Arcane Addict's page

Being slotless makes them more expensive doesn't it.

Yes, slotless items are more expensive than slotted items. The equivalent items I'm proposing would still be slotless, and so have the same prices, they just wouldn't orbit your head.

I dislike the image of tiny baubles orbiting my head too. Honestly I feel all the mechanics available to stop them from doing so are equally ludicrous because I feel I shouldn't have to invest any of my character's resources at all to achieve such a negligable effect. Its a trap I find rather insulting, to be frank. Ioun Stones aren't more or less expensive because of that little visual caveat so I see absolutely no reason not to simply craft an item with identical functions which I can simply keep on my character's person.

I feel the need to straighten something out here. I suppose it is due to the sensitive nature of the topic of sex and promiscuity that causes us to perceive one another's comments to be seen through our own colored lenses. Understandable, sure, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to let it go when my words are given meaning beyond what I said. You see, I haven't mentioned sex or promiscuity in my previous post, at all. I suggested an entity embodying the opposite of temptation, not the opposite of lust or even just sexual appetite. Sure, it could be but it encompasses so many more possibilities.
Really, if you just wanted a celestial copy of the succubus this topic could've been closed off by advising switching out the typical evil outsider traits with their good equivalents and calling it a day.

This may or may not be what is asked for but what about a good outsider that specifically urges patience and honoring ones commitment through the promise of fulfilling some deepseated desire, an embodiment of the phrase 'good things come to those who wait'. Such a being probably doesn't exist to lure anyone back into the fold but rather to help younger folk make the 'right' decision when the time comes. I imagine these beings as individuals with varying methods to accomplish these goals. One could be severe and demanding, others could be enthrallingly innocent while yet another walks more of a grey area, being quite the tease, always leaving you wanting more. Subversion of temptation so it serves a good end is difficult but not impossible. At its most basic level this is the exact idea behind the biblical heaven: don't fall to earthly temptation and you shall be rewarded in the afterlife. I really don't see why such an entity couldn't exist within Pathfinder.

Don't ask us, ask your players. As you can tell the opinions on this matter run the width of the spectrum and what you really need to know is where they stand. We are inconsequential.
I believe the idea has some merit but can just as easily understand the opposite point of view so you might suggest running a separate oneshot adventure simply as a testrun. This way it doesn't risk your actual campaign if the idea isn't picked up or has unforeseen consequences. Afterwards, ask your players about the experience and go from there.

Like many have said before me, I think its overpowered. You could simply create feats that grant or emulate (single) specific class features, perhaps even scaling, because you can then take the individual class feature's power into account when deciding on the prerequisites (besides taking up a feat or maybe more). Familiar Bond and Eldritch Heritage are good examples of this method.

Lorewalker has the right of it, if you ask me. Pathfinder largely operates according to the notion of objective morality, a concept that is hard to grasp for us as most of us believe in relative morality. Even so we largely agree that certain acts are objectively wrong, such as slavery. These are obvious holes in Pathfinder's concepts of morality, according to us realworldsians.
But we didn't always think that way about many of these immoral acts. Slavery has an intensely long history, spanning millennia. Its abolition is relatively recent. If we can even speak of it, as slavery is still very much alive in many parts of the world even if it operates under a different name (child labor, for instance). Now I cannot condone these things but neither can I justify calling millennia's worth of people objectively bad people. For instance, I'm one of those people who used to have a stereotypical 'casually racist' grandma. I hated that part of her, but other than that she was a good person and I loved her. I'm pretty sure almost everyone, myself included, believes, feels or does something wrong without realizing it. I think you should view such practices, as it pertains to the game, in the same light. So normal and pervasive that most people don't even begin to think that it might be wrong. Many Pathfinder cultures still practice slavery and many of them aren't all bad either. Individuals, such as PC's, might have the presence of mind to consider it, but by and large its 'just normal'.
In other words, most mages fail to see that what they're doing is wrong because of its ubiquity within their subculture. And some of these mages will still be CG paragons of freedom.

Use the Phantom Thief archetype. Trying to get a sneak attack off at 20th level is a lost cause. Even if you could somehow get into range the wizard is bound to have enough protections that your sneak is either negated or useless. Instead we want access to vigilante social talents to max out our non-descript-ness.

Invest in all anti-scrying anti-detection and non-magical disguise abilities, then purchase the speediest transportation mechanic that isn't magical. Take the Rumormonger advanced talent and start spreading the following rumor as your travel the world: "Wizard X is planning to destroy the entire material plane in 1 year". Due to Rumormonger's wording, your rumor is "practically accepted as fact" everywhere you go, creating a global uprising against the wizard.

The more the wizard resists the uprising, the more obviously "evil" he seems, increasing the degree of opposition against him. Eventually a party of intrepid adventurers will be drawn to gather power and destroy the evil wizard in his private demiplane or whatever.

This... This idea seems better than mine.

Have you considered simply destroying the tower while the wizard sleeps, crushing him in the rubble? I'm not being sarcastic, this is a serious suggestion. Your DM's hubris is similar to that of wizards. Defy his assumptions about how you would approach it by attacking from an unexpected angle. I mean, the goal is to beat him right? You're a rogue, embrace the idea and just don't fight fair! Just win!

Before I start I have to say that there seems to be something wrong with the Reply function. Because of that I've chosen to omit the parts you (Arcutiys) have quoted from me. I might also accidentally have skipped something. If so, please do call me on it and I'll rectify it asap.
Also, I've chosen to neglect reading most of the rest of the thread. Poor form, I know, but I just don't care to have as involved a discussion yet do feel that you deserve a reply. I also state this upfront simply just to inform you of the situation.

