Hoary Muntjac

Aaron Goddard's page

45 posts (47 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


Tangent101 wrote:
Don't look at it as "I can't do X anymore!" and instead look at it as what you *can* do. You may be pleasantly surprised.


This sounds...horrifyingly bad.
An extra die of damage?
whoop dee f!%@ing do, an extra 1-8 or 2-12 of damage, when before you were GUARANTEED to get 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or 3, 6, 8, 12, 15 points with each swing. It's better to have guaranteed damage than leaving it to random number generation. Objctively.

It seems to me that all you're doing is cranking down player power level the way 5th edition did

Power level of magic missile tied to actions and not wizard level?
Not F&&*ing Joking.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge the He-Witch wrote:
Now I know romancing NPCs in general is a hot button issue for some people, but this question is obviously not for them. I’m GMing Curse of the Crimson Throne, and I plan to do it many more times for different groups. I love it! ** spoiler omitted ** Any ideas I haven’t thought of? I know there are a lot of creative people on these boards, so hit me.

So you have a PC who has romanced Queen Ileosa now?

One of mine got involved with Laori.

So for clarification, you're trying to find a hook for a future continuation post-sunken queen?

I reckon my players would wreck him.

Raynulf wrote:

My second GMing of Crimson Throne hasn't yet reached History of Ashes, but in the first play through I heavily rewrote it.

The book has a lot of great material with which to craft a meaningful and enjoyable portion of the adventure... it's just that Respect Point subplot isn't it. The strength of the book is interesting characters, locations and scenarios, and I'd encourage GMs to try and use them to craft their own reason for the players to engage with the shoanti.

My approach was someone more dramatic: I actually had all the relics of Kazavon scattered around the Cinderlands, as I had Koja Eyes-Aflame be the only one to walk out of Scarwall while Mandraivus stayed behind to guard it. Koja hid the relics around the Cinderlands, and the PCs were tasked with recovering them, and having them ritualistically blessed (well, 'placed in magical containment fields') by the shaman to ward the PCs from the worst of the curse of Scarwall. Each of the major events in the Cinderlands was another relic to recover: Koja was the ancient hero who escaped Cindermaw's gut after he embedded a relic in it. The chamber of the Havero plays host to another relic. And so on.

(You can actually ignore the normal list and create whatever number and type of relics you want. Hauling the skull of a colossal dragon around is a little impractical, for example).

It also meant that as the finale, to the adventure path, my PCs got to actually destroy Kazavon, which was a lot more satisfying all around.

Dragging the head of a GARGANTUAN dragon, on the other hand, is exactly how they managed to frighten the natives into revealing their secrets (but not before Krojun lost his temper and attacked the party...don't worry, he'll be coming back for revenge after the chief has him raised and he gains a few levels and he rethinks his TERRIBLE RAGE POWER CHOICES).

So most of the party was convinced she was guilty and so turned her in.
During the execution, there was a fight in which the party severely damaged itself while Vencarlo got away with Trinia.

We spent HOURS of the party arguing about the bloody thing.

In order to progress the plot I literally had to drop a scroll of effing commune in their laps to convince them that Trinia was not-guilty. When they asked about Ileosa's involvement, the only answer they got was a hazy mental image of a blue dragon attacking the one using the commune (foreshadowing!)

My problem?
Narrow dungeon, 3 player characters with animal companions and 4 without.

Thank god for Scarwall being so much bigger

Diversity shouldn't take priority over realism though

Gauldin wrote:

I'm prepping to run CotCT, and I really like most of the AP - except for History of Ashes. Its cowboys & Indians theme feels really out of place, and the structure of the chapter is a railroad that I think I'm going to have trouble keeping my party riding.

So I'm looking for alternatives. I've seen other people mention Heroes' Blood; I haven't read the module, but the short synopsis sounds an awful lot like Scarwall Castle, and I don't want the group to get "haunted castle fatigue".

