Alynthar42's page

Can we get the FAQ answer for this question like, pinned somewhere so that people don't have to scroll through 30 pages of this nonsense?

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.

When did Jason Bulmahn become a superhuman medieval warrior?

Doomed Hero wrote:

Equity is more important than equality.

Different classes have different gear requirements at different levels.

Don't worry about fair. Instead, give found loot to the people who need it most. Shore up weaknesses first, then distribute based on effectiveness.

Anything that isn't usable by someone in the party, sell and split the take.

Don't do this. Shoring up the weaknesses of party members prevents you from boosting the strengths of competent party members.

Lets say you have a vital strike fighter who is twohanding a scimitar. You have a a dervish dance bard who uses scimitar. You get a +1 scimitar.

The bard is more accurate and deals more damage with the scimitar than the fighter. So the fighter is the weakness that "should" be shored up. If you give the weapon to the fighter you boost damage by 1 per round. If you give it to the bard you boost damage by 1*number of attacks.

It helps the party more to give it to the bard. It is better to give to the party don't shore up weaknesses boost strengths.

And this, right here, is why I dislike giving out loot according to who "needs" it. Two people want it, two people could use it, but only one can get it. Somebody has to get a claim, and as Feral said, it is very easy for one player to wind up dominating the loot, if you use that strategy. In a game where *every* possible role is being filled by at least two people, it gets difficult.

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.

How do you distribute loot? My party is currently in a fierce debate regarding how to divvy up loot. The current system is that we have a party loot pool. Any items you take are added to your character's total value- this includes consumables and disposable items. Items which are clearly of value to the entire party, such as a smokestick or wand of cure light wounds, do not count towards this value. If you use a consumable in a way which clearly benefits the entire party, that no longer counts towards your value. The player with the lowest current value gets to choose the next item that we purchase using party loot. We're having issues, and I was wondering how everybody else spreads out loot. What do you guys do?

To clarify- there are two major reasons this is an issue. One, I'm playing a crafter, and we needed a way to make sure that everybody gets a reasonable share of the gear that I can make. Two, we are in a gestalt campaign. We have three arcane casters, three martial characters, and two monks. Any item we find will probably be useful to at least two of our players, so it isn't really feasible to just distribute loot based on whoever can make the best use of it, because we may disagree on who it should go to.

I'm sorry to hear about your depression. I offer you an internet hug. ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

As regards the game, we understand. RL isn't always cooperative, and it's the most important part.

Wasn't it? I don't normally watch movies at all, let alone in the theatre, but Deadpool was fantastic. I didn't get a burger, though.

Thank the gods- I was afraid we'd lost our cleric.

While I'm reasonably certain that the Professor would know how he should respond in this circumstance, I certainly don't. What's the appropriate etiquette here, and how could it be combined with a certain level of scholarly awe at the existence of one of the Warforged? If Brooks had bowed upon meeting the Lord Provost, he would do so now, but I slipped up there, and it's left me at a loss- I'm pretty sure it would be considered an insult to the Lord Provost to bow to his official (regardless of actual standing, he is "officially" an inferior, right?) lieutenant, but not to him.

Knowledge (Nobility?): 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (13) + 8 = 21

Is this one officially dead?

Nobody? Not a word?

Nah. That's just how we differentiate what's happening to whom. If you get in, you should probably read at least some of them, so you have an idea what's going on.

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

Weird. For some reason it won't let me select the "Professor Brooks and Ham" profile now.

@ Professor Brooks: I believe you have answered your question, man.

As far as the possibility of gaining more Supremacy effects over time? Probably, humans are incredibly mutable and adapt very easily to all sorts of environs. It will be a while before you gain such benefits but it will happen, yep. Good question. Was mulling that idea around in the ol' noggin.

Yeah, I tend to do that. Is the second part an answer to Khazia's question?

So, I'm trying to recruit for the Jihad to Destroy Barney the Purple Dinosaur, and figured I may as well tell the people I know are decent roleplayers (and a DM). Any takers?

Alynthar42 wrote:

What's the difference?

This essentially gives you +4 in any class skill you don't put a point in (+1 rank from the faction-less bonus, & +3 from having a rank in the class skill).

Also qualifies you for feats/abilities that require a certain number of ranks in a skill (or grant bonuses based on number of ranks such as Skill Focus etc).

Otherwise it's the same as any +1 to skills.

Edit: Essentially gives you bonus skill points equal to the number of class skills you have (scaling up by level), but they are automatically applied to your class skills. For any class without an abundance of skill points (me!), this could help with diversification of skills a lot.

Ah. Shiny.

On my stumbling around the backwaters of the internet, I recently stumbled across this gem. I'm poking around the idea of playing it, and was wondering if anybody else around here was interested. It would require a DM familiar with GURPS rules, which I am not, or a conversion to Pathfinder. Either one, I guess.

What's the difference?

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.

I am reminded. More background and other stuff.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Do I buy both Healer's and Surgeon's kits, or just one?

Uh... I think he should be trying to smite someone who is slaughtering prisoners? At least trying to stop Ham from doing it. I think most of these guys would try to stop Ham, Burhul included, unless the prisoners personally wronged them.

Hopefully Ham doesn't do that.

To be honest, I don't know if Ham would bother to take prisoners. I'm torn between whether Ham would take the time to deliver a coup de gras to any opponent who falls unconscious, or would immediately turn his attention on the next acceptable target, figuring that a living victim is more fun. As for stopping him, I don't object to that. I just object to smiting him. It's hard to play the game when my character has a severe case of smiting.