Now to be fair, I did say that I don't actively believe they're doing this either. I do think they're incompetent rather than intentionally doing this. I just pointed out how much of a problem your company has if the question "Are they actively being evil or are they just too incompetent to release books correctly?" has to be asked as often as it does.

True, you did say that. Perhaps I should've been more clear. I think you're overreacting and slightly too paranoid about this because I think most of us just don't ask that question to begin with, its 'just' you. We assume honest mistakes and leave it at that.

You said it

And don't I know it!

Just because you can rule 0 something doesn't mean it wasn't broken in the first place. Oberoni and such. Besides, this is still a large problem in PFS, which is a service I ostensibly paid for by getting the books and the character folios, and just as importantly invested a lot of time in personally running it.

This is a fair point and as such not something I'll debate you on. What I do want to say is that your investments do not have to be a complete waste if you so choose. You can still play and enjoy the game your way.

Complete aside, Oberoni? What's that?

Again, you said it. There's something admirable about straight up admitting that people here are too sunk into fanboyism to be swayed.

Though convincing people not to buy Paizo products wasn't my only goal. I also wanted to voice my disdain in a place where the company members who run the whole thing were more likely to see it. On the very off chance that they would actually change their...behavior.

Umm... Thank you?

Really, we're not blind or stupid. We get pissed off too over the mistakes that get made, hamfisted errata, odd designdecisions and so on. We're vocal about it, too. Insofar, we're the same. The difference seems to be we're willing to accept and forgive it and you don't. Thats fine, I even understand, I just feel you're decision to do so is based on relatively insignificant things and I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. True, all of those insignificant things have added up to form the conclusion that Paizo's doing a bad job. I just don't think they are. By and large they've created a great game I truly enjoy. I know you must've enjoyed it too at some point and I'd hate for you to throw it away.

As for your second point, I've failed to see that option! Sorry! I believe your complaints are valid and think you're doing the right thing by voicing them. For what its worth I'm truly sorry I'm undermining your efforts here as I would be very happy if things were to improve too. Maybe I'm not enough of a critical consumer and maybe Paizo just skates by because of that and others like me, and we collectively facilitate that behavior, but as long as the good outweighs the bad, I'm sorry, I'm really not going to change and don't think many others will either.

Good luck though! Besides really wanting to know what this Oberoni stuff is I'll stop posting in this thread, unless prompted to. I do want you to succeed and, well, so far I've been no help whatsoever. Besides, I think I've said all that I have to say on the subject anyway.

Though I believe you certainly have a point I also think you're overreacting. And maybe you're being a bit too paranoid about it too.

Of course Paizo wants our money, just like any other business, but I'm very hesitant to believe they'd try to get our money through deliberate immoral acts such as you make it out to be. Its just not a very good businessmodel for a luxury product, you see. Big pharma and such get away with it, of sorts, because their products are essential to their customers. Paizo gets our money because they exploit (not in a bad way necessarily!) our hunger for more content, not revised content. Hell, it doesn't even have to be very good for most of us on these boards to buy it anyway, funds permitting!

It doesn't apply in PFS but for homegames you can always rely on rule 0. Change the rule if you don't like it, or scrap it alltogether. I'd urge you to do that instead of quitting alltogether.

Finally, and I hate to have to state this, but, I don't think you'll find much common ground here. Sure, everyone wants things to be done better, with more of an eye towards quality and detail, better content etc. but I don't think you'll convince anyone to stop buying books based on your argument. You're much more likely to sway minds and find sympathizers on more general boards (rpg.net, for instance) or through product reviews on, say, amazon. We're likely too invested in our love for the product, you see. Otherwise I wouldn't know why we're all here!

First off, there really isn't anything inherently wrong or bad about optimizing your characters. It doesn't prohibit roleplaying at all, so if you enjoy doing that, just keep doing it!

Now to actually get to the advice portion you're looking for. Its obvious to me that we have different styles of play as I find your concepts rather zany for my tastes. Nothing wrong with that either! Just stating it up front because it might affect the usefulness of my advice.

I'd start off by asking your fellow players to cut you some slack and tone down the comments regarding your roleplaying because you're still trying to get the hang of it and such comments aren't really supportive of that goal. I'm all for a good ribbin' but not when it undermines a genuine effort to improve upon an area you're insecure about.

I like to think of my characters as actual people, albeit in a crazy world, with crazy events, doing crazy things. Don't focus too much on the collection of odd obsessions, behavioral quirks and extreme reactions but rather on the more mundane side of things. I find that gets rather stale pretty fast anyway, but hey, different strokes.
If it helps, try modelling your characters' personalities after people you know at first before trying to create a personality out of whole cloth.
Try formulating a couple of 'yes/no' or 'pick one' questions regarding your characters' reactions in certain common situations. Thinking about such things in advance can really help me to flesh out a character's personality.
I also find that the more you understand a character's motivations, beliefs and history the more likely it is you can stay in character and respond sincerely in a timely fashion.

There's probably a lot more I can say but I'm drawing a blank at the moment. I hope this was helpful so far. Regardless, don't put too much pressure on yourself to perform, be aware that its a learningprocess and allow yourself to be ok making the inevitable mistakes that come along the way.

P.S. Kudos for admitting a weakness and stepping up to improve upon it.

It only does what it says. What it says it does is eliminate physical aging penalties. Dying from max age is not a penalty, so it's not prevented by this.

That said, as written this should be a level 10 discovery. There are all day spells that provide the same effect.

