Alynthar42's page

I presume in a low gravity environment there's some sort of math that could be done... I don't know what you would call it. Maybe 'Rocket Science?' Anyway, I presume that this math would allow a person to guess with a good deal of accuracy how to angle the jets to achieve a desired amount of lift and directional velocity at the same time.

I love the Paizo forums.

"Hey guys, do you think these two rules should interact?"

"Obviously you should do literal f*!&ing rocket science rather than just make a decision based on the rulebooks."

So. To return to my earlier remarks about proficiency, with far greater detail. I have two primary objections to this change. One, to the mechanic itself. This is a significant degree of customization which Paizo intends to remove. No more can I put a couple ranks into Linguistics to learn a handful of languages to demonstrate my character's background. No longer am I allowed to put a handful of points into Profession (Baking) to demonstrate that my paladin was a cook before he was called to service. No, now it's all or nothing- either you're exactly as good at picking pockets as the master thief who's been doing it all his life, or you can't do it at all.

But worse than the mechanic itself, is the message sent by its inclusion. Pathfinder players have, for years, been openly derisive of the proficiency mechanic. It's one of the most commonly hated aspects of 5e. Paizo knows this- those discussions happen largely on their boards. But they have decided to completely ignore the fact that PF players despise this mechanic and implement it anyway. This says, in very clear terms, "We are more interested in courting 5e players than in satisfying our existing customers and fanbase. The opinions of our current customers matter less than the potential profit that we think we can get by stealing that element from 5e." I've been a loyal customer and player for 8 years now. I've bought products from them solely to support the corporation because I liked their material. But my opinions are less important than their desire to attract D&D players.

The ironic part? I've said for ages that PF needed a reboot. This is actually the only element of what they've described that I'm particularly unhappy about. But, between that message, and Paizo's established history of ignoring playtest feedback? They've managed to kill my enthusiasm for it rather handily.

I have but one fear from this... Skill Proficiencies, they're the thing I hate the most about 4e and 5e. Please keep to a skill points system. :(

It astonishes me that they're doing this. Paizo claims to pay attention to and care about what the players want and think, and yet they're ripping one of the most widely hated aspects of 5e and putting it into the new system. It's like Paizo is completely ignoring all the lessons they learned from Starfinder, and everything that PF fans have said over the years, in favor of trying to court the 5e crowd. Which won't work, because the 5e crowd is already invested in their own game. There are some aspects of the new edition I'm interested in- rebalancing magic items might have promise, if they do it well, but tbh, I rather expect them to just nerf/remove the Big Six.

Well it is a little anal retentive but that doesn't mean it's wrong. =P

I wouldn't bother doing this for one-offs or shorter campaigns like the Paizo modules. I only really put in the effort for APs that are planning to go the distance or several level-spanning homebrew campaigns.

We hope to get to level 20 with this campaign, and it's completely homebrew (it's hard to do a module with Gestalt characters, after all).

This is what's causing arguments.

Our system wasn't causing problems until we found a few potions in a bandit base we'd just trashed. Two of us wanted to count potions towards your total value, because we felt that the basis of the system was to keep track of your gold spent and your effective wealth by level. In other words, we don't have personal cash deposits because this system allows us to get more items and is less hassle, but we are trying to evenly distribute wealth anyway. One of our players objected to this, saying that once a potion is gone, it is no longer of value to him. We explained that that was the point- if we were keeping track of individual gold, he would have to decide whether he wanted to buy a potion or save that gold for bigger items. A potion represents a cheap, immediate boost of power, while a magic item represents a powerful, long term one. In our mind, the reason this system works best is because it makes the players ask "Do I want that potion badly enough to put off my magic items a little bit longer?" If they decide that no, they don't want it that badly, then somebody else gets it or it goes into the bag of holding for emergencies.

Alynthar42 wrote:

What exactly do you mean by "Zero Sum," if you don't mind my asking? It's obviously a game theory reference, but it could mean a handful of different things.

By 'zero sum', I typically use the system Pink Dragon mentioned.

Yes, it might make sense to let the fighter nab the belt of giant strength +4, the ring of protection +2, and the amulet of natural armor +2 but doing so would deprive the entire party of treasure. Docking his share of the wealth by an amount equal to what he's taking means everyone gets at least some loot.

That's what I figured. It's what I have historically done in the past, in nearly every campaign I've played in. Apparently, it is "anal retentive."

Three words.

Ro. Sham. Bo.

What, as in Rock Paper Scissors?

With the exception of healing/curative consumables, I'm fond of zero sum. I've been in too many games where the party uses the 'need' model and 90% of the party's wealth ends up on the fighter.

In one CoT game I was in, at level 8, the most valuable item that wasn't on the party fighter or inquisitor was a non-masterwork composite bow on the ranger. Never again!

What exactly do you mean by "Zero Sum," if you don't mind my asking? It's obviously a game theory reference, but it could mean a handful of different things.

ScegfOd, you have my support for our new player. Any DF player can't be all bad.

Yeah, I was kinda wondering what the hell Savyon was thinking. Clearly, he's been getting into either my or Flint's supplies.

See, without that link, we could have had this argument all night. With it, all I can say is "poop".

Was playing Reign of Winter last week, and ran into some big tree thing in Babba Yagga's hut. None of us could identify it, and none of us could communicate with it.

Me: I say "I am Groot."

DM: ...roll for initiative.

It turns out that, coming from a non-plant creature, "I am Groot" is a horrible racial slur.

Professor Brooks wrinkled his nose as he entered the alley, and rechecked his map. Yes, this was the right place. He hated these kinds of jobs. He was a gentleman, not some common thug, and for his employer to send him to a place like this without even telling him why was disgusting. He would certainly not be accepting contracts from the man again. He was well known enough in the business that he could find the kinds of jobs that Ham needed without having to resort to something like this.

But he'd accepted the contract, and by the gods, he'd get it done. He always got the job done. He was, after all, a professional. Decision made, he walked down the alley to the building which had once been labelled Odeon of Reflection.

Sunny, you are the single most annoyingly cheerful person I have never met. I sincerely hope we play together.

Personally, I've been doing my best to spread around the news that this thread actually exists. I really want it to succeed- it's so much easier than building and rebuilding my character over and over for every different game.

I simply disagree with the game designers. As for the undead being evil, that's impossible, based on the principle that they're mindless. It's impossible to have an alignment if you don't think.