speed.

If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, the creature attains the maximum possible size and may make a Strength check (using its increased Strength) to burst any enclosures in the process. If it fails, it is constrained without harm by the materials enclosing it—the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by increasing its size.

All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell. Melee weapons affected by this spell deal more damage (see Table: Tiny and Large Weapon Damage). Other magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown and projectile weapons deal their normal damage. Magical properties of enlarged items are not increased by this spell.

Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.
Infernal Transformation counters and dispels reduce Infernal.

Enlarge person can be made permanent with a permanency spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

The recent FAQ reversed the ruling for using a SLA to qualify for crafting feats, closing a thematically problematic but mechanically very convenient loophole for characters that should be able to, but can't craft magic items. Are there any plans to revisit some of the problems with crafting as written, such as making Master Craftsman less limited* or allowing Alchemists to qualify for feats like Craft Construct?

I realize crafting doesn't come up much in the design team's preferred test group, but it'd be great if you were looking into it anyway.

** spoiler omitted **

Yeah, alchemists need to be able to make constructs, period, without needing to bend around and use side ways to do it that don't involve their alchemy at all. For some reason I thought there was a way to do it out there in a PComp or something, but if it doesn't exist, it should.

@Master Craftsman, the design details of that feat are definitely not great. In my home games, I allow Master Craftsman to be sufficient to create items of its type, without the item creation feat at all, so that helps in terms of feat load.

Alchemists are also, hilariously enough, unable to qualify for the Craft Ooze feat from the Alchemy Manual

Designer

Kajehase wrote:
Le Corbusier or Alvar Aalto?

Of those two, I pick Aalto, since he taught at my alma mater for a while and designed one of the dorms there.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:

Mark do you see any problems with the following spell I took enlarge person and changed the target to outsider.

Infernal Transformation
Devine Transformation
Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 277 (Amazon)
School transmutation; Level alchemist 1, arcanist 1, bloodrager 1, investigator 1, magus 1, ,sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, witch 1
Casting
Casting Time 1 round
Components V, S, M (1 drop of an Outsiders blood)
Effect
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one Outsider
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
Description
This spell causes instant growth of a Outsider creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8. This increase changes the creature's size category to the next larger one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a –1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size.

A Outsider creature whose size increases to Large has a space of 10 feet and a natural reach of 10 feet. This spell does not change the target's speed.

If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, the creature attains the maximum possible size and may make a Strength check (using its increased Strength) to burst any enclosures in the process. If it fails, it is constrained without harm by the materials enclosing it—the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by increasing its size.

All equipment worn or carried by a creature is similarly enlarged by the spell. Melee weapons affected by this spell deal more damage (see Table: Tiny and Large Weapon Damage). Other magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown and projectile weapons deal their normal damage. Magical properties of enlarged items are not increased by this spell.

Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.
Infernal...

Given that outsiders are immune to bad spells that target humanoids, lack of access to beneficial humanoid spells is one of the only limiting factors to, say, native outsider races. In that regard, I'd recommend making this one level 2 or lowering the duration to rounds/level as a nod to enlarge person being the baseline.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What were your contributions to Pathfinder Unchained?


Why do betrayal feats become reversed when used by Cavalier or Inquisitor?

Champions of Corruption wrote:
Characters with class abilities granting allies access to teamwork feats (such as cavaliers or inquisitors) can select these teamwork feats normally, but allies who are granted these feats can use the feats only as initiators, not as abettors. An inquisitor could not grant an ally the Ally Shield feat and then use the ally as a shield, for example, but he could allow that ally to use him as a shield.

And what is with the wording of this paragraph? Inquisitors technically don't "grant" anything to their allies, only treat them as if they had the feat solely for the purpose of gaining its effects your self?

I'm not asking this as a request for faq, but I have an evil inquisitor with shield ally, and would like to know if this is legit and what the reason behind it is, if its anything more than keeping PvP at bay.

If it was meant to be this way, would you say it is a viable houserule to reverse it? So that an Inquisitor can dodge behind his allies using Solo Tactics.

Silver Crusade

HI Mark, do you think it would too powerful to have a feat that gave a bloodrager or a Sorc the next Blood line power they can have?


