Wizard

Azzy's page

Organized Play Member. 934 posts (946 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 934 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Kittyburger wrote:
Azzy wrote:
Xyxox wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Well, sure, I don't think anyone thinks that D&DI think 6E will crash hard given this BS. Maybe by the time they do 7E they'll decide to use the only real Open Roleplaying Game Creative License still operating (ORC). <eg>
No offense but I think that that's naively optimistic. While I agree with the sentiment, I strongly doubt there will be enough people walking away from 5.1 to make it crash and burn. We might make a noticeable dent at best.
Also, with D&D becoming as important to Hasbro's bottom line as it has become, there's almost no chance that any subsequent version of D&D will have a truly open and irrevocable commercial license for 3PPs.

I'mma pop a bubble or two here:

The target market for D&D is preteen boys.

Repeat:

The target market for D&D is preteen boys.

Why do you think D&D is placed for sale at Target? You, adult with a job, are a periphery demographic for Wizards of the Coast, even though you're the primary demographic for most other RPG publishers.

Preteen boys, frankly, not only don't care about the creative license issues, they don't see them. At all. You and I are not the main people D&D is being marketed to. Those people are people like my sister: They're non-gaming parents of bright, nerdy kids who have at most a nerdy sibling who never stopped playing RPGs.

I think you've reinforced my post.

Liberty's Edge

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Yeah, I think we (me and Xyxox, your quote got messed up) were just replying to thejeff! My impression was that thejeff was saying, "WotC isn't finished here. Last time an edition collapsed, they just came back with 5e and got all the goodwill back. History could easily repeat itself."

And I was thinking, sure, but 5e got goodwill back because it returned to the OGL. So if history actually did repeat itself, that'd be swell.

I do think it's unlikely that 6e will crash and burn, but who knows?

Ah, my bad for misunderstanding.

Liberty's Edge

Xyxox wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Well, sure, I don't think anyone thinks that D&DI think 6E will crash hard given this BS. Maybe by the time they do 7E they'll decide to use the only real Open Roleplaying Game Creative License still operating (ORC). <eg>

No offense but I think that that's naively optimistic. While I agree with the sentiment, I strongly doubt there will be enough people walking away from 5.1 to make it crash and burn. We might make a noticeable dent at best.

Also, with D&D becoming as important to Hasbro's bottom line as it has become, there's almost no chance that any subsequent version of D&D will have a truly open and irrevocable commercial license for 3PPs.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dancing Wind wrote:

Only if you agree to it Only if you want to keep earning income.

Essentially anyone who has IP rights they don't want to donate to Hasbro will have to stop creating new material and can't sell any old material starting 48 hours from now.

No. That's what WotC want you to believe. That is far from likely to be upheld in court.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a lengthy thread over on ENWorld where several lawyers have opined on the matter of the nOGL 1.1

https://www.enworld.org/threads/hello-i-am-lawyer-with-a-psa-almost-everyon e-is-wrong-about-the-ogl-and-srd-clearing-up-confusion.694192/

It's worth a read to get a better understanding of the possibilities.

Edit: Heh, I see someone else has brought that thread up.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What 5e support from Paizo? Sweet! I hope this becomes a trend.

Liberty's Edge

Marc Radle wrote:
I was lucky enough to play in Jason's final Pathfinder 2.0 demo at GaryCon this Saturday.

Thank you for your thoughts!

Liberty's Edge

Arssanguinus wrote:
Right. If you can’t figure out how you were dropping politics in that post ...

There was no partisanship, and it was factual. The only bias going on was my preference for the metric system over the crappy Imperial system. The only politics in my statement are the ones that you are imagining. I would rage on any other person, administration, or organization that would keep my country from converting to the clearly superior metric system regardless of their political (or other) affiliation.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the OP's suggesting og having both would be the best for most people.