It also says you discover a cure for aging, which to me means you don't age anymore at all. You could argue that is purely flavortext and, consequently, meaningless, I would usually do that too. But... Then I look at the name, and other abilities, like the Druid's and Monk's, which specify you will die whereas this one does not, and finally the level at which it is attainable and then I find it hard to actually stand by such an argument.

That said, if it is like you say, 10th level does seem far more appropriate.

Regardless, this is how my table plays it... Or, well, would, if we'd ever reach that point! We like it our way :)

I'm going to cheat a bit because... Well, apparently thats what I do! I play session 0 with each player individually, in media res, somewhere in the past or future of the campaign we're going to play, or a dream sequence or some such, also ending the session as suddenly as it started, so as to avoid tricky complications for the campaign. After that, level 1, but during that particular session they can be almost any level.

I just don't understand you, Alex Trebek's Stunt Double, and I think that is mutual. Thats acceptable. What I do have issue with is you asking for our opinions only to turn defensive and dismissive when we give you those opinions. You haven't shown much if any willingness to consider our insight, advice and suggestions at all, rather you chose to spend your energy and time defending your own ideas. If you really wanted our advice, you have now wasted it. If you were actually looking for our approval, you must see by now you're just not going to get it. You've wasted our time and yours.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, though I've likely failed, I'm actually still trying to help you, even though it doesn't concern Pathfinder anymore. I've told you all of this, with all the clarity I could muster, hoping you'll realize that you can re-examine your approach and achieve better results in the future.

Best of luck to you!

There's pretty much nothing you can do. Whats more, I don't think you should.

If you should choose to ignore that advice (which is fine, btw) either roll the dice yourself, but do so visibly, at least that way you can rest in the certainty that nothing weird is going on; Or ask him to create a character that doesn't have to do a lot of dicerolling so his so-called luck isn't as obvious.

Though I do not recall ever reading a direct ruling in any of the books I've always gone by 'whichever score is higher'. So far I've also never heard of anyone else ruling otherwise. It doesn't make sense to me otherwise.

The thing is the Advanced Race Guide's system sadly isn't very balanced because the creators apparently felt the need to hamfistedly force the Core races and their racial traits within a set valueboundary, causing many traits to be too cheap or expensive. That said, it makes for an excellent start from which to tweak one's creation to a more reasonable level.

As for your roo-folk, you're close, I think. While I think I'm a reasonably good judge of powerlevel I'm oddly bad at balancing things, so that part I'll leave to the others. I do have some suggestions though. First, the way you have them set up now is very one-dimensional, they're a monk/brawler race. All of their traits line up with it and they have none outside of it. I would urge you to give them something, doesn't have to be significant, that shows off a different side of the race. Perhaps something cultural rather than physical.

I also think you're making them too much like sentient kangaroos. I realize thats what you're going for but you can achieve that without giving them traits or abilities for everything realworld kangaroos are known for. You'd be surprised how much a name and a description will do to sell the point, so there's no need to overdo it. This will give you room to pursue additional avenues. Of course, you can still keep those traits around! I would just suggest they either are alternative traits or that these traits will have alternatives themselves.

I hope that was helpful even if I was vague, I have trouble thinking of specific alternatives. I also hope I didn't sound harsh. Creating something new is daunting and I don't want to discourage you. Finally, feel free to disagree with me. You're the one with the vision here, not me, and its important your creation stays true to it. Good luck :)

Arcane Addict wrote:

Of course, you can think of a scenario where such a situation is called for, if so desired, but it really needs to serve a purpose beyond an opportunity to screw over your players. If you've seen Disney's 'The Emperor's New Groove' you'll understand what I mean. It has quite a few 'identifying potions/poisons'-type scenes. Of course... In that movie it seems to always screw over somebody so... Your mileage may vary!

Something to bear in mind about that movie -- it's a comedy, and Yzma is a comedy villain, i.e., a bumbling idiot. There's no particular reason for her to keep all of her potions in identical vials, and even she labels the shelves they're on to keep them straight; the best you can say in her defense is that she didn't expect her entire potion stash to be mixed up by a Mongolian horde of Keystone Kops running through her private and secret lab.

If I'm going into combat and expecting to be grabbing potions out of a belt pouch, damn straight I'm going to have a clear, easy to spot, way to tell them apart.

I find that few PF players characterize (or want to characterize) their alter egos as "bumbling idiots," and there's no particular reason to force them to do so. Player characters are allowed to be competent, and in general, should be, because incompetent people die in dangerous situations unless they're protected by plot armor, but that same plot armor means that the players have even less influence on the game than they normally would.

Don't fret! I agree with you! I just needed an example of a story that couldn't have worked without such a mix-up and Emperor's New Groove was the first thing that came to mind. Admittedly not the best example for how to run a (standard) Pathfinder game, I hope it was clear from the context I didn't advocate that (Though I do love that movie... Could be a very fun one-off!).

Players should simply be able to directly use the pre-identified potions they have on their person without jumping through hoops. An overturned alchemyshop's merchandise is another matter entirely.

I suspect the concern isn't game-mechanical in nature. I think he just wants to know how adventurers deal with it when they carry so many different potions. So... Its a verisimiltude thing, according to my assumption that is.
It can be fun to think of these things, but I consider this too menial to actually influence the game. I wouldn't require a check or something, is what I'm saying. It wastes time and feels too punitive, if you ask me.
Of course, you can think of a scenario where such a situation is called for, if so desired, but it really needs to serve a purpose beyond an opportunity to screw over your players. If you've seen Disney's 'The Emperor's New Groove' you'll understand what I mean. It has quite a few 'identifying potions/poisons'-type scenes.Of course... In that movie it seems to always screw over somebody so... Your mileage may vary!