I've also started looking at House on Hook Street and Bloodsworn Vale. HoHS is an especially good fit for the setting of CotCT, but I see a couple of problems. One, yet another mysterious plague right on the heels of Blood Veil sounds like same old, same old. And bumping the module from 6th level to 11/12th would be a LOT of work. I haven't looked much at Bloodsworn Vale yet, but it would have the same leveling issues.

So ... has anyone else done anything like this that just worked brilliantly? Or failed miserably? Or should I just suck it up and play the AP as-written?

I wound up just running a high-CR red dragon encounter to make up for the lack of XP and treasure...but that was after trying my darndest to get the party to agree to do the respect trials. So now Krojun is dead and they've earned the enmity of the Sklar-Quah.

My players decided to skip chapter 4 entirely. By that I mean their characters were morally outraged at the idea of having to earn the respect of the Shoanti in order to save the women and children of Korvosa. In the end, they strongarmed the Sun Shaman into surrendering the information leading to Scarwall.

While I am annoyed at this turn of events, they did raise some good points regarding the morality of the situation

So my question is this:


Are the shoanti REALLY supposed to be so stupid/heartless/stubborn, or is this just an excuse plot to pad out the adventure path?

Also, where are the stats for the sklar-quah chief and the sun shaman?
I feel like they're supposed to be high level, but I couldn't find stats for anyone but Krojun and some Thundercallers (no burn riders either)

That's ridiculous.
Shouldn't the ray attack be a part of the spell's somatic component and therefore covered by defensive casting?

all of those nations you mentioned describe the people as bronze skinned or some other shade of brown....

so all white people are barbarians or evil empire guys. Got it.

Where do your fair-skinned British types with names like Jones, Banks, Smith and Gray come from?

I describe my cleric as being fair-skinned with beach blond hair - he needs a homeland to fill his character sheet slot...but it seems to me that everyone in Golarion is bronze!!!!!

it's more likely I'm not looking hard enough...

Any help will be appreciated.

Or the eyebrow could be raised and an "Oh myyyy" that would make George Takei proud could be on their minds, if not their lips ;)

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gl#v5748eaic9r5f

DR/Epic: How do the new rules for overcoming DR/epic (page 7) interact with weapon special abilities that have variable enhancement bonuses, such as bane and furious?
Essentially, there are now two ways to overcome DR/epic with magic weapons.

The first way is presented in the Universal Monster Rules in the Bestiary: You can use a weapon that has an actual enhancement bonus of +6 or higher. Currently the Pathfinder RPG has no weapons with a permanent +6 or higher enhancement bonus (though you can temporarily achieve a +6 or higher enhancement bonus with certain magical or class abilities).

The second way is presented in Mythic Adventures: You can use a weapon that has a total "plus-equivalent" of +6 or higher. For example, a +1 vorpal longsword and a +2 flaming frost shock keen longsword both are +6-equivalent magic weapons.

A weapon with a conditional or variable enhancement bonus, such as bane or furious, gets the best of both options. As a baseline, it include the plus-equivalences for its enhancement bonuses and special abilities; when the conditional or variable enhancement bonuses activate, it adds those to its total as well.

For example, a +3 undead-bane longsword is a +4-equivalent weapon, which on its own is not enough to overcome DR/epic. When used against an undead creature, its enhancement bonus increases by an additional +2, making it effectively a +6-equivalent weapon (+3 baseline enhancement bonus, +1-equivalent from bane, +2 conditional enhancement bonus against undead from bane) and therefore able to overcome that undead creature's DR/epic. (Another way of looking at it is when bane is active, you add its conditional +2 enhancement bonus to the weapon's normal +4-equivalent bonus, temporarily giving you a +6-equivalent weapon).

I believe that this design decision is a terrible one. You should have just let us have our epic weapons instead of nerfing DR/Epic so that any moron can bypass it with low level weapons.

BillyGoat wrote:

If you consider the amount of space it would take to consider the interplay between every possible monster ability... you'd have to put out a book dedicated to nothing but monster creation. And creating a single monster with more than two abilities would take forever.