Personally, I've grumbled since early 3.0 that they should have went with 1 square = 1m/yd. (like the Fuzion RPGs did). Yes, I know that there's a bit of a difference between the two, but they're close enough for game purposes and the difference would be irrelevant as one would use either the metric or the Imperial system. Heck, there's even a slight basis for it in D&D—AD&D used yards for outdoor measurements.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
... politics ... please stop.

There was nothing political about that.

Liberty's Edge

Lucas Yew wrote:
Speaking of which, why did the U.S. fail to introduce metric properly? I've heard rumors about bin Laden's attack on New York invoking fervent patriotism nationwide having to do with its last straw, but surely that alone can't be the whole story...

Well, there were plans for the US to go slowly go metric, but Reagan in his infinite wisdom (note: sarcasm) killed it. There were (and still are) a lot of really lame excuses not to go metric. Each of them lamer than the next.

Liberty's Edge

Thanks guys, It's great seeing some of the old faces, too.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, it's been a while since I was on these boards. I kinda dropped off the face of the Earth sometime during the playtest of PF 1e (and came back into gaming with the playtest of D&D 5e). I just heard the news about PF getting a new edition, so I decided to pop back on.

Despite the fact that I'm happy with D&D 5e, I just wanted to come back and wish Paizo success with the new edition. Paizo's always been a great company with great people, and has always made great quality products, so I'm wishing you the very best.

I hope that 2e is not only a financial success, but is also a hit with existing fans and brings in new blood, too.

Best wishes!

Liberty's Edge

I and every 3.x gaming group I've ever played in or DMed for has used them. Statistically, the confirmation rules favor the PCs over NPCs. The DM generally has a greater chance of inflicting critical hits against the PCs (as he/she makes more attack rolls than the players), so without the confirmation rules critical hist become more frequent and PC mortality (and the chance of TPKs) increases dramatically... and that can really put a damper on storytelling and role-playing.

Liberty's Edge

Why? Because I have a hefty library of 3.x books and really don't feel the need change over to another edition/game. I like 3.5, I have my own house rules and game material, and while there are some issues with the system, I haven't run into anything that I couldn't deal with.

While I love Paizo, but between having been (rather negatively) impacted by the recession (causing me to have less than a quarter of the disposable income I used to), having an existing ass-ton of 3.5 material, and feeling no particular aversion to 3.5... There's just nothing to push me to adopt the PF RPG (or any other edition/game).

Now there some good ideas in PF, but it makes more sense to me to crib those ideas and convert them to 3.5 than to switch over to PF and then convert my house rules and game additions to PF... I'm happy where I am and having a blast running a Greyhawk campaign with 3.5.

Liberty's Edge

Hydro wrote:
Punk has as much to do with Rock & Roll as Rolemaster has to do with D&D.

Someone is obviously unfamiliar with punk. Punk is a natural outgrowth of rock and roll that started as a rejection of the megalithic AOR-style compositions that were popular at the time and to go back to the basic roots of rock and roll (cf., the Ramones). Punk as seen the inclusion of different musical stylings over the years (from reggae, ska, country, etc.), and while some of what is now consider "punk" doesn't sound much like punk (hardcore, emo, screamo, etc.) good old fashion rock-roots punk is still alive and well (just usually called "pop-punk" these days).

Liberty's Edge

Thurgon wrote:
Azzy wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Loopy wrote:
The Demihuman Level Restriction rule was WRITTEN to be broken.

The original authors would indicate otherwise - but it's you "version" of D&D at the end of the day that counts.

So this would appear to be a paradigm shift...

It's a paradigm shift that happened at the hands of the DMs and players. In nixing the level restrictions, 3E only reflected the game as played by many, many groups.
Our group eased them some, but never removed them and didn't ease them a ton. Basically we eased them alot for single class characters with classes listed for them in the 1ed PHB, eased them very little for you if you multiclassed.

I don't mean to speak for every group. Accecdotally, however, every group I've played in has ignored the level restrictions (and weapon speed, and AC modifiers from weapons, etc).