I would like to see something like this, too, but I can understand the financial concerns Paizo management has in relation to such a product. In the grand scheme of things I believe a single large volume dealing with these DM difficulties probably doesn't work. Cutting it up into smaller volumes divided by topic seems more profitable to me, both in the literal financial sense but also in terms of the depth they could get into on those specific topics if there's no particular need to cut things in order to conserve space devoted to another topic. Many of these topics also allow for new content for players.

Either that, or just adding a couple of 'GM pages' to the Player Companion line discussing integrating the new content. The Monster Summoner's Handbook, for example, was pretty cool, giving players advice, granting many classes an avenue to summon where they previously couldn't, or giving them tools to fight such creatures and those who made them be. In my opinion it would've been even better if it also gave the DM advice on the topic as well, such as how to handle the additional time they take up, how to deal with the increased action economy, if and when summoning creatures would increase or decrease the CR of an encounter, adding a trap or monster that could help combat what players could throw at them, etc.

As it stands now more and more I feel Pathfinder truly is a player's game. That isn't necessarily a bad thing but every toy a player gets is another problem a GM needs to learn how to deal with and we're not always given the solutions. We just get to play with the same toys...

I would certainly love something like this! Though I doubt a single hardcover would be enough to do the entire Inner Sea justice. Really, a new softcoverline of books seems more appropriate and functional to me. Especially, so that it can make suggestions for spaces where there's room for a starting PC kingdom. I mean, the Stolen Lands are made for this, really, but why cant I have my little kingdom in Osirion or Ustalav? (And, yes, I know I can, but I'd rather not have to twist, turn and do the hokey-pokey to justify it).
Other things such a line could include are new improvements for settlements, edicts, festivals appropriate to the region, leadership roles or even archetypes, feats and spells to interact with the kingdom building rules.

Paizo doesn't admit to differences in power between classes. It is, to quote "a myth propogated by people with agendas." There's no nicheprotection going on here. A niche for the URogue doesn't exist because there are better ways of doing absolutely everything that it does. In most cases with just one class. Swashbuckler doesn't really have much of a niche either, because none of the pure martial classes have a real niche beyond "guy who hits things with stuff." SWD isn't intruding on Kineticist's niche, because they have wildly different roles, unless the people looking at niches have a terminal failure of understanding of what exactly the niches of these two classes are, beyond being guys who cast off of constitution.

Ulgh, please, please stop thinking of 'better'! Nicheprotection has nothing (ok, well, something...) to do with results. Its about methods. Most of us know and agree the rogue's functions can be assumed by a plethora of other classes. 'Better' even. Not the point! Its all about how classes accomplish whatever it needs to get results. If Dex to damage is so easy to take and use by others one of the rogue and swashbuckler's shticks is no longer its shtick. Sometimes, this is complex, sometimes its simple. Making the Kineticist the only Con-class is a good example of the latter. I will say though... If I'm right (I'm not saying I am, just saying you aren't. Sorry.), IF, I don't agree with the change. It removes much of the flavor and uniqueness of the Scarred Witchdoctor. But that doesn't change what happened or why... Wouldn't it be nice if they gave us their reasoning for some of these changes, though?

Really, this all relies on Paizo desiging a game, and then actively trying to maintain a certain balance that they don't understand and have perviously stated does not exist. It's preposterous on the face of it.

So preposterous in fact I have a hard time believing your argument. Paizo's been around for a while, as has Pathfinder. This means they have experience. They frequent these boards meaning they know how we feel and think about things. They play the game themselves, some even admit they like to make powerful builds aka minmax, meaning they cannot deny the difference (Which doesn't stop anyne from actually doing so. I wouldn't admit that the wizard is so good as to invalidate most of the other options if I were trying to sell the game, after all!). Taken together I find your argument of ignorant incompetence to be utterly laughable. They know what they're doing. Its obvious to me that powerlevels or balance just aren't their toppriority when issueing their errata. I believe it must then be nicheprotection. Mainly because I cannot think of anything else it could be... I'm open to suggestions. Or better yet, the actual answers!

Arcane Addict wrote:

("OMGZ! CHA to saves feat which name I don't recall right now! TOO OPZ!!!")

Divine Protection... which is now one of the worst feats ever.

Thats the one! Thanks :) I did mention its insane downfall into uselesness later in my post.

Quote:

some to reestablish a lost niche (NuRogue and Swashbuckler dex to damage is an example that needed to 'be saved' as was the Kineticist vs. Scarred Witchdoctor)

As said above, old SWD and Kineticist have.. basically nothing in common other than the fact that they both use con and have some at-will magical abilities. They play in entire different ways and fill entire different roles in a party.

I'm not disputing they're entirely different classes with entirely different functions and abilities. I'm merely stating my belief that the change to Scarred Witchdoctor came to be because Paizo wanted to maintain the uniqueness of the Kineticist as the 'Con-class'. Really, fluffwise the change from Con to 'heightened' Int makes little to no sense to me (please prove me wrong!). Obviously, there's still some debate over whether its now more or less powerful, so that cannot really have been the concern either, right? What do you think the reason for the change was?

Quote:

(I'm not sure but I think the Arcanist is one such example, actually. It was always supposed to have that little extra bit of sorceror in there! otherwise, guess what... It was just as SAD as the wizard and almost comparable to the scarred witchdoctor, which you DO feel was a justified change...).

