9mm's page

Loved: The customization; the crunch; a sense that nearly any hairbrained concept was in fact doable.

Wanted: Better Martial support, Actual Psionic casting, the promised end to feat taxes.

Hated: Paizo's "playtest" advertising and refusal to listen to any of the feedback of those so called playtests. the errata that always broke more than it fixed. the lack of understanding that if a character can't execute the concept well, people won't play that concept. The fact Feat Taxes got WORSE. Being forced to rebuild 2-3 of my society characters every errata drop.

Will miss: the sensibly laid out rules. It shouldn't take me 3 passes to figure out quick alchemy is part of the alchemy class feature.

In general where do you draw the line when allowing any class to take restricted things?

better question to be asking: "Why is this restricted?"

ie can a fighter get levels in spell casting without multi-classing?

there's an archtype for that.

Can Wizards get fighter only feats?

Can Wizards get druid only feats?

Do you need to worship a deity or have one empower you to cast divine spells?

Actually the rules are already clear here, you don't need a god to cast divene spells, see every cleric of an ideal.

So your actual request here is "Paizo, please stop including mechanics in the setting lines of books."?

no, it's more "remember these rules will be used somewhere other than Golarion" and "book theme doesn't need to be all encompassing" for example look at Heroes of the Streets feat Mud In Your Eye; because the book is urban theme, your character will forget how to throw goop in somethings eye if he leaves the city. wut?

Nunchucks, because there is no way Maxi is a monk. Sadly not supported in any way.

9mm wrote:

That is more a function of weapon focus being bad, not possessed hand being good.

True or not, I suspect that has very little effect on the decision. What matters is that Weapon Focus is the measuring stick being used. ^_^

And it's a crappy measuring stick; who's reliance on which continues to have organized play make bad decisions. Technarken almost certainly has the actual reason pinned down; and I, for one, am tired of having to throw interesting characters away because of nonsensical bannings, of which possessed hand is most definitely one.

My Brawler tribute to Ric Flair took Mud in your eye. Thankfully my DM lets me not suddenly forget how to throw goop at someone's face when I leave the caves and cities.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

but the problem with the magic items isn't that the items were decreasing diversity, they were increasing it. Now its going to drop.

I want clarification on this argument. How does removing a hat nearly every character had, and opening up the option for at least a dozen useful hats with different functions at or below the same price-point decrease diversity.

This argument keeps coming up and it so much doesn't make sense.

Of course it doesn't, you think the other hats are worth the gold. They aren't. oh look, it makes sense now.

Sundakan wrote:

All this talk about Fate's Favored and nobody stopped to think that maybe it's the trait that's the problem?

"10k is too cheap for the Jingasa because a trait can double its AC bonus!"

Lolwut?

I think this was said over at the other thread about the Jingasa, it seems like this thread is stuff calculating prices for magic items.

So yeah, all of this arguing over a trait that basically double a lot of the smaller luck bonuses in the game... and yet they nerf a item instead...

Honestly, i am starting to lose faith in Paizos decision making.

only starting?

oh honey.

also whoever said AC 36 is too high; LOL.

I keep seeing people ask:

• trying to balance
  
• discourage people from taking popular options
  
• nerfing for spite

Why can't it simply be "people are interpreting this doggedly than designed and we see how they got that impression. So let's align it to intent.

That has nothing to do with balance, spite, popularity or anything similar.

Because this isn't our first ride on the "what the hell are they doing!" train. We've had 7 years of illogical nonsense from this crew; and our patience is wearing thin. they, to be blunt, should know better by now.

Chess Pwn wrote:

Now if IN THE ERRATA FOR THE NEW BOOK THAT THEY JUST MISSED THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO

It makes it hard to get this addressed when some of the posts seem to question whether or not the "they stack" position is a serious question.

Which is understandable when you consider the history of said question. Most bonuses of the same type do not stack, while some do. Since 3.5 Size bonuses stacked. Because this is different than how most bonuses work it spawns questions of "wait it's different?" which leads to James complaining that a heavy spiked shield shouldn't hit as hard as a great sword, and that he personally doesn't let this one instance stack. Que people taking this as Word of God, leading to more questions leading to the FAQ that size bonuses no longer stack. That FAQ, like most of them honestly, is poorly received; and thrown into the pile of stupid, ignored FAQs. Add in how spiked shields get their separate lines on the weapon tables, which can lead players not even knowing that there is a double up in size bonuses. In short is a product of Typical WoTC Editing(TM) exasperated by Typical Paizo Editing(TM).