Liberty's Edge

Spacelard wrote:

Someone posted on another thread which struck a cord.

I can remember playing a character for months and still be only second or third level. It would take us years to play a character to seventh level. Now it seems that you can play your PC for a night and *woosh* you have second level. In a few months your playing ninth levels.
This to me is one of the biggest shifts from old school to Pathfinder.

Um, again this was a change from 2E to 3E, so it really can't be attributed to Pathfinder. If anything, PF added in alternate XP charts that allow for slower progression.

Spacelard wrote:
The other shift I note is in PC stats. You only started getting bonuses on stuff with a stat 14 or over, memory chip maybe wrong though. Take DEX for example 18 you got a +4 bonus to AC to 15 DEX to get a +1 bonus. Now any stat over 12 gives you a bonus with only 10-11 being a "dead" stat.

That's only true of AD&D, in D&D bonuses started at 13 and were more evenly spaced. Personally, I feel the current method is better game design as it makes the differences in ability scores more meaningful.

Spacelard wrote:
And the ability to increase stats is so easy. Old school Fighter with 17 STR, 16 CON and 9th level was something to fear. +1 to hit and +1 damage with his longsword. He would be laughed at now! It all stikes me as a bit powergamerish. I don't mean to insult anyone by that but everything else has had to be ramped up to compensate.

Compare with the Cavalier...

At least all classes are on an even footing with stat increases instead of it being limited to just the cavalier group.

Liberty's Edge

Stefan Hill wrote:
Loopy wrote:
The Demihuman Level Restriction rule was WRITTEN to be broken.

The original authors would indicate otherwise - but it's you "version" of D&D at the end of the day that counts.

So this would appear to be a paradigm shift...

It's a paradigm shift that happened at the hands of the DMs and players. In nixing the level restrictions, 3E only reflected the game as played by many, many groups.

Liberty's Edge

Hydro wrote:
Azzy wrote:
Heh, what's a PHB without errors? My 2E PHB doesn't have the broadsword in the weapons table.
That's funny, my 3E PHB had the same issue.

You should be a comedian.

Liberty's Edge

Heh, what's a PHB without errors? My 2E PHB doesn't have the broadsword in the weapons table.

A one game session, we were discussing weapons that 2E had left out and I pointed out the broadsword. One of my friends said I was wrong, that it's there in the PHB, and I was quite sure it wasn't. So we both pulledout our PHBs to prove the other wrong... Apparently the broasword made it back into the PHB after the first printing.

Which is why I now hate buying first printings (not that I have a choice with PF). :D

Liberty's Edge

Thurgon wrote:
Let me just end your "logic" with one dose of fact. Not all 1st ed clerics could heal. Any Norse god(Baldur might be an exception) according the the first dieties and demigods could not grant any healing spell, they instead even though a god might be good granted cause wounds spells. Healing in the Norse culture was extremely difficult to do, Odin took a week to recover from doing it in one example. So before 2nd ed and it's introduction of speciality priests not all clerics could cast healing spells. Next time stick with what you know, not what you think to be true.

I'm sorry, but I find it disingenuous that you take this track after you were so vehement about refusing to consider 2E's specialty priests in the discussion about clerics losing heavy armor.

What you're talking about with the Norse gods in D&DG is (aside from being rule based on an absurd notion on the part of the D&DG's author) a pantheon-specific rule that changed the base rules of the class from how it appeared in the PHB. So, if you want similar pantheon-specific rules for the PFRPG, it be more appropriate to look for such in a supplement that detailed the pantheon rather than the core rules.

Liberty's Edge

Disenchanter wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
Cleric or Druid zilla
Thanks! That was nagging the heck out of me. Plus I only had one out the three words right. I was going with Cleric of Death/Destruction and things like that. They need a forum footnotes page or something here. :)
You were pretty close. I believe it actually started as Cleric of Doom zilla, and Druids were added later.

No, I remember the post it originated from on the WotC forums. It was always Cleric or Druid.