Two questions today! Hope you don't mind. :)

1. Are we lucky enough to get another FAQ ruling today?

2. Can a brawler combine the Snakebite Striker and the Strangler archetype? The archetypes both alter class skills (Strangler gains Stealth, Snakebite Striker gains Stealth and Bluff but loses Intimidate) but otherwise have no overlap, I'm not sure if that falls within the scope of "class features" in the multiple archetype text.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:

Two questions today! Hope you don't mind. :)

1. Are we lucky enough to get another FAQ ruling today?

2. Can a brawler combine the Snakebite Striker and the Strangler archetype? The archetypes both alter class skills (Strangler gains Stealth, Snakebite Striker gains Stealth and Bluff but loses Intimidate) but otherwise have no overlap, I'm not sure if that falls within the scope of "class features" in the multiple archetype text.

1) I'm working from home today due to a muscle thing, so I can't gather the PDT and thus no FAQ today.

2) I think that strictly the answer may be no, but I've never really liked that. At some point, I'd like to do a FAQ stating that if an archetype ability strictly adds to your list of options for a certain feature, it can stack with others that alter that feature, but it's not really frequently asked (as an example, either the one you listed, or like a monk archetype that replaces the bonus feats with other feats with a monk archetype that adds more bonus feats to the ones you have).

Silver Crusade

Mark, why does the histogram from the poll in this post look the way it does? Why are so many of people's favorite characters either level 3 or level 10?

Designer

The Fox wrote:
Mark, why does the histogram from the poll in this post look the way it does? Why are so many of people's favorite characters either level 3 or level 10?

I'm not surprised, actually, since that's where a lot of my characters are sitting too, and the poll was for people to list all their active characters.

Here's my logical analysis, based on myself:

Level 10 is easy: I can't play 8-9 any more, and I patently refuse to harm the play experience of a 7-8 by playing one of my level 10 characters when I have a perfectly good 7 or 8, even if I prefer playing the 10, so it's 10-11 subtier or nothing, and every time I do play a 7-8 for that reason, that's one less scenario. I'm also simultaneously high enough level that I don't really want to credit the character past that level.

Level 3 I'm less sure, but I do have a lot of 3s: For me, I'm likely to have credited up to level 2-2/3 by running repeatable scenarios and a module, so the moment I first play my character, bang, level 3. And before that, I may or may not have all the details on the character / count her as active.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

Two questions today! Hope you don't mind. :)

1. Are we lucky enough to get another FAQ ruling today?

2. Can a brawler combine the Snakebite Striker and the Strangler archetype? The archetypes both alter class skills (Strangler gains Stealth, Snakebite Striker gains Stealth and Bluff but loses Intimidate) but otherwise have no overlap, I'm not sure if that falls within the scope of "class features" in the multiple archetype text.

1) I'm working from home today due to a muscle thing, so I can't gather the PDT and thus no FAQ today.

2) I think that strictly the answer may be no, but I've never really liked that. At some point, I'd like to do a FAQ stating that if an archetype ability strictly adds to your list of options for a certain feature, it can stack with others that alter that feature, but it's not really frequently asked (as an example, either the one you listed, or like a monk archetype that replaces the bonus feats with other feats with a monk archetype that adds more bonus feats to the ones you have).

Sorry to hear that, hope you feel better soon! Thanks for the replies. :)


Do we have an estimate of when we might be getting a FAQ?

In regards to the skills and brawler mentioned above, I don't think you have many FAQs for it since as you said, it's technically not allowed right now. So we have an answer so there's not a question to be answered with a FAQ. So with this in mind, do you have any ideas on how to set something up to get this and issues like it looked at?

Designer

Chess Pwn wrote:
Do we have an estimate of when we might be getting a FAQ?

Probably next Friday.

Quote:
In regards to the skills and brawler mentioned above, I don't think you have many FAQs for it since as you said, it's technically not allowed right now. So we have an answer so there's not a question to be answered with a FAQ. So with this in mind, do you have any ideas on how to set something up to get this and issues like it looked at?

I don't have a good idea, really. Even if I think it would be a good thing to FAQ, people with questions that are actually frequently asked would probably be upset. It's a Catch-22.

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Mark, why does the histogram from the poll in this post look the way it does? Why are so many of people's favorite characters either level 3 or level 10?

I'm not surprised, actually, since that's where a lot of my characters are sitting too, and the poll was for people to list all their active characters.

...

Excellent.

Did you participate in the poll?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
In regards to the skills and brawler mentioned above, I don't think you have many FAQs for it since as you said, it's technically not allowed right now. So we have an answer so there's not a question to be answered with a FAQ. So with this in mind, do you have any ideas on how to set something up to get this and issues like it looked at?
I don't have a good idea, really. Even if I think it would be a good thing to FAQ, people with questions that are actually frequently asked would probably be upset. It's a Catch-22.

Do you feel it's fine to create threads that are basically asking people to FAQ the if they want something changed?