The issue with the SWD is that it got a lot of things out of Constitution, which was already an important stat because it governed HP and Fort. The potential problem there was that you had a 9th level spellcaster who got pretty damn tanky thanks to their stats. Int focused classes don't really have the same problem because Int doesn't fuel any of your ancillary combat abilities in that way.

I'll give you that Con is more useful in combat than int, but a D6 class with 20 Con still isn't all that tanky, if you ask me. I like to think casters don't care about their opponents hp, like most of us do, but I also feel like the reverse is true. Regardless whether my ancillary belief holds any water or not I'm left asking why it is ok for the Kineticist to have the benefit you describe when the witch doesn't. There's a definite difference in utility and power between the two, sure, but do you really believe that difference by itself justified the errata?

Quote:

I believe the Arcanist is still great, still top tier even, soooo.... Yeah, I personally think you're exaggerating the issue. Sorry...

Of course it's still top tier. It's a ninth level spellcaster. Ninth level spellcasters with basically no class features at all (hello wizard) are top tier. Doesn't necessarily mean the changes were good or necessary, especially when all the classes that are better than the arcanist continue to go years without being touched. Which just feels kind of silly.

Actually, I agree on all counts here :p Of course, I do want to add the caveat that just because wizards and co somehow evade the nerfbat time and time again (an obfuscated classfeature I'm guessing) that those that do get nerfed shouldn't. Especially if said nerf really isn't that big of a deal :/ Its still silly though!

Edited in a response I missed while typing!

Lemmy wrote:

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

But that's not even remotely what happened. The Scarred Witch Doctor is now a better Witch than it was.

That's subjective... I prefered to have an unique option instead of an overpowered one. And what other reason would they for the SWD nerf? It's not like it was breaking anything.

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

The Kineticist does not look any better compared to the SWD because they share different design space. One is a buff/debuff controller with 9 levels of arcane spells, the other is a limited semi-casting psychic with primarily damage focused options supplemented by an array of utility powers.

Tell that to Paizo.

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

Where do people get these ridiculous ideas from? I mean, seriously, the kineticist isn't awful, but it's certainly not competing with the Witch in terms of class tier.

All you need to do is check Paizo's errata history.

- Cavalier is released -> Animal Companions of every other class are nerfed.
- People say SB's Parry is just a weaker version of CW -> CW gets nerfed into oblivion.
- Arcanist is released and has the ability to switch prepared spells for the day -> Paizo finally decides to fix the Paragon Surge loophole, which went untouched for years, even though it's pointed out multiple times.
- UnRogue is released -> The already pointlessly restrictive Dex-to-damage feat is nerfed and becomes even more pointlessly restrictive.
- Kineticist is released and marketed as "the only Con-based class with at will abilities" -> SWD is loses its Con-based casting.

And these are the only that come to mind at the moment... There are more.

But, hey... It's your right to think it's all a big coincidence and Paizo would never nerf some old option just to make their new product more appealing. It's also my right to think that's naive and that you're giving Paizo more credit than they deserve.

The problem is that none of these changes actually make the new option look better.

Druids are...

I think you're missing the point here. I don't think (most of) these nerfs are made because of concerns for power on either end. Most of them are, at least in my mind, nicheprotection. Thats it. Paizo is well aware of the differences in power in classes. I find it hard to believe otherwise. Its working for them. What doesn't work for them is invalidating niches. Well... To some extent anyway XD

To actually answer your questions, MathNerd, yes, many classes were weakened by errata. Some out of necessity ("OMGZ! CHA to saves feat which name I don't recall right now! TOO OPZ!!!"), some to reestablish a lost niche (NuRogue and Swashbuckler dex to damage is an example that needed to 'be saved' as was the Kineticist vs. Scarred Witchdoctor), some were honest mistakes that needed correction (I'm not sure but I think the Arcanist is one such example, actually. It was always supposed to have that little extra bit of sorceror in there! otherwise, guess what... It was just as SAD as the wizard and almost comparable to the scarred witchdoctor, which you DO feel was a justified change...).

Sometimes that errata does go too far, like that feat, which went from op to nigh worthless. Most of the time though its really fair. Like the Arcanist (coincidentally my favorite class, btw!).I believe the Arcanist is still great, still top tier even, soooo.... Yeah, I personally think you're exaggerating the issue. Sorry...

You can still teleport very often, if you want, just not without a little more investment. Personally, I think 14 base Charisma is enough to fuel Consume Spells and or Items + basic points + Dimensional Slide + School Understanding (Conjuration - Teleportation subschool) + you know, spells... And frankly... Why the hell do you need to 'jump' THAT much anyway!?

Apparently you love jumping around the battlefield so... There's a Magus Archetype thats very suitable (sorry, my memory isn't great and... Well, I'm too lazy to bust out the googlefu...).

I'll give you though that errata does sometimes annoy me, if only because of all the stickynotes in my books. Not so much for what they mean for my characters. I like to think a reasonable DM either plays out the campaign with pre-errata rules to preserve the character or makes an allowance to rebuild your character to accomodate the changes.
I really should get more PDF's instead of books though, that really would save me a lot of sticky notes. And shelfspace!

I'm not too familiar with NuMonk so I'll just not elaborate on that.

I'm not aware of a prd backlog or somesuch but... Well... If you have pre-errata books you shouldn't need that, now should you?