Liberty's Edge

In a vain attempt to actually answer the OP's question rather than get sidetracked over the term "white mage" or whether clerics should/shouldn't have heavy armor proficiency or what ever else...

Frogboy wrote:
I'm curious, if you were forced to make and play a Cleric right now, what kind would he or she be? Would you make a Battle Priest, a White Mage or perhaps the new Dark Priest that many seem to overlook?

That really depends on what I chose as the cleric's patron deity... and that would really depend on the campaign I was in.

Sorry, no simple answer. In consolation, the last three clerics I played were a "wompy-priest", a semi-"wompy-priest" and a "heal-bot".

Frogboy wrote:

If you are going with the White Mage, is it just because it's something shiny and new and you want to give it a try or do you feel that it fits better than the traditional medieval warrior concept?

If you are going with one of the other two, feel free to say why that option looks more interesting if you'd like.

My decision would be based more around character concept, the character's religion and the campaign.

Frogboy wrote:
Or feel free to flame me for creating yet another Cleric related thread if you'd like.

*sets fire to frogboy, and puts an apple in his mouth*

Liberty's Edge

houstonderek wrote:

Another shift I've noticed is the attitude towards house ruling. We took it as a normal and expected part of the game way back when, and Gygax pretty much encouraged it a zillion times in the old DMG (don't reference the Dragon articles, people took those way too broadly when he was talking about a specific circumstance...).

Now, I see less of a "roll with the punches, change it at the table" attitude in gamers, and more of a "it had better be perfect out of the box" attitude. Well, I see a split, anyway. It seems a lot (but not all) "old schoolers" (OD&D/AD&D 1e weaned) approach a rules issue with "eh, don't like it, change it", and "middle to new schoolers" (but not all, and generally mid 2e to present weaned players) feel like RAW should reflect what they need in a rules set without tinkering.

Personally, I fall into the former camp, and don't see the problems a lot of people have with some of the changes. But that's neither here nor there, frankly. I just see that a lot of the "D.I.Y." sensibilities have been lost to gaming these days.

As to spells, magic has been made less wondrous in my opinion, so I have to agree with the posters above who have noted the shift.

Y'know, stepping back and looking at it I'm inclined to agree with you. Like you, I fall into the former camp--the games that I started out on--1E AD&D/BXCMI D&D, Call of Cthulhu, and Paladium (blech!!)--all pretty much required a GM to make house rules because they failed to cover something or the existing rules were terminally obtuse.

Liberty's Edge

I played a Drizzt clone once....

Except he wasn't all brooding and emo. Or particularly Good. And didn't use scimitars. No figurine that turned into an animal nor any animal companion. And only vaguely a drow, too ('twas the DM's homebrew setting equivalent with the same stats, but different culture).

Okay, he was a ranger and he dual-wielded (which was bog-standard for 2E rangers).

But he was a drow-ish ranger that dual-wielded! Drizzt clone, right? Right?

Liberty's Edge

houstonderek wrote:
I thought UA (1E) was a load of crap, btw. Except for some of the spells. And the stuff from modules.

I liked the Thief-Acrobat, the granddaddy of prestige classes. One of my favorite characters was one... Eventually I'll have to stat her up in Pathfinder.

I also liked the cantrips.

Liberty's Edge

Snorter wrote:
Azzy wrote:
All the groups that I played with ended up going 1.5 ed.—using a mixture of both rule sets.
I never bothered buying a 2E DMG; copied a couple of pages on overland travel and light sources, and used everything else from the 1E DMG, which was absolutely packed with info you never knew you never knew. The agenda for 2E seemed to be to eke out the info from 1E DMG over as many of the 'blue books' as possible.

Yeah, the 2E DMG was a complete joke, especially when compared to the 1E DMG. As for the "blue books", that seem like the general tactic of 2E--put stuff that should have been in the core rules into a ridiculous amount bunch of splat books. *sigh*

I was really impressed when 3.0 came out and Monte gave us a real DMG again.