Designer

Chess Pwn wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
In regards to the skills and brawler mentioned above, I don't think you have many FAQs for it since as you said, it's technically not allowed right now. So we have an answer so there's not a question to be answered with a FAQ. So with this in mind, do you have any ideas on how to set something up to get this and issues like it looked at?
I don't have a good idea, really. Even if I think it would be a good thing to FAQ, people with questions that are actually frequently asked would probably be upset. It's a Catch-22.
Do you feel it's fine to create threads that are basically asking people to FAQ the if they want something changed?

In most cases they would be considered "No Answer Required" but in this case, there's at least some ambiguity.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Do we have an estimate of when we might be getting a FAQ?

Probably next Friday.

Quote:
In regards to the skills and brawler mentioned above, I don't think you have many FAQs for it since as you said, it's technically not allowed right now. So we have an answer so there's not a question to be answered with a FAQ. So with this in mind, do you have any ideas on how to set something up to get this and issues like it looked at?
I don't have a good idea, really. Even if I think it would be a good thing to FAQ, people with questions that are actually frequently asked would probably be upset. It's a Catch-22.

In a similar vein, I was working on NPCs for Serpent's Skull when I realized that the only thing separating Cult Leader and Mantis Zealot are changes to the armor/weapon/shield proficiencies. If you ever address this, I'd like for that to be considered too, please. Thank you! :)

Designer

Kalindlara wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Do we have an estimate of when we might be getting a FAQ?

Probably next Friday.

Quote:
In regards to the skills and brawler mentioned above, I don't think you have many FAQs for it since as you said, it's technically not allowed right now. So we have an answer so there's not a question to be answered with a FAQ. So with this in mind, do you have any ideas on how to set something up to get this and issues like it looked at?
I don't have a good idea, really. Even if I think it would be a good thing to FAQ, people with questions that are actually frequently asked would probably be upset. It's a Catch-22.
In a similar vein, I was working on NPCs for Serpent's Skull when I realized that the only thing separating Cult Leader and Mantis Zealot are changes to the armor/weapon/shield proficiencies. If you ever address this, I'd like for that to be considered too, please. Thank you! :)

Ah, but in that case, they both lose some proficiencies, so it wouldn't stack even with that change, as neither is strictly an increase in proficiencies. I think that's right in their case (indeed, the PDT did dev work on that one due to Gencon crunch of other teams, so I actually wrote Mantis Zealot to replace a less-cool warpriest archetype, and I didn't intend it to stack with cult leader)--this means the GM can choose to allow the two arches together if she wishes, but if she does, she knows going in that she's allowing the weirdly-hopping 11d6 sneak attack that comes from stacking those.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Mark Seifter wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Do we have an estimate of when we might be getting a FAQ?

Probably next Friday.

Quote:
In regards to the skills and brawler mentioned above, I don't think you have many FAQs for it since as you said, it's technically not allowed right now. So we have an answer so there's not a question to be answered with a FAQ. So with this in mind, do you have any ideas on how to set something up to get this and issues like it looked at?
I don't have a good idea, really. Even if I think it would be a good thing to FAQ, people with questions that are actually frequently asked would probably be upset. It's a Catch-22.
In a similar vein, I was working on NPCs for Serpent's Skull when I realized that the only thing separating Cult Leader and Mantis Zealot are changes to the armor/weapon/shield proficiencies. If you ever address this, I'd like for that to be considered too, please. Thank you! :)
Ah, but in that case, they both lose some proficiencies, so it wouldn't stack even with that change, as neither is strictly an increase in proficiencies. I think that's right in their case (indeed, the PDT did dev work on that one due to Gencon crunch of other teams, so I actually wrote Mantis Zealot to replace a less-cool warpriest archetype, and I didn't intend it to stack with cult leader)--this means the GM can choose to allow the two arches together if she wishes, but if she does, she knows going in that she's allowing the weirdly-hopping 11d6 sneak attack that comes from stacking those.

That's the idea!

I kind of figured that was the issue. Errata pls. :D

If I may, what was the less-cool archetype? And why didn't we get a Red Mantis slayer? (Everyone in my group was expecting a slayer archetype...)

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Do we have an estimate of when we might be getting a FAQ?

Probably next Friday.