Okay this will be a challenge, but I've been playing since soft lead figurines so lets make this happen. Ipad is on fire, changeling paladin coming right up. I am assuming Medieval LG morality here right? You are evil so you die, you committed a sin, so you can die in horrible ways, not like Dudley Doright LG?

Going hardcore medieval LG would make things interesting, but also massively difficult. I suggest trying to find a nice balance between the two. That way your character won't try to smite Ham every time he starts slaughtering prisoners, if nothing else.

Brooks would actually get along with him quite well. It's Ham that would be a problem.

I also have one last gear request, though mine is solely for flavor. Mr. Brooks needs a fiddle. Could I have a MW Violin, or do I have to spring for one out of pocket, and say that his old fiddle got destroyed somehow?

I snuck the ipad to the office. Looking at the group of players would a Ranger be more appropriate? I am having trouble imagining a paladin in this crew.

That's what makes it interesting. I've always wanted to play in a game with a paladin, simply because of my, and therefore my characters', flexible morality.

PP: 1d4 + 1 ⇒ (4) + 1 = 5
GP: 2d6 + 3 ⇒ (4, 6) + 3 = 13
SP: 3d8 + 6 ⇒ (7, 8, 5) + 6 = 26
CP: 4d4 + 9 ⇒ (4, 4, 4, 2) + 9 = 23

Coolio. Thanks.

1d8.

And thank you for the hug.

Meh. Fine. I don't like the Lesser Beast Totem, cause I already have claws, but I really want pounce. I'll trade fiend totem for beast totem.

For Welby - I do not have whatever archetype is giving you an arcane familiar. Although I like the idea, I'm going to have to forbid it for now. (I do encourage you to let me know what it's from.)

We are on a rolling start, just as soon as I figure out how to have multiple action threads.

For Baltor - not sure what I missed, may have been a change in something else besides the one. The above setup comes out even; will adjust my copy to match.

** spoiler omitted **...

Well then. Thank you for that. Apparently I'm hopelessly incompetent at planning for an adventure. I'll also add the extra formulas, which is nice- most DMs who start games at levels beyond first seem to forget that the character should have extra spells from loot and such.

There are a few things on your list that I'm not familiar with, but first and foremost, what are alchemical usefuls, boons, and banes? Also, some items have a "x @ y lbs" after them. What does this denote?

Extracts I would like, in order of decreasing importance:
1st level- Heightened Awareness, Shield, Adhesive Spittle.
2nd level- CMW, Blur, Detect Thoughts, Resist Energy, Spiderclimb
3rd level- CSW, Gaseous Form, Arcane Sight.

I could also use a hug.

Oh yeah. Could I trade the Dodge feat for something that gives me Pounce? Even if it only works when I'm in Mutagen form, or something? Or maybe swap out the Growing ability on the Amulet of Mighty Fists for something that lets me Pounce 1/day or something?

Finally! I can access the website again!

Could somebody look over my character sheet and see if I'm missing anything? Especially equipment. I always feel like I'm missing equipment. Especially since, by my math, I have 1150 gold left over- that makes me very suspicious.

So, judging by the activity on the threads, my own experience, and the data on isitdownrightnow.com, the Paizo website has been fluctuating wildly for the past three days. For the past four and a half hours, it's been down almost entirely. And only 30 minutes ago, about ten minutes before the site came back online, did Paizo finally acknowledge the problem, with nothing more than a brief statement on Twitter that they were experiencing "unscheduled downtime."

Also, is Paizo acting up for you guys? Half the time when I try to go to the page, it gives me that stupid goblin picture.

So I think the old recruitment somehow got linked over here but when I click on it, it says "The Game Master has not yet connected the recruitment thread for this campaign." Weird.

Also, where is everyone? Just me and the good doctor so far.

That was really weird, yeah. It did actually go to it when I clicked on it, but the conversation was exactly the same as the convo in the other thread, and when I clicked "Next," it said the DM hadn't connected the thread.

Except it doesn't fit with the character I have in mind. Ah well. It would be fun, but I'm gonna roleplay this, not rollplay him.

Jesus christ, that's horrid. I hate to give up the Master Anatomist, but that would certainly simplify things... DM, would that be possible? Would the rage power grant the vestigial arms the attacks?

Beastmorph allows you to add abilities from Beast Shape to your mutagen. Pounce is kind of the main reason that anybody takes the archetype.

Somebody just pointed out that since I won't be leveling in alchemist anymore, I won't get pounce. Could I trade a feat or something for it?

Alynthar42 wrote:

Here is the build, if you want to look over it before confirming or not. I'm a little hesitant to go with this, to be honest- it seems a little game-breaking. But then, I've never played a high level martial character before, so this could easily be normal, and I wouldn't know.

Looks interesting. Like I said, as long as you stick to doing 'rogue-like' things on a regular I don't care what class combos you have so long as they fit the guidelines and such.

Gestalts are game-breaking, technically, but this isn't a normal game :)

Well, he's not gonna be sneaking around and stuff. But as you can see, he's got wicked levels of damage, so I think he adequately fills the "DPS" role. Even more so, now, since he can rage, too (which really fits Ham's personality, though it's not so much anger as it is just psychosis). But yeah, he's got disable device, and I added the Cruelty drawback so I could get Trapfinder.

Also, nobody ever did answer my question- how do background skills work? Do I get extra skill points for fluff based skills, or something?

Oh. Shiny. I guess I'd better finish up my purchases, then.