That's why Ashiel's post is right on the mark. As admitted to in the Monster Creation section itself. That's why one of the steps is "double-check against existing monsters". Because no spreadsheet in the world can accurately encompass everything.

Although, a "maximum DR / SR by CR" and/or a section on "DR impact to HP relative to CR" would be a nice addition to the rules, without eating too much more space.

A monster creation manual?

I would buy it!

Okay, how is that EASY by any definition of the word?
The chart assumes that I want to "rear load" the monster's power level.
I want to front load.
You want me to choose where iw ant to go and then make adjustments.
i want to make my adjustments and determine wher ei am going BASED on adjustments.

The monster creation chart seems to think that I am an idiot. Or that it wants all CR 1 monsters to have exactly 15 hp.

The following is said under racial hit dice:
"Adding racial Hit Dice to a monster is a similar process to building a monster from scratch. As additional Hit Dice are added, other abilities increase in power as well. Additional Hit Dice usually results in better attack bonuses, saves, hit points, and skills, as well as more feats. It can also include additional spellcasting capability and other powers."

But it says NOTHING about how many hit dice it takes to increase a monster's challenge rating, and by how much.

I demand to know how many hit dice increases = 1 CR increase.
Don't give me this namby-pamby cookie cutter "10 hit points at cr 1" crap. I want to roll MY monster's hit dice, add MY monster's constitution modifer, and determine MY monster's attack and damage.
i demand that an HD-CR chart be made so that those of us who like to actually customize our monsters not have to be confused by this cryptic garbage. I shouldn't have to reverse engineer all of the cookie cutter, in the box stuff.

Your simple templates do NOTHING for monster challenge. Without the additional hit dice, they are cannon fodder.

Why don't these add hit dice? You would think the ADVANCED template would ADVANCE a monster by an appropriate amount of CR. But no, all it does is jack up ability scores. Fie! A squirrel ten times advanced still falls to a sleep spell. CHallenge rating 10 my arse!

I just want to add some freaking hit dice to a freaking badger. Why must you designers make it so hard?

Also, your advancement chart is a confusing clusterf!#$. My eyes have to go up, down, left, right, and I still can't figure out where i am supposed to go. Who was the braindead moron that came up with the "higher CR, lower cr" chart? its extremely confusing. Why would the higher cr be in the left column, anyway? If something is going UP, it should go up LATERALLY, as in, I shouldn't have to go DOWN A LINE AND TO THE LEFT. I should be able to read left-to-right.

For organizing them alphabetically, you mean?
No, I would still be against that.
I hate the sight of too many of the same letter clustered together. Knowledge, Craft, and Profession are bad enough. I like seeing listen and Spot in different parts of my character sheet.

Charles Scholtz:

Yes, and that is exactly what I hate. I hate the fact that you basically get 4 free skills for investing in only one skill.

Tessarael wrote:

I strongly agree. Spells automatically working where skill do not sucks. Find Traps, Comprehend Languages, Knock, Levitate and Fly replacing the Climb skill, etc. These spells should give some basic level of ability (more at higher levels), which does not increase too much with caster level - a high level Wizard should not be able to auto-replace a Rogue's Open Locks - not unless the Wizard had chosen to put some points in the appropriate skill. In that respect, I'd like to see Knock give some bonus to skill, and be something where the Wizard can help the Rogue by giving them a bonus, rather than just replacing them.

There's a similar problem with Monk's slow fall ability vs. Feather Fall. Feather Fall is a 1st level spell, and so much better. You don't have to be close to a wall. Why not just give Monk the equivalent of Feather Fall if within the required distance, and leave higher level abilities like Dimension Door for something more interesting. No need for Slow Fall to advance with level. Maybe just require the Monk to make a Climb skill check every additional 20 feet to continue using the ability.

I am going to disagree with you completely here.

Spells that do what skills do only better don't suck. Its MAGIC its SUPPOSED to be powerful. By your logic, fireball should require an attack roll and only do 2d6 to be "fair" to the fighters.

Forcing the monk to make a skill check is a huge kick in the nuts to monk players.