Quote:
In regards to the skills and brawler mentioned above, I don't think you have many FAQs for it since as you said, it's technically not allowed right now. So we have an answer so there's not a question to be answered with a FAQ. So with this in mind, do you have any ideas on how to set something up to get this and issues like it looked at?
I don't have a good idea, really. Even if I think it would be a good thing to FAQ, people with questions that are actually frequently asked would probably be upset. It's a Catch-22.
In a similar vein, I was working on NPCs for Serpent's Skull when I realized that the only thing separating Cult Leader and Mantis Zealot are changes to the armor/weapon/shield proficiencies. If you ever address this, I'd like for that to be considered too, please. Thank you! :)
Ah, but in that case, they both lose some proficiencies, so it wouldn't stack even with that change, as neither is strictly an increase in proficiencies. I think that's right in their case (indeed, the PDT did dev work on that one due to Gencon crunch of other teams, so I actually wrote Mantis Zealot to replace a less-cool warpriest archetype, and I didn't intend it to stack with cult leader)--this means the GM can choose to allow the two arches together if she wishes, but if she does, she knows going in that she's allowing the weirdly-hopping 11d6 sneak attack that comes from stacking those.

That's the idea!

I kind of figured that was the issue. Errata pls. :D

If I may, what was the less-cool archetype? And why didn't we get a Red Mantis slayer? (Everyone in my group was expecting a slayer archetype...)

It was a warpriest archetype from Druma which only tepidly worshiped its deity (since it also follows the Prophecies of Kalistrade, which normally would preclude you from worshiping a deity at all, making you were an extreme oddity, rather than an archetype for all Druman chaplains) and was not from a really battle-y region given all the possibilities. The PDT discussed with the head honchos of setting about which ones to change, and the slayers the freelancers wrote, while admittedly less cool than a red mantis slayer, were deemed sufficient to stay and not be rewritten. Given the religious nature of Achaekek's cult, at that point warpriest seemed the perfect fit. I knew going in that if we cut anything, I wanted red mantis in there, since it wasn't at the time.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Mark Seifter wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Do we have an estimate of when we might be getting a FAQ?

Probably next Friday.

Quote:
In regards to the skills and brawler mentioned above, I don't think you have many FAQs for it since as you said, it's technically not allowed right now. So we have an answer so there's not a question to be answered with a FAQ. So with this in mind, do you have any ideas on how to set something up to get this and issues like it looked at?
I don't have a good idea, really. Even if I think it would be a good thing to FAQ, people with questions that are actually frequently asked would probably be upset. It's a Catch-22.
In a similar vein, I was working on NPCs for Serpent's Skull when I realized that the only thing separating Cult Leader and Mantis Zealot are changes to the armor/weapon/shield proficiencies. If you ever address this, I'd like for that to be considered too, please. Thank you! :)
Ah, but in that case, they both lose some proficiencies, so it wouldn't stack even with that change, as neither is strictly an increase in proficiencies. I think that's right in their case (indeed, the PDT did dev work on that one due to Gencon crunch of other teams, so I actually wrote Mantis Zealot to replace a less-cool warpriest archetype, and I didn't intend it to stack with cult leader)--this means the GM can choose to allow the two arches together if she wishes, but if she does, she knows going in that she's allowing the weirdly-hopping 11d6 sneak attack that comes from stacking those.

That's the idea!

I kind of figured that was the issue. Errata pls. :D

If I may, what was the less-cool archetype? And why didn't we get a Red Mantis slayer? (Everyone in my group was expecting a slayer archetype...)

It was a warpriest archetype from Druma which only tepidly worshiped its deity (since it also follows the Prophecies of Kalistrade, which normally...

Seems very reasonable, and it gave us something interesting we weren't entirely expecting. :) Now another question.

It came up in this thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s11k?Improved-Familiars-and-the-Mauler-archety pe (hard to format on mobile). The Mauler archetype loses speak with animals of its type, which Improved Familiars never gain. But someone just mentioned an FAQ that added some grey area, and I was wondering if you, the current Master of FAQs, could weigh in (either to adjudicate or just give your personal opinion on whether you'd allow it).

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

Seems very reasonable, and it gave us something interesting we weren't entirely expecting. :) Now another question.

It came up in this thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s11k?Improved-Familiars-and-the-Mauler-archety pe (hard to format on mobile). The Mauler archetype loses speak with animals of its type, which Improved Familiars never gain. But someone just mentioned an FAQ that added some grey area, and I was wondering if you, the current Master of FAQs, could weigh in (either to adjudicate or just give your personal opinion on whether you'd allow it).