*Sigh* I really wish the PDT would stop reinforcing my terrible opinion of them.

I'd spring for it. It's a fighting man with actual reserves. he's not healing himself with "lay on hands" his body is healing itself through Sheer will. he's not smiting something, he's swinging his weapon with extra purpose. he isn't using "detect alignment", he's sizing the boy up. Also don't laugh around his mule, or the mule might think your laughing at it.

The whole idea that chassis must always be a LG P-Word is, was, and always will be b%&+!!!s.

Because of typical Paizo editing; there is no reason, only no fun allowed.

I hate the shear number of riders on combat maneuvers. "can't move an enemy into a dangerous square" then what's the bloody point? also the fact you can not hockey-check people with a bullrush is inane. Also fun, feats with use riders that the user could not possible fulfill by himself, like deadly stroke.

On the topic of Intrigue, I think that it's early yet to decide the result of the vigilante playtest. No one on the design team thinks that the things we put out for playtest are perfect; otherwise we wouldn't playtest them (in fact, they aren't perfect even after playtest, no RPG product is). Not to issue a guarantee about anyone in particular liking the final vigilante, but wait until it's out before deciding how much we changed the final version (once it's out, if you read it and don't like it, then that's totally fair).

Sorry Mark but when Jason pops into a thread and says "we aren't changing the #1 thing you are saying needs to be changed" I think it is quite resonable to say we know the result of the playtest.

9mm wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

The autodeflect for melee was kinda broken. It let a level 2 monk stymie a T-Rex, or just about any monster with only one natural attack, no matter how good the monster's to-hit.

Martials should have nice things, but this was way beyond.

meanwhile the level 1 monk with deflect arrows stymies a crossbowman, whats your point.

If a dm is dumb enough to throw a singleton monster with exactly one attack at an original crane wing user, they deserve to have their encounter cakewalked.

If the GM is runnning a PFS scenario, he can't just switch out a monster.

which has more to do with PFS scenarios having terrible encounter design. Granted, this is because PFS's structure makes good encounter design either next to impossible or extremely deadly. This is the number 1 reason why PFS is not a good indicator of balance.

Most things that have ranged attacks also have some other thing they can do, but the same doesn't go for (dumb) melee monsters. And most ranged things eventually develop iteratives, but that doesn't work for single-natural-attack monsters.

If the GM has to throw out 20% of the Bestiary because of one feat, that feat is probably not well-balanced.

They don't need to throw out anything, they need to respect the action economy of the party. also compared to a simple smokestick, deflect arrows is weaksause when it comes to ranged attacks.

Re: other things (slumber hex) are just as problematic: sure. I don't like how that thing can wreck scenarios either.

But just because I'm not solving problem B for some reason, doesn't mean I shouldn't solve A.

the problem is, the problem isn't slumber hex, or crane wing, it's that people insist that a single monster will somehow be a challenge against any properly played party.

So this means Mark had to make a lot of special exemptions in the base class, or he has/had to issue clarifications on how things work. Either to prevent abuse, or because the original description got messed with in editing. For example, apparently the description he submitted to the editors for Metakinesis explicitly allowed for Gather Power/Supercharge to work, but the editors re-formated it and now it's unclear.

to be blunt, I don't think he had to make those excemptions, but a boss who's known for limiting player choice made him put them in.

That said out of all the things in this class, the fact you need two free hands to channel power makes me irrationally angry.

I hope we can at least get to see errata before its printed in books. Imagine an "Errat Playtest"!

It would make the game better, avoid senseless, overbearing nerds of something into something biring(the new Scarred Witch Docotor) or nearly not worth the resource spent(the new Divine Protection)!

that is assuming that the PDT listens to the feedback; and lets face it, if they did this thread wouldn't exist.

As for the new spells showcased in the book, which ones look to be like "must haves"? Which ones have game-balance or possible OP issues?

This goes for spells of any of the classes besides the new ones ... including the traditional core classes - Sorc/Wiz, Bard, Cleric, etc.

well there is always Explode Head, if only because it's hilarious.

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

By all means keep arguing and complaining...

Actually, we could use less arguing and complaining and more discussing and providing constructive criticism.

And there has been plenty...

Now if only paizo actually listened.

It isn't being hostile to call the Vigilante playtest not a playtest when the devs say flat out they are going to ignore the biggest feedback thread in the entire section.

It isn't hostile when I can point to threads showing what the underlining problem of an option is; and the devs go on their merry way insisting the sky is orange.