Furthermore, if you're in combat and trying to escape, why the hell would you rather roll lockpicking for 20 rounds while your friends are dying? What about helping the fighter flank?

Would you rather be destroyed before allowing a wizard to trump you?

Is your pride really so important?
Is it really so important to create suspense?
How many must die before you get the suspense you want so much?
How many hits must the fighter take, how many spells must the wizard and cleric waste while YOU keep wasting time?

I can't think of any group that wouldn't be pissed off at you for being so stubborn.

deranged wrote:

So there my gnome rogue was, in the middle of combat, trying to open a lock so we could escape from a monster we were not powerful enough to defeat. The lock was hard, but not impossible. This was a time for my character to shine! I just had to wait for the wizard to go. After that I would leave everyone in suspense as I rolled the d20. What a great moment....

And then wizard casts knock and the door opens automatically. No roll, no suspense.... just an open door.

In short, I hate the knock spell. I hate how it opens a door based on the size of it. In essence you could have the smallest, most complicated lock on the planet with DC 50, and a level 3 wizard could open it. Conversely you could have the largest door known to man, built to let Colossal Red Dragons through three abreast with a DC of 5 and a 20th Level Wizard would stare blankly at it. Knock is a horribly worded spell. I would love to see it changed in Pathfinder Beta to something where the spell caster must make a caster level check with the DC equal to the lock. This allows arcane casters a way to get around locks, but not take all the fun from a rogue that has invested skills in opening locks.

Then go play 4th edition.

Knock is a great spell. As a DM I encourage my players to memorize spells other than just direct damage. Some times a rogue can't open a lock, some times its too powerful.

Do you whine when the barbarian crits with his scythe before you can sneak attack?

Just because someone else can do what you do doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to.

I noticed that save or die spells aren't in the Alpha.
I also noticed that many spells, such as find the path, have been nerfed.

If we wanted to play a game where magic is reduced to video game-like restrictions, we would be playing 4th edition.

First Point: Find the Path

I disagree with your logic that it takes fun out of the game. There are people who don't like dungeon crawling and would prefer to get straight to the big guy at the bottom. Nobody's forcing the wizard to memorize find the path, if they want to use it they can. Some times people want to walk instead of teleport, it gives more experience points and treasure. Please don't ruin it for the ones who want the game to go a little faster.

Second Point: Polymorph Subschool

I always disagreed with this nerf to transforming. It doesn't just reduce the power of a shifting character, it also pigeonholes them into a certain number of forms. What if I want to turn into a Roc instead of a dragon? or a basilisk? Or something nobody else has wanted to become before?

Third Point: Breath of Life

This spell is a gigantic middle finger to resurrection, hence why I consider it a nerf, its a nerf to raise dead and the like. Worse than that, it takes away some of the lethality of the game by allowing "combat rezzes".

Fourth Point: Enhancement Bonus in Altered Form

Why oh why an enhancement bonus? Do you realize how dumb this is? Your strength isn't increased by a magical transmutation, its being increased by sprouting massive dragon muscles. This means that a dragonshaped human can't benefit from a belt of strength or a bull's strength spell. It makes the 2nd level boosters useless.

This is of course a big turn off for me. Massively.

Fifth Point: Identify = Free?
Why did you get rid of spell components?
This is something I wanted to avoid by buying Pathfinder instead of 4th edition.

Sixth Point: Shapechange
Okay so now I have to spend a 9th level slot to be able to spontaneously choose to cast a lower level changing spell? I may has well have memorize limited wish or wish! Shapechange now has the power level of a dead herring.

Seventh Point: XP Costs Removed
So now people won't be hesitant to spam Wish. Instead of nerfing spells and compensating for it by removing components, why not just leave the spells as is?

Eight Point: Miracle?
Why is Miracle absent from this list? Is your aim to turn clerics into heal monkeys? I want my CoDZilla builds.

Joey Virtue wrote:

This is very bad I think

We have already taken away some of the lethaity of the game with adding more healing now we are taking away Save or Dies

I think this is very bad and make me fell like this game is going "soft" on the characters

this really lowers the threat of death for characters

I agree, and it also puts pathfinder a step closer to 4th edition.