Oddly, in another thread with this exact question, I've actually already weighed in with a personal opinion from another perspective--I was the in-house freelance author of all the archetypes and familiar archetypes in FF except Eldritch Guardian. My weigh-in is that having some juicy familiar archetypes that don't work with Improved Familiar is intended because Improved Familiar is such a dominant strategy (I've pretty much never seen anyone go past 9 or so with a familiar and not go improved) and I like opening up variety of options (it's one of the reasons I made the synergist, to incentivize familiars like bats who have a lousy bonus for the master but have really nice abilities like flight and blindsense, over the thousandth compsognathus or greensting scorpion). Also, something like a mauler with "regeneration/something the enemy doesn't have available" would be horrific for a GM to have to deal with.

I'm also fully in support of groups who want to flex a bit and make exceptions like the cool concept you posted with the spirit binder whose dead girlfriend became a mauler quasit. And for groups that are more likely to go strict RAW and run prewritten adventures, we have a model that encourages a little more variety, and a safer model for them too where the PC doesn't have a regenerating unkillable (with anything available in the prewritten adventure) combat pet.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Mark Seifter wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

Seems very reasonable, and it gave us something interesting we weren't entirely expecting. :) Now another question.

It came up in this thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s11k?Improved-Familiars-and-the-Mauler-archety pe (hard to format on mobile). The Mauler archetype loses speak with animals of its type, which Improved Familiars never gain. But someone just mentioned an FAQ that added some grey area, and I was wondering if you, the current Master of FAQs, could weigh in (either to adjudicate or just give your personal opinion on whether you'd allow it).

Oddly, in another thread with this exact question, I've actually already weighed in with a personal opinion from another perspective--I was the in-house freelance author of all the archetypes and familiar archetypes in FF except Eldritch Guardian. My weigh-in is that having some juicy familiar archetypes that don't work with Improved Familiar is intended because Improved Familiar is such a dominant strategy (I've pretty much never seen anyone go past 9 or so with a familiar and not go improved) and I like opening up variety of options (it's one of the reasons I made the synergist, to incentivize familiars like bats who have a lousy bonus for the master but have really nice abilities like flight and blindsense, over the thousandth compsognathus or greensting scorpion). Also, something like a mauler with "regeneration/something the enemy doesn't have available" would be horrific for a GM to have to deal with.

I'm also fully in support of groups who want to flex a bit and make exceptions like the cool concept you posted with the spirit binder whose dead girlfriend became a mauler quasit. And for groups that are more likely to go strict RAW and run prewritten adventures, we have a model that encourages a little more variety, and a safer model for them too where the PC doesn't have a regenerating unkillable (with anything available in the prewritten adventure) combat pet.

I see. Thank you! :)

Big fan of the book, by the way! I've always liked familiars, though. I saw your post a while back about the enchanter school wizard and the motivation to choose more innocuous familiars, and was very impressed by the subtle depth of design. Plus, I understand the urge to design conservative rules and let DMs house rule them away...

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

I see. Thank you! :)

Big fan of the book, by the way! I've always liked familiars, though. I saw your post a while back about the enchanter school wizard and the motivation to choose more innocuous familiars, and was very impressed by the subtle depth of design. Plus, I understand the urge to design conservative rules and let DMs house rule them away...

Thanks!

Yeah, if a player's asking for something that doesn't work without the GM making a houserule, then if you make the houserule, you're a hero who was willing to go against the rules in the player's favor, and if you don't, there's less pressure. Since GMs are the ones who have personal relationships with their players, it's probably the best for the game if the official rules wind up being the "strict parent" so to speak, as it promotes rapport more at the table, and it rankles some players if the rules allow something and the GM still bans their unkillable nycar mauler or what-have-you.

It's why I've never really understood non-PFS players who get angry when they disagree with FAQs that their group, as they mention, is not applying, as if by saying they aren't using the FAQ they hope to make the FAQ writers upset. I'm super happy that their group isn't using the FAQ when they know that the other way of ruling it works for them. They've done the analysis for their group, and they know the best choice to make for themselves. Just the fact that they're that advanced at understanding their group dynamic is awesome! Not every group can, and in many cases, the conservative baseline is best for a group that's tentative or new, so that their tentative and new GM doesn't have the added stress of having to rein things in but can instead feel free to start with what we gave her and then say "Yes" even more as she finds that things work for her group.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Mark Seifter wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

I see. Thank you! :)

Big fan of the book, by the way! I've always liked familiars, though. I saw your post a while back about the enchanter school wizard and the motivation to choose more innocuous familiars, and was very impressed by the subtle depth of design. Plus, I understand the urge to design conservative rules and let DMs house rule them away...

Thanks!