Though the sarcasm amuses me I don't think its fair to reduce this thread to one of ridiculing this particular misconception. I'm vocal about my dislike for repetitive threadtopics where we argue in circles and never get anywhere, so you'd think I'd be on the bandwagon to belittle this thread, too. The difference is that I think this particular misconception is common, and harmful, enough that it would be nice if we could do something to mitigate it as much as possible. First on the list is to sincerely engage in discussions on the topic so as to dispel it.

I think the backstory is extremely important, and I think many others here would agree. Backstory informs mechanics and vice versa but neither dictates the other, and where you start matters little as long as you have both in the end. Not all mechanics require explanation (or make for good drama) the same way the entire backstory doesn't need to be completely reflected in the mechanics.

What you observe here on the boards is simply the fact that the mechanics form the game's language, so to speak. Sure, we can, and do, argue about the minuteae and don't always agree or even see eye to eye, but they're the closest thing we have to an objective framework to discuss. Flavor is highly subjective, making it much, much harder to discuss it. Just because you don't see it or hear it from us doesn't mean we don't care. Its just something we're more likely to express within our own personal gaming circles.

Arcane Addict wrote:

all class skills are derived from classes for sylphs, and other similar races, though I don't actually know why...

They are (primarily) intended as player races. If they would have racial HD, they would be a) stronger than normal races and b) more difficult to customize (not many choices at racial HD). There are approaches to allow races with racial HD as player choices, but they are a bit messy: Other characters can start higher to compensate, but on the long run they profit more from class levels than the racial HD player. It's somewhat like enforced multiclassing...

If you want to add outsider HD to sylphs, Bestiary 1 covers that - see 'Adding racial hit dice' at page 295 and 'Creature Statistics by Type' at page 293. With Unchained the process becomes more guided, but somewhat inaccurate.

Thanks for clarifying that! I must've skipped over that rule because I sincerely don't remember that these features were connected to racial HD.

Seriously?! Both of these are terrible comparisons! In the first case you're comparing a base class with a prestige class, completely ignoring all other features either of them have. What's worse, you're ignoring the fact that the Arcane Archer character must have levels in a class that most likely will not offer full BAB itself. The flavor actually makes sense for the character as a whole, not just the AA part of it.
In the second case you're (I realize you're two different individuals) comparing a divine full caster to an 'arcane' skillmonkey, again ignoring all other features either class have to offer to balance it out.
Are they balanced though? No, they're really not...

In the end, what I think the two of you really want is a full BAB Warpriest and a 9th lvl casting Investigator... I say this because you've both chosen very specific classes, which are still considered good and balanced, to complain about, on a forum where the userbase acknowledges that not all classes were created equal and argue about it every second thread or so. Its really hard to miss. Some see the imbalance as a feature but most consider it a bug. Go ahead and discuss it with your DMs if you feel it isn't fair class X gets Y but Z does not (likely still ignoring all other features either class have to offer) and try to change things for the better, because even if we were all on your side on these matters it wouldn't change anything.

P.S. I'm unusually snarky, yet still mild, in this post because you've chosen a clickbait title for this thread. You gave no information what this thread was about 'forcing' people to open it. Next time, actually include what you want to discuss in the title. It saves you from snark and me from wasting time if it turns out I don't give a crap.

Way I see it you have a couple of options.

1. Tell them no.
2. Tell them no, unless they do learn the rules.
3. Tell them that they can get what you offer (the standard inn described) in a suitable location.
4. Do all the work for them.
5. Make stuff up.

Seriously, as a DM of course you have to be accommodating to your players' wishes to some extent but what you're describing here are the children who want to eat their desert without eating their veggies first... You don't have to put up with that. You should reward effort, not laziness.

JUST SENT IN EDITS WOOOOOOOOOOOO

Explain to us what you're talking about so we might be infected with your level of enthusiasm!

The kapenia dancer archetype allows magi to wield bladed scarves as one-handed weapons, which may indeed open them up to Slashing Grace. Unfortunately, it's only available to that specific archetype, and only through class levels.

Thats the one! Thanks :) To clarify, I mentioned it only to showcase there's a precedent for something, an archetype in this case, to alter the function of a weapon in turn allowing a greater range of options, like the Slashing Grace feat, to apply. If there is something like that then maybe that could solve the problem in a RAW manner. If not, well, back to shmoozing the DM into letting it slide it is!

Hm... Okay, sorry if i was any kind of insulting, i didn't want to. I just realy do not understand why swashbuckler's finesse do not have crb as base. I'm not very good at english and i find it hard to explain what i think. Sorry for that

Its alright, really. It happens to the best of us on occasion, regarding matters far sillier, with worse reasons given. Sometimes those people are even English professors ;)

Really, I don't know why the designers and developers made it the way it is. There are a few theories though. The biggest is the notion that Dexterity is so good an attribute already that you need to jump through all kinds of hoops to get it to do even more for you. If you want to argue about that there are plenty of threads around. Fair warning, they're pretty tedious, if you ask me.
If you meant you don't understand our explanations then, well... I don't know what to tell you, I'm afraid :/ I don't know how to make it any clearer. Sorry...

Isn't there a feat or a trait or something that allows you to change the damage-type of a weapon? I ask because I do recall one of the Magus Archetypes using a bladed scarf changing its damage-type (or adding to it) which allowed it to fulfill requirements that the regular bladed scarf could not. Here's hoping for you, Mr Oger! Good luck!

Mr. Oger, it is absolutely unfortunate for you but RAW it just doesn't work the way you want it to for the cited reasons. This won't change by repetitively arguing the opposite with us. Your GM might agree that its reasonable for Champion's Finesse to function as you want it to. He could fix it for you. If he doesn't want to it just sucks to be you. Make do with the alternatives presented to you or don't make do at all.