Most of their customers were going to be people who hate 4th edition and praised paizo for sticking to 3.5

lastknightleft wrote:

Question to the OP

Do you really think that doing some minor skill consolidation makes it incompatable with 3.5

Are you just upset because something that is done in 4e is done in pathfinder.

I mean what exactly are you trying for, do you want them to go back to the exact same skill system or do you like ranks but hate the consolidation. Honestly you haven't made a real case for what you are fighting for so all people really have to talk about is your tone. If you give us something to work with instead of just saying "I don't like it" maybe we can come up with ideas, but if you just want it to be the 3.5 skill system then you've made your point and there's really nothing to discuss or defend. Play 3.5, because even if they change skill ranks again, they aren't (as others have stated) going back to the same as 3.5

The latter and some of the former. I hate everything about 4th edition, and one of the main deal breakers was the new skill system. If you have to commit the act of conversion, then its a different edition and not the same edition.

Basically, I see the skill system in alpha as a step towards 4th edition and away from 3.5, which causes the system to lose its appeal.

I want them to go back to the exact same skill system and I hate consolidation.

Consolidation is detrimental to roleplaying, because it means that the jester who spent his whole life tasting food and living inside a castle with no windows is magically able to spot and listen as if he were a ranger who grew up among wolves, and a mountain climber whose never done a somersault in his life and has instead spent his whole life climbing rock faces is suddenly a Power Ranger.

Its detrimental to freedom because I want to be able to choose different skills. I want a set of abilities chosen by me, I don't want to be forced to be good at everything just by buying one skill. If I'm a fighter, I want to fight and maybe intimidate; I'll leave the spotting to the guys with skill points.

I never liked how only one could be active at a time.
It makes them pretty much useless to me.

I mean it basically means that a wizard can't quicken cast, normal cast, and ignore 20% of spell failure in the same round.

I agree that this is rather silly.
That sounds like a supernatural ability.

So does this mean eating a dire rat allows you to taste filth fever?

Or does it mean they can taste salmonella and the like?

It shouldn't be a skill. Certain classes like monks and samurai should be able to do it (rule of cool) but not your average joe.

Freesword wrote:
I would argue that there is a connection between search and spot. As would anyone who as been searching for an item for 10 minutes only to realize it was right in front of them on top of the pile they were searching. Search and spot are just the active and passive forms of the same skill. If you are actively trying to spot something you are in effect searching for it.

Thats what synergy bonuses are for.

I don't believe that skills should be lumped together. Its detrimental to roleplaying.

Someone who was a scout in the military, explaining his ranks in spotting, shouldn't automatically gain the same abilities in listen, touch and taste.

Someone whose spent his life in the mountains, whose great at climbing, shouldn't automatically be good at tumbling like a master circus acrobat.

Basically, you're allowing characters to become great at many things by buying ranks in one skill.

Molech wrote:

Not that I want to get back in this Thread, but...

I know a lot of profs that compare Bush to Hitler. I'm one of 'em. It's a mild list of similarities, true, and it's a list of correlations so there's no real publishable stuff to say. I guess we do it because the similarities are striking sometimes and we hate Bush so much it's just kind of good to vent.

-W. E. Ray

Anyway, back to your arguments...

<-----Points out Molech's hypocrisy with the Pointy Stick of Lampshading

Brent wrote:
(The post where he made his comparison to what he said to what I said)


(the magic ` above the e, not sure how to put it there. I am well aware there is supposed to be a mark there before anyone points this out.)

Brent wrote:
Aaron Goddard wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Let's not feed the troll - it isn't worth it.

I said it before and I said it again,

I am not a troll.

Would a troll be constantly apologizing?

If you're getting mad its your fault for taking it so personally.

Now its our fault for getting angry with what you said. So I assume you also think it is the fault of a rape victim that they were violated. Or you are the type of person who would walk up to someone, throw a drink in their face, kick them in the nuts, and then after they kick your butt saying that you getting your butt kicked was their fault for getting mad at what you did.