Yeah, if a player's asking for something that doesn't work without the GM making a houserule, then if you make the houserule, you're a hero who was willing to go against the rules in the player's favor, and if you don't, there's less pressure. Since GMs are the ones who have personal relationships with their players, it's probably the best for the game if the official rules wind up being the "strict parent" so to speak, as it promotes rapport more at the table, and it rankles some players if the rules allow something and the GM still bans their unkillable nycar mauler or what-have-you.

It's why I've never really understood non-PFS players who get angry when they disagree with FAQs that their group, as they mention, is not applying, as if by saying they aren't using the FAQ they hope to make the FAQ writers upset. I'm super happy that their group isn't using the FAQ when they know that the other way of ruling it works for them. They've done the analysis for their group, and they know the best choice to make for themselves. Just the fact that they're that advanced at understanding their group dynamic is awesome! Not every group can, and in many cases, the conservative baseline is best for a group that's tentative or new, so that their tentative and new GM doesn't have the added stress of having to rein things in but can instead feel free to start with what we gave her and then say "Yes" even more as she finds that things work for her group.

I like your philosophy.

Also, you should save this post and link it from time to time...


Is there an available template or guide that shows the formatting and structure of stat blocks and where everything goes on them? It gets kind of annoying trying to figure out were certain abilities and feats belong on the stat blocks by searching through the bestiary.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

I see. Thank you! :)

Big fan of the book, by the way! I've always liked familiars, though. I saw your post a while back about the enchanter school wizard and the motivation to choose more innocuous familiars, and was very impressed by the subtle depth of design. Plus, I understand the urge to design conservative rules and let DMs house rule them away...

Thanks!

Yeah, if a player's asking for something that doesn't work without the GM making a houserule, then if you make the houserule, you're a hero who was willing to go against the rules in the player's favor, and if you don't, there's less pressure. Since GMs are the ones who have personal relationships with their players, it's probably the best for the game if the official rules wind up being the "strict parent" so to speak, as it promotes rapport more at the table, and it rankles some players if the rules allow something and the GM still bans their unkillable nycar mauler or what-have-you.

It's why I've never really understood non-PFS players who get angry when they disagree with FAQs that their group, as they mention, is not applying, as if by saying they aren't using the FAQ they hope to make the FAQ writers upset. I'm super happy that their group isn't using the FAQ when they know that the other way of ruling it works for them. They've done the analysis for their group, and they know the best choice to make for themselves. Just the fact that they're that advanced at understanding their group dynamic is awesome! Not every group can, and in many cases, the conservative baseline is best for a group that's tentative or new, so that their tentative and new GM doesn't have the added stress of having to rein things in but can instead feel free to start with what we gave her and then say "Yes" even more as she finds that things work for her group.

Because myself and others play with multiple GMs and when I introduce new players to the table, they aren't always aware of which FAQ I am or am not following.

At this point, I've made a document with a list of house rules, but I'm now thinking I have to make a document with a list of Paizo FAQs I don't agree with and am ignoring.

So if I sit down at... let's use Phillip, I like that name... Phillip's table, he may rule that Crane Wing is bad and it should feel bad and have to use the Paizo FAQ on my Lore Warden/Duelist PrC character. While over at... Anastasia's table, Crane Wing is good and she ignores the FAQratta.

Meanwhile, over at... Jeffrey's table, there is a debate over whether or not a lance gets 2-handed bonuses while charging. Because one FAQ says no, while another FAQ says yes.

Then they start asking why something was changed, "Well, it was changed because it was a problem in Pathfinder Society."

"Doesn't Pathfinder Society monitor it's own rules and change things for PFS if it's a problem"

"Why yes, they do."

"Then why did they change a rule that was a problem in PFS in such away that it affects all tables, instead of letting PFS handle it instead?"

"Because, reasons, Arnold."

At the same time, I feel that I can turn to Paizo less and less for guidance when they have FAQs out there that are blatantly incorrect (like the Invisibility Purge affects Natural Invisibility despite Bestiary 2 explicitly stating it doesn't and this has never been changed). When the FAQs keep changing stuff for seemingly arbitrary reasons, or addressing the symptoms of a problem instead of the actual problem themselves...

You begin to understand why people are growing less and less appreciative of the FAQs these days.

Like that FAQ you did awhile back buffing up those three archetypes (ecclesithurge, sniper and one other, I forget). Some people were really upset, because one of the things advertised for the ACG was that there would be 'more ways to use sneak attack at range'.

As the person who transcribed things from the podcast where this was announced, it's really annoying that no such ability was introduced (at least not that I'm aware of) and that the only ability to really use sneak attack at range, is still shoe-horned onto a magical item. Meaning the character is not a sniper, the magical item is.