Liberty's Edge

If there’s any paradigm shift between 3.5 and Pathfinder, it’s “more options for character building”. And that’s something I can get behind. Outside of that, there really seems to be less of a shift than there has been between some of the previous editions.

For instance, I feel that there’s far less a departure between 3.5 and Pathfinder than there was between AD&D 1st ed. and 2nd ed. (the only edition change, other than 4th, that caused me grief). While 2nd ed. did offer some good changes (thieves being more customizable, dragons being beefier, etc.), it removed a lot (half-orcs, monks, assassins, many spells, psionics, just about anything extraplanar-related, etc.), and changed quite a bit (rangers, bards, unarmed combat, etc.). All the groups that I played with ended up going 1.5 ed.—using a mixture of both rule sets.

Unlike with 2nd ed., Pathfinder has all the same options from the previous edition’s core rules, allowing you to replicate characters from the previous edition with minimal effort.

While I may not like every change that Pathfinder has wrought (spiked chain and half-orcs being among the top of that list), I have yet to encounter an RPG that I haven’t had to make house rules for. On the whole, I truly like the vast majority of changes I’ve seen so far.

Liberty's Edge

Unlike my avatar, I don't look like Lindsey Buckingham. With or without a goofy hat.

Liberty's Edge

Heathansson wrote:

It just is.

I don't know.

We're all clones.

Liberty's Edge

Sebastian wrote:

All I ask for is human subraces. Where are my jungle humans, my ice humans, my lava humans?!?!? Or maybe we could have different stats for humans of different ethnicities! If an elf who likes to study can be a different species, why can't the Asian analogue humans be a different species?

Oh right. Because it's a dumb and generally offensive idea. I suppose translating it to non-human races makes it less offensive, but I'm not sure about the dumbness.

Count me in as a hater of subraces with different stats/abilities, particularly those based on environmental/elemental themes (and, a happy camper that Paizo will treat subraces as different cultures/ethnicities with the same base stats instead). If I never see another frost elf or hill dwarf or kabuto gnome, I will be happy.

The tiefling thing is irrelevant. Tiefling is a grab bag category of humans descended from extra planar creatures, which are themselves a grab bag of various monsters with different abilities and appearances. It's not as if they are a consistent race to start with, nor is it the case that they are different based on the environment they inhabit or the culture they come from. Once Pathfinder comes out with the ice tiefling, then I will be annoyed. But the betentacled tiefling descended from Cthulhu? Sign me up.

To you, Sebastian, the OP and to everyone else who have stated a similar opinion.... I agree.

Grey elves, high elves, wood elves, wild elves, hill dwarves, mountain dwarves, etc. aren't bad if they get treated the same as human ethnicities (same stats as the base race, cosmetic physiological differences, different cultures, different languages/dialects, etc.).

Sure, I can see certain subraces getting special treatment (like drow) to reflect divine and/or magical intervention/interference. However, these should be extreme and rare cases.

Liberty's Edge

Piety Godfury wrote:

In our local game group an English major wrote a poem about his character. It was suggested he take Profession: Poet. I, myself, was going to suggest Perform: Oratory.

Then I got to thinking. What skill covers -creating- the performance art material?

Thinking about it starving performance artists in music, comedy, poetry, etc create their own material. Well established actors go on to write and direct. However, there is an entire Cyrano de Bergerac industry of songwriters, playwrights, etc who may never perform publicly what they create.

So would the creation of performance material fall under perform or profession?

Thoughts?

A couple years ago I ran into this same conundrum so I emailed WotC's customer service about it. I got the following response:

Rob (from Wizard's Customer Service) wrote:

Thank you for writing. The skill used to represent your character's writing talents can vary. Craft could be appropriate, but it mainly pertains to the creation of items. Perform is also appropriate as it specifically refers to the effect on the audience or "readership" for your works. Another possible skill to use would be Profession, but this is more geared toward the service industry.