What was printed first is irrelevant. If they wanted to change it they could have done so. They didn't. I realize that argument is flawed but there's a kernel of truth to it. They do change all kinds of stuff on a somewhat regular basis for a variety of reasons. The ACG, containing both the Swashbuckler and the Daring Champion archetype, was errata'ed only recently. That opportunity to change this particularly was ignored for whatever reason. Aldori Dueling Sword is from the ISG, right? It might be worth checking out if and when that book received errata. If so, check what kind of things was changed. It might present you with an idea of why it is the way it is. You may be able to argue it as an oversight... (See how bad my initial point in this paragraph is :p)

Somewhat related, seriously, of course you can argue your case here but if you must do so, do so with grace. You kind of come across as a five-year old with a temper tantrum that just won't accept no for an answer. Don't be that guy.
Aaand now I'm 'that other guy' :/ Great...

Does this mean that Clerics (Capital C because I mean the class) are never fed to Groetus? Well... Except maybe Clerics of Groetus, that is.

This is a very interesting discussion, filing my head with tons of questions and possibilities. I'm tempted to ask but fear that answers to those questions will straitjacket my imagination. I guess I kinda like the slow trickle of information, with lots of wiggle room for speculation. I'm glad Paizo uses this approach.

Officially no, but consider that VMC is already an optional ruleset. Doesn't that indicate a willingness to experiment and shake things up a bit? What you're trying to achieve might be reasonable. You're DM might agree, too, but you'll never know if you don't discuss it with him.

Fantastic news! I'm so glad it worked out for you. It must be a tremendous relief.

And that place! It sounds amazing to me. I'm actually jealous!

I imagine they aren't created to be sold. As mentioned a high-level wizard has far more lucrative options. Even so, I don't think money is all that interesting to a person with such vast personal power.
I imagine most of them are created with a very specific purpose in mind. I could imagine a wizard giving a Tome of Leadership to a newborn prince in the hopes it'll make him a better king some day. Stuff like that. Of course, sometimes such items do not get to fulfill their intended purpose for whatever reason.

Really, tomes and manuals are far less odd to me than most scrolls. Ye Olde Magic Shop is a legalized armsdealer selling weapons of mass destruction willynilly to whomever has the cash for it without regard for how it would be used. Other spells can only be used for clandestine reasons, such as invisibility or knock. Why is that legal? Worst of all, who would sell a wish or miracle to someone without knowing what its user desires to accomplish with it?

So the question isn't why would anyone craft and sell these things, its why can they...

So I've started reading Order of the Stick and am currently on comic 52 in the arc about the weird doppelganger party

And I'm like, to myself, "Durkon there is no need to be concerned because someone is a servant of Loki. You as a worshipper of Thor should know this, the fact that the two were blood brothers and helped each other out is in the damn edda."

Alas this comment would make more sense on my blog, but I'm avoiding that for the time being so I guess I'm fulfilling my ingrained habit to journalize my thoughts in a public space here. Sorry about that.

You do realize that OotS is a lighthearted serial comic that isn't all that serious and takes an awful lot of liberty with the few realworld mythological characters it decides to incorporate. I mean, come on... Thor is a total buffoon in those strips. To my recollection he's not been seen doing anything effectively in his capacity as deity.

That said... If christianity can change how we collectively perceive these deities as something other than their originals, why couldn't the media? Finally, does it really matter if the original doesn't cease to exist (and if it does, well, it becomes extremely difficult to tell ;))?

Yeah, I do.

I've deliberately avoided that thread. Past experiences have taught me that there are certain topics that just don't make for an enjoyable discussion, to me anyway. Its not the topic's fault, obviously, and I sure hope it isn't mine. I think that sensitive topics require a certain amount of focus, which is diluted the more people you add to the discussion (look to your government for examples outside of digital fora). In addition the larger the group the larger the desire to 'be loud' (exaggeration, provocation, controversy, condescension, insults etc.) in order to get ones voice heard (and have it be acknowledged by a direct response, which is what people really want/need in order to feel like they're heard.) further taking away from the enjoyability of the discussion. All in all its a massive drain on one's mental energy (possibly physical too, if you're anything like me).
And there's a lot of ignorance, too. Which I find hard to deal with. Sometimes I feel like educating, at other times I feel like shaming, there are times when it makes me feel cynical and hopeless and there's times where I feel it is just charmingly naive. I just don't know how to deal with that ambiguity so I prefer not to deal with it at all.

I would enjoy such a discussion in a smaller, more intimate setting, mostly devoid of the negative 'qualities' large scale and anonimity promote. Where I feel safe to ask for clarification and can disagree without fear of my head being bitten off immediately after opening my mouth. I need to feel like its possible for any party involved, including myself, to change their mind without appearing weak. I also need to feel safe that neither party has to change their mind at all, recognizing personal values and/or rationale, without being accused of stubbornly holding on to opinions without reason.

Shadow Knight 12, I don't know the exact title of the thread, but its somewhere in the veins of 'how do you handle homosexuality and transgenderism in your games'. It should be a little higher up (unless you read this immediately after me posting of course ;)) in this subforum.

I also get really tired of hot-topic Pathfinder threads. You know the ones. Martial-Caster Disparity, X sucks, X is OP etc. They're nothing but continuous restatements of the same things that were said years ago. It also seems like most people in those threads want to be heard but refuse to listen. Those threads make me sigh...