....

Sorry for venting so much on you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mr. Mark Seifter,

I have recently found myself having a hankering for the Medium, but realizing there's still 5 months until release.

What should I do?

Also, are you familiar with the Persona jRPGs?

Dark Archive

Have you played/ran Shattered Star? If so, any advice for myself as I'm about to start running it for a group that doesn't know much about Golarion?


What's your favourite part of Golarion? (And by part I mean concepts as well as geographical parts.)

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigP4nda wrote:
Is there an available template or guide that shows the formatting and structure of stat blocks and where everything goes on them? It gets kind of annoying trying to figure out were certain abilities and feats belong on the stat blocks by searching through the bestiary.

Most of it is templated pretty consistently, but if you mean what I think you mean, then I can say from experience (of working with Rob to do so) that deciding for sure whether something on the edge goes in SA or SQ is more difficult than solving a complex differential equation.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

Meanwhile, over at... Jeffrey's table, there is a debate over whether or not a lance gets 2-handed bonuses while charging. Because one FAQ says no, while another FAQ says yes.

At the same time, I feel that I can turn to Paizo less and less for guidance when they have FAQs out there that are blatantly incorrect (like the Invisibility Purge affects Natural Invisibility despite Bestiary 2 explicitly stating it doesn't and this has never been changed).

To focus on some of your most convincing points, I can say that I'm also uncomfortable with the inconsistent lance FAQ and the odd response on the purge vs natural invisibility FAQ. My post above is not in surprise that people might pick and choose whether to go with the FAQ solution or their own. Rather, I was trying to express happiness about all the groups in the world full of awesome players and GMs who know how their particular group dynamic works well enough to see an ambiguity, look at the proposed FAQ answer, and go another path that works best for their group. That's excellent!

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The NPC wrote:

Mr. Mark Seifter,

I have recently found myself having a hankering for the Medium, but realizing there's still 5 months until release.

What should I do?

Also, are you familiar with the Persona jRPGs?

@Medium--I think you should play the playtest medium some more. The medium is in a place where he needs some love and support, so be sure to show it!

@Persona--Absolutely yes. Persona was the inspiration for the improved relationship rules I wrote up as one of my 3pp gigs, actually.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Sluder wrote:
Have you played/ran Shattered Star? If so, any advice for myself as I'm about to start running it for a group that doesn't know much about Golarion?

I have played Shattered Star from start to finish. If your group are clever schemers who are ultimately peaceful and rarely kill anything that isn't an evil outsider or an undead, then I can give you some extensive and extremely tailored advice that is less useful otherwise, although Linda changed some stuff in Part 6 I think she said.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kajehase wrote:
What's your favourite part of Golarion? (And by part I mean concepts as well as geographical parts.)

I'm actually a big fan of so many of the parts of Golarion that it's easier to list the few I don't like. However, I prefer to stay positive as much as possible, so I will say that if forced to pick, I'll go for the First World. It's not necessarily that the First World is far superior to other representations of the realm of the fey, but rather that it's an intriguing one and I'm a fan of the fey in general.

And if you like fey themes as much as I do, sign up for my First World Problems game at Paizocon.


Chapeau for that title.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tels wrote:

Meanwhile, over at... Jeffrey's table, there is a debate over whether or not a lance gets 2-handed bonuses while charging. Because one FAQ says no, while another FAQ says yes.

At the same time, I feel that I can turn to Paizo less and less for guidance when they have FAQs out there that are blatantly incorrect (like the Invisibility Purge affects Natural Invisibility despite Bestiary 2 explicitly stating it doesn't and this has never been changed).

To focus on some of your most convincing points, I can say that I'm also uncomfortable with the inconsistent lance FAQ and the odd response on the purge vs natural invisibility FAQ. My post above is not in surprise that people might pick and choose whether to go with the FAQ solution or their own. Rather, I was trying to express happiness about all the groups in the world full of awesome players and GMs who know how their particular group dynamic works well enough to see an ambiguity, look at the proposed FAQ answer, and go another path that works best for their group. That's excellent!

I was trying to explain why non-PFS players would be upset because of FAQs, but I guess I went off on a vent.

When it comes down to it, there are a great many players out there who might as well be playing PFS without actually doing so as their GMs are playing with Paizo as the Word of God, so anything Paizo says is final.

Meanwhile, you have FAQs that lots of people vehemently disagree with (like the Crane Wing or Monk can't 2-hand flurry). And players who had SLA early access are now playing with illegal characters with GMs who may or may not allow their character to continue or be forced to rebuild.