I would suggest the use of Perform when writing, even if you are not orally relaying your writing, due to the existing mechanics that allows you to influence your audience. Keep in mind that the audience you affect can be either a pub where you are reading, or a whole city who purchases your books.

In the end it is your Dungeon Master's decision on which skill to apply, but I hope my suggestions have helped.

While I don't think that using Perform is a perfect solution, it does minimize the "skill tax" on characters that want to be able to both write and perform their own material. This is a good thing, IMO, as unlike other RPGs that are more skill-based (Cyberpunk, Mekton, GURPS, Champions, Fuzion, etc.), Pathfinder (like, but less so than its 3.5 predecessor) doesn't really offer enough skill points to make have writing and performing different skills a worth-while venture.

Of course, YMMV. Hopefully this has given you some more food for thought when making your final decision. :)

Liberty's Edge

Why play a bard?

Because it's fun.... Because you like the flavor of the class... Because you want to play a swashbuckling, rock-star, skill monkey with arcane spells that acts as the party's "face", charms the girls, and looks good no matter what he does (or some other character concept that the class easily supports)....

But, ultimately, because it's fun.

Liberty's Edge

Dilvish the Danged wrote:
There is another thread in this forum regarding which classes people would like to see added to PFRPG, which I perused but didn't post in. I saw several ideas for new classes- Sword Saint, Kensai and Ninja- which to my mind all screamed 'Monk with sword.' (I do understand that other people probably have different visions for these proposed classes)

Before I answer you post, I'd like to point out that "kensai" is the incorrect spelling. It should be "kensei". Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

That said, I had created a feat in 3.5 that allows a monk to use a non-monk weapon as if it were a monk weapon....

Weapon Flurry
Through monastic weapon training, you have mastered a fighting style that makes use of an unusual monk weapon. Choose one type of weapon, such as greataxe, for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, flurry of blows class feature.
Benefit: You can treat the selected weapon as a special monk weapon, allowing you to perform a flurry of blows with it. You may only select a weapon with a damage value equal to or less than your base unarmed strike damage value. For example, Sajan a Medium 4th-level monk with a base 1d8 unarmed strike damage could select a flail (1d8 damage), a falchion (2d4) or any other weapon with an equal or less damage value with the Weapon Flurry feat, assuming he is also proficient with that weapon and has previously selected Weapon Focus for it.
Special: This feat can be taken multiple times, one for each weapon.

---

This may not be a perfect fit for what you're looking for, but I hope it helps.

Liberty's Edge

Slime wrote:
I'd cast my vote in with House Ruling IUS for Irori Clerics and Weapon Focus for simple weapons' Deities. That's just me.

This seems to me to be a rather sensible option, and I must that I'm inclined to do the same.

Liberty's Edge

Hydro wrote:
I don't see how that is a problem. A "samurai class" doesn't have to do EVERYTHING that has ever been called a "samurai" in order to be a good class.

Not saying that it has to do everything, silly. However, it should have enough flexibility to allow for multiple play styles. The more special abilities you give a class to model a specific archetype, the less flexibility that it has to model other archetypes.

When designing a class to model an archetype, you need to ask yourself is this archetype viable enough to build an entire base class around, is the modeled archetype what players expect when they hear the class' name, does it fill a mechanical or roleplaying niche that other classes don't, and is it flexible enough not to railroad a player into a single play style?

The biggest problems I have with many proposed samurai classes (whether published or fan-made) and classes in general is that they fail this litmus test (and typically on more than one point).

In my opinion, instead of trying to shoehorn the concept of the samurai into a narrowly defined class that is likely to overlap with several other, existing classes, you could achieve far more flexibility and effect by just using feats and prestige classes to modify the existing classes.

Liberty's Edge

Disenchanter wrote:
Azzy wrote:

I just need a few clarifications about the beast shape spells.

Does a character gain the form's physical attacks (bites, claws, etc.)?

Is the character considered proficient with these attacks?