As you say, the attitudes of the devs are well known: and anyone who spells them out has their post removed for "baiting."

It's been 6 years, and the devs have apparently learned nothing.

Milo v3 wrote:

Eryx_UK wrote:

Did they tone down the kineticist from the playtest? We had one in our PFS group during the playtest and it was extremely overpowered.

Kineticist is now more powerful.

That is disappointing. Between that and a over-optimized medium/barbarian, the playtest classes pretty walked everything they did in our PFS games.

this is more to do with PFS being piss easy than a classes power. PFS is not, will not, and never will be an accurate gauge of power, Which makes it's treatment that it is all the more frustrating.

Without dual identity, you are not filling the role of the vigilante who is taking on another identity in order to do things that would otherwise harm their social standing (possibly because those things are illegal and punishable by death).

that's what the disguise skill is for.

So far the vigilante is three archetypes + a useless duel identity that does nothing but give the party and gm headaches.

The subtypes work in any campaign.

No, they don't.

And the subtypes are put in place so the Eidolon will fit into a fantasy worlds mythology not just for reasons pertaining to game balance.

Except for when it actively clashes with a fantasy world?

As usual Paizo screws people over if they aren't playing in the One True Setting.

i honestly dont see a issue with the new summoner. is it de-powered. Sure it is, but thats not a bad thing. Summoner was over powered. Nothing about the rework makes me cry and i have 3 summoners active.

I just wish the nerfs did something other than just encourage more of the same, either you make the best DPR monster you can, or make your eidolon a skill monkey and fight with the completely not nerfed in any way SLA. (protip to GMS: read up on stirges and elementals, you'll be seeing them alot now)

2. that they had also done an unchained on gunslinger at the same time because if anything was more op than summoner... it was gunslinger for sure.

Don't blame the Gunslinger for what are the Gun Rules problems, as paizo decided to make guns super-special-awesome before ever making the class that uses them. Anybody with enough feats can go to town with double barreled pistols. Why paizo didn't make guns ranged scimitars and muskets ranged heavy picks will constantly mystify me.

there is also the elusive "Save and Suck" which is a save or lose with a powerful debuff applied even if you save against the primary effect.

9mm wrote:

*tosses another character into the trashbin*

I'm trying to be sympathetic, but statements like this make it very difficult.

Sorry if I feel that half way through my career is a bit late for a character to reach it's base concept. Cause no way can I fudge a creepy-empty-suit-of-armor ediolon as an azatas. Psychopomp, maybe, but again, LEVEL 5; FOR A SWORD.

Correction I either have to be within one step of Chaotic Good or Level FREAKING 5 to give my ediolon an actual sword.

*tosses another character into the trashbin*

A real test of the new summoner will be "what kind of concepts can I make with it?" If the answer is "more things than the old summoner" than I will be quite happy, even if it is a little weaker mechanically.

Prepare to be a sad panda.

... Why do I have to be level 2 to give an my ediolon a sword?

I dunno about the previously posted build, but it's more about the hasted level 10 BarBar/Fighter wielding a falchion with a 17-20 crit range having a ~50/50 chance each charge to crit on all three attacks for x3 damage while using double their strength to damage from Horn of the Criosphinx.

Probability goes to 60% crit chance at level 11.

Likewise, you can build a terrifying critical focused two weapon fighter using high crit range weapons; a level 11 hasted two weapon fighter has about an 80% chance of critting on all seven attacks.

With the style being clarified to working with IUS only, I'm happy with the power level - it finally lets unarmed monks be (useful) mobile combatants.

hate to break it to you, but the barbar/fighter can do all that already, without pummeling style. all Pum style does in that case is minimize dr. there was literally no reason for it to be banned.

Morgoon wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Can someone show me a build with this combo that ruins the game? Without that, I can't see a reason to ban it. If it makes the monks good at mobile fighting with their fists...then its only making monks do what monks should have done all along.

I've read through this entire thread and it's driving me crazy that no one actually shared a powerful build abusing this.

While a slight necro I think this is the build people were worried about.

** spoiler omitted **

There's really no way to abuse it any more than the sacred fist. It's also where several major questions came from.

The thing is pummeling charge just adds damage. More damage really almost should never break the game when it can only be applied to 1 target a turn.

Considering neither build has any way of combining the two styles, it's dpr isn't greater than a standard Sacred fist. Even with a full 3 levels in MoMs, it just means a 1-2 more rounds of full-attacking provided you can charge. If this is the best they can come up with, then there wasn't anything to be afraid of to begin with.