*siiiiiiiiigh*

Thankfully, there's a positive topic in this thread, too! One of my colleagues at the club where I volunteer backstage is a trans-girl (I may be saying it wrong. I'm not really familiar with the lingo) whom I knew before she realized, when she still thought she was a gay guy. A while ago (like a year or so) she finally received her updated papers. She was so happy with them it was the only thing she spoke about for weeks. Showing her ID to random guests as she drafted beers. It made me smile, hell, it made me laugh, with a joy I rarely feel. I think her happiness over getting that little piece of laminated cardboard was so pure it was infectious to those around her. She still pulls that card out almost every time she works to show it to some new volunteer (if you've worked with volunteers you're probably familiar with the revolving door of people...).
I once asked her if she kept the old card. I have since learned that was a dumb question. She gave me the coldest stare...

So congratulations Lissa Guillet and The black raven's friend! I sincerely hope it brings you at least as much joy as it brought my colleague.

Arcane Addict wrote:

I must be missing something because I don't see a quote button. Really, these forums are a little different from those I'm used to, I'm still trying to figure stuff out.

The "reply" button is at the upper-right of any post. ^_^

Well would you look at that! 'Reply' isn't really an intuitive choice of words for such a function, if you ask me. In hindsight it makes perfect sense though. Thanks for the help, Kalindlara!

Judging from the way this thread goes, we're not only queer, we're ADD. WOOO, WE'LL TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Thats actually one of the reasons I like this thread so much. It proves we're not one-dimensional individuals completely obsessed with our sexuality. You know, people.

Edit: Thanks lynora! That button is near invisible to me!

Hey! Thanks :D

Its a huge relief, really. I can get pretty anxious over even the most trivial things sometimes. Its really nice when the doomscenarios playing out in my head are dispelled. Especially so quickly! I really appreciate it :)

I've tried. Really. I did. In the end, this thread is just too long. Intimidatingly so, even. I tried to read it all. The whole thing. There is just too much of it to fit inside. Its just too hard. Maybe I should have read it in stages, take it all in more slowly. Maybe. I just wanted it so much, you know?! So, I had to stop it in the end. I'm not giving up on it. Not just yet. I like this thread too much to do that. I'm going to reverse positions. Post some myself first. I'll read after that. I'm sure it'll be great.

Contrived and forced innuendo aside, the above is (almost) completely true when taken literally. I'm sorry if this comes off as flippant but I just don't have the energy to engage in the current topics discussed right now, especially considering how involved it already is. I just don't want it to keep me away completely. I do want to become involved in future conversations from this point forward. I hope you're all cool with that.

Now that that is out of the way I guess I should introduce myself. I'm ArcaneAddict (I cannot get enough of arcane casters. I pretty much play them exclusively), I'm 29 and live in the Netherlands as an unemployed librarian (my choice of career is dubious in hindsight), caregiver to my deaf and mentally challenged parents and hopefully going back to school in 2016 studying history (potentially dubious choice again. I cannot help it, I'm a romantic!).

I'm gay. Sort of. To be honest I find it frustrating and tedious to explain the exact details of my sexuality to people (even if it really isn't that complicated. To me anyway.) so I opt for the convenient, easy to understand and closest to true label instead. I think thats ok mostly because I really don't want my sexual identity to be confused too much with my actual, total picture identity. Not that it really works too well, I'm still the only gay guy in my circle of friends. We like ribbing eachother and more often than not the jokes that come my way are about me being gay. I don't mind the jokes themselves, hell, I actually think they're funny, I just think it gets tiresome that they keep drawing from the same well so much. Its uninspired. I tell them all the time. It doesn't help. We all like ourselves too much to adapt for one another and have to much respect for each other's individuality to demand changes. Really, we're one of those incestuous, tightknit groups of iconoclastic friends that are somehow too disconnected from the world to allow it to affect us, often forgetting that fact and so our collective dysfunctionality causes hilariously chaotic situations. You know those groups, they show up in tv-shows all the freaking time.

I'm rambling. Moving on! I've been out since 18 or 19, maybe 20, I don't exactly recall, shortly after finally realizing it and coming to terms with it. I sort of suspected it earlier, around 15 or so, but somehow it took me forever to actually get it.

The worst reaction I've had coming out was my dad's. "I don't like it, but you make your own decisions." Since then the topic has been sort of a taboo in our house, but I'm ok with that. My family has a lot of those. Its nice to be included in that rich tradition. Every other reaction I've come across has been positive, though, at times, I could tell it was a little bit of a shock and people needed time to process it. I'm ok with that, too. I've also had "Well duh, you moron!", "Hey! Dave! Pay up, he's gay!" and "I told you that three years ago!". My favorite is "Really?! I couldn't tell." without a hint of sarcasm (or maybe I'm just too oblivious to have noticed). Or maybe my mom blankly staring at the tv.

Somehow sexuality has never been a factor in our games. We're too busy saving the multiverse for that. Oddly enough most other aspects of our characters' identities is welldeveloped and often plays a role in our games. Sexuality is seemingly left out by accident, not by conscious choice. I wonder why that is as we otherwise have no trouble discussing it. Its curious, really.

I suffer from a curse. I'm almost always attracted to straight guys. Obviously that never works out to my advantage. They always find out after we both get terribly drunk and I kiss the guy, to our mutual surprise. Luckily, so far, thats always been ok. I'm still good friends with all four of my victims. Continued exposure to the object of my unrequited affection makes for a very long, very frustrating time to get over the crush. I've been pining over the same guy for slightly over two years now, ever since I've met him, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. At the same time I'm ok with it. And, hey, I did get at least one kiss out of it!