So the argument of 'you're not in PFS, talk to you GM and house rule it' still stands, it's not always applicable as many GMs are not comfortable doing so.

Many people, after all, look at Paizo not unlike rocket scientists. Most would never dare to tell a rocket scientist how to build a rocket. Likewise, many would not feel comfortable thinking they 'know better' than professionals working at the leading company in their field.


Mark Seifter wrote:
BigP4nda wrote:
Is there an available template or guide that shows the formatting and structure of stat blocks and where everything goes on them? It gets kind of annoying trying to figure out were certain abilities and feats belong on the stat blocks by searching through the bestiary.
Most of it is templated pretty consistently, but if you mean what I think you mean, then I can say from experience (of working with Rob to do so) that deciding for sure whether something on the edge goes in SA or SQ is more difficult than solving a complex differential equation.

Yea, that's where I get confused most...I think I've finally grasped the abilities that go under special attacks...and I finally understand the formatting for skill bonuses and what goes where.

Perhaps I should just ask some specifics...

Ambush (Ex) (Class feature of Rogue archetype: Bandit):
SQ or SA?

Am I formatting this part correctly?
Special Attacks fearsome strike (2/day, frighten on successful critical hit and sneak attack, 2 rounds)

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Many people, after all, look at Paizo not unlike rocket scientists. Most would never dare to tell a rocket scientist how to build a rocket. Likewise, many would not feel comfortable thinking they 'know better' than professionals working at the leading company in their field.

Indeed. The fact of the matter is that different games of Pathfinder around the world are so different, that two people can make seemingly mutually exclusive claims and both be right. So too is it the case that no matter how skilled the design team may be (and I happen to think we're pretty skilled), we don't know your group like your group does. So as an open plea to Pathfinder groups (that I know many people are following already), if you feel like doing it a different way seems like it would work better, you're very likely to be right for your group. Try it out. Maybe agree to have it be a test run if you're anxious about breaking something. But experiment! The most wonderful thing about this game is how much you can be the authors of your own experience. Shelyn knows I wouldn't be a designer today if I was afraid to question the rules, the FAQs, and every assumption to pick things apart and put together the superior experience for my group.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigP4nda wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
BigP4nda wrote:
Is there an available template or guide that shows the formatting and structure of stat blocks and where everything goes on them? It gets kind of annoying trying to figure out were certain abilities and feats belong on the stat blocks by searching through the bestiary.
Most of it is templated pretty consistently, but if you mean what I think you mean, then I can say from experience (of working with Rob to do so) that deciding for sure whether something on the edge goes in SA or SQ is more difficult than solving a complex differential equation.

Yea, that's where I get confused most...I think I've finally grasped the abilities that go under special attacks...and I finally understand the formatting for skill bonuses and what goes where.

Perhaps I should just ask some specifics...

Ambush (Ex) (Class feature of Rogue archetype: Bandit):
SQ or SA?

Am I formatting this part correctly?
Special Attacks fearsome strike (2/day, frighten on successful critical hit and sneak attack, 2 rounds)

After hours spent sweating SA vs SQ, I would agree that fearsome strike is an SA. Statblock format would probably just say "fearsome strike 2/day" or such, and then you'd list out the full text below.


Mark Seifter wrote:
After hours spent sweating SA vs SQ, I would agree that fearsome strike is an SA. Statblock format would probably just say "fearsome strike 2/day" or such, and then you'd list out the full text below.

And what about Ambush (Ex)? Does that fall under SQ or SA, I would assume SQ since it doesn't actually directly affect any creatures.


Also what do you think about this combo?

Greater Feint, Greater Trip, Felling Smash, Vital Strike chain

Paired with sneak attack it essentially deals a whole lot of damage in a single attack, with felling smash allowing for the trip attempt, making the enemy provoke an AoO for yet another sneak attack (with basically a +4 to hit)

Designer

BigP4nda wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
After hours spent sweating SA vs SQ, I would agree that fearsome strike is an SA. Statblock format would probably just say "fearsome strike 2/day" or such, and then you'd list out the full text below.
And what about Ambush (Ex)? Does that fall under SQ or SA, I would assume SQ since it doesn't actually directly affect any creatures.

Yeah, that one is a bit more of an edge, since also certain abilities that don't affect creatures like barbarian rage wind up in SA, but I agree that it's more SQish due to a combination of not affecting others, not directly boosting offense, and not having an activation action, which are three benchmarks I tried to use (granted, the land of SQ vs SA is still a place of mysteries to me occasionally).

1,451 to 1,500 of 6,833 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *Mark Seifter* All Your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.