I hear they make good olive oil.

9mm wrote:

considering that, generally, no feat is more powerful than another already?

I have to respectfully disagree there. I shall quickly rattle off a small handful of feats that have little opposition in terms of power aside from others on said list:

Animal Soul, Clustered Shots, Dazing Spell, Divine Protection, Raging Brutality, Persistent Spell, Sacred Geometry.

man it's like that word "Generally" doesn't exist. ah well, not like missing an important word isn't a time honored tradition in this hobby.

there's no space constriction at all. The fact that when most people use MoMS to grab the first then third style feats and almost never grab the middle, says more about the quality of the middle style feats than the power of MoMS.

Almost all feat evaluations are based on resources in to effect out. MoMS makes many style feats resource efficient, because no one wants to take Combat Expertise, improved trip, improved repositon just to knock someone down with pummeling style. Almost all the style feats have easy to acquire pre-reqs for the first, a bazillion for the second with a very underwhelming benefit, and the first two style feats for number 3 which is often decent. So you grab the two you want and move on, and grabbing the missing one later if you want it. Simply put, most style feats just aren't worth it without MoMs reducing the resource cost.

One word.. Well.. Acronym... PFS.

The amount of problems in this game that comes from PFS is to damn high.

I disagree. If you were so smart, you could make your own game.

Means nothing if no one is willing to play it.

Your opinion and view is shallow but the company has a much broader view of things.

LOL, just LOL.

They get more feedback and information, and actually do testing with numbers and comparatives.

You wanting this ability does not entitle you to the ability. The customer is not always right. The customer is usually too uninformed to know what they trully want.

While sometimes true, this is not one of those times. The is no logical reason why a generic dex to damage feat does not exist out side of the devs deliberately not printing one is the face of the math behind the game.

You can voice your opinion and make posts like these, and surely Paizo appreciates your request, but do not make the mistake that they are better equipped to make the decision.

Previous experience says otherwise.

The product is not faulty because you say it is....

Nope, it IS badly edited, rife with power imbalance and non-sensical decisions, and has an entire section that boils down to paizo telling itself it sucks at class design.

You know, in the main dex-to-damage thread I posted that I didn't believe light weapon were excluded from the slashing grace feat. I though it was an overly narrow reading of the feat.

Well I just read the class preview and it specifically mention snake style as a feat that allow a swashbuckler to use his abilities. Since unarmed attack are light weapons for the purpose of feats, we have pretty good evidence that light weapons were meant to be included in slashing grace.

While I agree that it is probably an overly narrow reading, the problem is, and always will be, rules english is not normal english. one handed weapon means a very specific thing in Pathfinder, namely a weapon in the one handed category. See also pummeling style, which for all the mentions of punching, because punching means nothing in pathfinder, means the style works regardless of weapon.

I really wish paizo would adapt a bracketing format around keywords, mostly because it makes intent far easier to find. because if it was normally done

Choose one kind of [one-handed] [slashing] weapon. When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a [one-handed [piercing melee] weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as aswashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike)and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.

would read different than

Choose one kind of one-handed [slashing] weapon. When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a [one-handed] [piercing melee] weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.

Has anyone given a reason why light weapons have been excluded from the dex to damage thing, especially as they are the best candidates?

no. but at this point it is reasonable to assume it's because the same reason why they now are writing fencing grace; the developers in a rush to fix things forgot light weapons existed.

But what about childlike emaciated goth lolis who serve as companions to wizened old sorcerers with the Tentacle bloodline?

WAIT WHY IS EVERYBODY LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT PLEASE PUT THAT PITCHFORK AWAYUUUUGHHBRLLLLLL....*expires*

one question: does the wizard cast spells with golf clubs?

vacatian psionics?

yuck.

Could you guys *not* get so hostile or snarky? I've been informed that we're unlikely to get a designer response here (at least as far as Mark is aware) because the tone in this thread is really hostile and combative.

Unfortunately for the designers, this is one of Paizo's biggest cock-ups in a long while, and is part of a long string of 6 years worth of work that has confirmed many an opinion of the dev teams attitudes. Opinions I might add that are removed as "flame baiting" on this board.

But I suppose it's easier to stick your head in the ground than admit your mistakes.

So...please stop acting like my theories on what might be going on in other people's heads are my own opinions. It's kind of annoying, given that they aren't.

Now if only those reasons weren't so utterly backwards, because that's what people are reacting too.

"Because it's not iconic" is really just that stupid. Even if we Weren't talking about a class named "Swashbuckler."