You assume wrong.

I am disgusted that you would make that leap.

I apologize then.
I am sorry I compared people to nazis.

But if I ever hear President Bush called a nazi, mark my words I will call out the hypocrisy.

Question: Does telling you I didn't know it was that offensive negate my apology?

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Let's not feed the troll - it isn't worth it.

I said it before and I said it again,

I am not a troll.

Would a troll be constantly apologizing?

If you're getting mad its your fault for taking it so personally.

Well excuse me for not knowing there were actual German people here.
Besides which, I don't believe in political correctness.

Use common sense people. The connection I meant was that they're bowing down to the nazis, not that they are nazis themselves. Besides I've already recanted my usage of the nazi terminology. I was not rationalizing I was explaining, there's a big difference.

I reiterate: I already apologized please get over it and move on already.

Why would the be offended anyway,. its not like they themselves are nazis. You're speaking for them, assuming that they would be offended without even having asked them.

For Pete's Sake I apologized for saying Nazi, get over it and let it go already!

Why do people put so much emphasis on word choice? It's rather ridiculous.

What would make this game worth buying:

1) Split Perception back into separate skills. Thieves should be caught with spot not with touching. Split Acrobatics back into climb, tumble, jump and balance. A rugged mountain climber character whose never spent a single day in the circus should not be just as good at tumbling as he is at climbing. Skill lumping is detrimental to roleplaying, as all of a sudden everyone who was a scout in the army or is a royal food taster is a monk with every sense heightened.

3) Avoid using anything remotely similar to Tome of Battle. If I want over the top action where every attack is described with Latin chanting in the background, I'll play BESM.

4) Don't nerf magic or magic items. The ability to acquire magic item has been a fun part of the game for years. Death effects, spells that mimic skills, and non-damaging spells should also remain in the game.

5) Don't nerf monsters. Yes, the core version of the monster manual's rust monster is rough, but he's meant to be rough. I would implore you to use the core version and not the wimpy new version which can barely rust a nail.

6) Do give certain monsters more power and fluff. Give gargoyles an extra edge. Give Nymphs their death attacks back. Make Stone giants, famous for throwing rocks, NOT suck at it. (Using capitals for lack of a bold button)

7) Don't take away the human's multiclass ability. The way they have to choose it at the beginning instead of taking the one they have the most levels in is kind of a big nerf.

8) Please don't use rage points, it turns barbarians into warriors and makes high level barbarians unable to maintain their rage for very long. I would prefer the old system where it always lasts rounds based on the new constitution modifier. "Increases to constitution do not increase rage points" is also equally ridiculous, no Barbarian is EVER going to buy an amulet of con now.

Things that I do like so far:
1) Sorcerers and a free bloodline. I was considering doing something like this to sorcerers in my homebrew setting anyway.

2) Giving elves a bonus to intelligence.

3) Your half elves and half orcs.

4) Scaling domain powers.

Yes, my first post was a knee jerk reaction I had during the course of reading the Alpha pdf and I apologize for the haste at which I vented my anger at seeing the new skill system.

Having had a coffee and a few hours spent writing up NPCs on the bus route from my job interview (creating monsters whilst the faces and names of my PCs are in mind soothes me so), I feel that I am now capable of explaining what I meant when I referenced the Nazi party.

Nazis are known for their fanatical devotion to conformity and for their tyrannical oppression of all who dare to resist the establishment’s flow of change. Star Wars Sagas and Dungeons and Dragons are all moving towards the sort of game that 4th Edition is supposed to become. Wizards of the Coast’s tactics have so far been unsavory and draconic in nature.

When I heard that Paizo would be sticking their middle finger in the faces of Wizards of The Coast by sticking to 3.5, I was needless to say delighted that they were not choosing to conform to the new standards, that they were going to stand firm in the face of tyranny. But when I finally read the alpha rules I was shocked and appalled to see the word “perception skill”, for when I read it I knew that Paizo had in fact caved in and changed one of the things I felt was fundamental to the 3.5 rule set, and that is separate skills for separate actions.

Essentially, I saw this decision to use 4th Editions logic that a man with one eye should take a penalty to his ability to smell and taste as a ridiculous adherence to conformity and change for the sake of keeping the Establishment happy.

The part that triggered my decision to cement my association between Nazism and the move towards melting everything together was the fly skill; so now a dragon the size of a jumbo jet can just spend skill points and turn on a dime? So now a Pixie that’s level one with no skill points to spare (due to having a 4 intelligence) has to move 15 feet to turn? I have no idea what the logic is behind the Fly Skill, but I can see a lot of problems with it already. If a dragon wants to improve his flight ability, what was wrong with taking a feat from the Draconomicon to that effect?

Furthermore, who has 50 points to spare? A 10th level rogue sure does, especially human ones who carry around a potted Dryad Tree and a roll out bed. Rogues are as has been said, skill monkeys; and of course I mean monkeys in the awesome sense, not in the pejorative sense. Fighters aren’t known for their skills and neither are sorcerers. This oversimplification seems to me like an attempt to make people who chose fighters and then later complained they weren’t as stealthy as a rogue happy.

If my being honest offends you, then I apologize.
If speaking with passion offends you, then I apologize.
If my style of no-derrière-kissing criticism offends you or comes across as barbaric or immature, I apologize (personally I consider butt kissing less mature).

However, you will not see me kowtow, politic, or play-the-game.

My intention isn't to be uncivil to the people on this forums, its an attempt to bravely stand up for the old skill system, so that people previously afraid to speak will come forth. Somebody has to be the first.

EDIT: Butt is a curse word? since when?

So in other words, there's still a chance Paizo will come to their senses and drop all the World of Warcraft mechanics?

Good. Then I'm going to continue complaining until I am blue in the face in the hopes that they fix these glaring problems.

If you REALLY want a constructive breakdown of why the alpha is bad, fine, I'll give you one in a few weeks. But mark my words, you accomplish more with moaning than with speaking apologetically and repeating "IMHO" all the time.

Hey, "grognards" like myself have been on the defensive since day one, being attacked and lambasted and censored by Wizards. Its about time one of us grows a pair and fights.

And again, I am NOT trolling. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a troll.

I personally don't care if my beliefs are expressed in an inflammatory manner. Otherwise its impossible to be heard. Say what you will about civility, in the end nobody listens to a quiet person regardless of what people try to say.

So why then did they get my hopes up?
I wanted to have a source of 3.5 material but thats been blown to hades with all this 4th edition style b%$$%$%s.

As far as I'm concerned, Paizo has LIED TO ME and they must answer for it.

Look, Paizo promised to stick to 3.5 and this new skill system is distinctly NOT 3.5, and neither are maneuvers.

I am not going to buy your products if they're just thinly veiled 4th edition books.

Again: What part of this book is 3.5?

Again: Why the hell should I only have to spend 1 skill point to get the effects of essentially 5 skills? Some people are trained in jumping but not in tumbling.

Second COmplaint: Improved Grapple/Bull Rush etc only give +2 instead of +4? What the HELL?

Third Complaint: Since when is reduced spell failure an action of ANY kind? Now what are you saying, that a high level wizard can't reduce his spell failure chance, cast haste and then a quickened fireball in the same round? I can't accept that.

Please consider dropping the simplified and boring skill system!
You LIED when you said PAthfinder would be 3.5, with the retarded simplified skill system its just as bad as 4th edition.

I do NOT want to only have to roll one check in order to detect a rogue, I want my bloody Spot AND Listen checks. I want characters who may be good at spotting but bad at listening is that so bloody wrong? I shouldn't be allowed to get 10 bloody ranks in spot, listen AND apparantly now smell, taste and touch just by spending 10 points, that should amount to 50.

And changing fly to a skill?
All I have to say to that is Javhol mein fuher!

And NO I am NOT a troll, this is really what I believe.

Point is, Paizo PROMISED to stick to 3.5 and they seem to have LIED!