Yes, and Yes. Although it may be hard to find.

Under the Magic section, Spell Descriptions, Transmutation School, Polymorhph PRD(Magic)(Page 211-212 of the core book)

Thank you very much! I didn't even think to look in that section. Oi!

Liberty's Edge

Skaorn wrote:
Samurai and Shugenja would require enough class features to be replaced that you might as well start off from the beginning. Samurai don't use shields and while they had heavy armor it wasn't nearly as good as plate and most representation of Samurai are in light or no armor. So you at least would have to replace all the armor feats and abilities. The Weapons Training is alright, but should probably reduced to Swords, Spears, Bows, and possibly muskets (the traditional Samurai weapons) so I'd honestly rather see something else. I think the version in Oriental Adventures is a better base then Fighter.

A samurai class is wholly unnecessary and would actually be counter-productive in many cases considering the broad array of abilities that samurai have shown throughout history, legends and fiction. A single class could never do the concept justice and many of the existing classes could easily be used to model different types of samurai from the fighter (easily the best substitute for a standard samurai), the upcoming cavalier class (probably ties with the fighter for being a great fit), paladins (yes, paladins!), rangers and rogues (yes, rogues too!).

Skaorn wrote:

Shugenja would need a new spell list, loose Channel Energy, and would probably have to loose shield and medium armor at least. I'd also say that the elemental domains would have to be changed a bit too. Again, better to start over IMO.

As far as Shugenja go they are divine spellcasters with arcane spells thrown in the mix. They trade martial powers for having healing and spells like invisibility and scorching ray. Sure you can use Sorcerer with them as a base but then you have to figure out the Spell List (which is my nightmare for class building) and Elemental Focus, which means you're making a new class already.

Full stop. The shugenja of history, legend or fiction is nothing like the class presented in OA/Complete Divine/Lot5R. Full stop. The druid (yes, the druid!), cleric, or even the monk is a much better fit for the ascetic, mountain-dwelling practitioners of Shugendo. Not that we should look to the shugenja as a generic Japanese-inspired priest anyway (they weren’t), for that we should look to the Shinto and Buddhist priests and we could easily use clerics, druids, monks (or some sort of shaman class) for these.

Skaorn wrote:
Ninjas on the other hand can be done with Rogues and Rangers (though I'd say they got a bonus feat every time they would get a new Spell Level). Monk also works too if you ignore the spiritual consequences of that.

Depending on where (in history, legend or fiction) you want to take inspiration from, rogues, fighters, rangers, sorcerers, monks, wizards can all work as a basis for shinobi characters.

Skaorn wrote:
Wu Jen are easy with different specialties for Wizards.

Wu Jen, as a name of a class, really needs to go. In a Japanese-inspired setting, the term “onmyouji” is much more fitting. In a more generically Asian-inspired setting, any term other than “wizard” is really unnecessary. Some elemental-based “schools” would be a great addition for Taoist & Onmyoudo-inspired wizards.

Skaorn wrote:
Sorcerers: Add a few bloodlines like Immortal and you should be good.

Immortal?

Skaorn wrote:
Barbarians: Probably rare, but still workable.

It really depends on the setting. They could be Ainu- or Mongol-inspired, or just rural and backward.

And now for a rant:

One of the things that annoy me very much is that many gamers and game supplements seem to assume that “Asian-inspired” means “Japanese-inspired”. As much as I love Japanese-inspired gaming and Japanese history, there is so much more to Asian-inspired roleplaying than Japan. Any decent
Asian-inspired game supplement needs to have a much broader focus than just Japan.

Liberty's Edge

I just need a few clarifications about the beast shape spells.

Does a character gain the form's physical attacks (bites, claws, etc.)?

Is the character considered proficient with these attacks?

Does the character use his/her base speed or the speed of the animal form? For instance a human uses beast shape to take the form of a wolf, does the character have a speed of 30 ft. (as a human) or 50 ft. (as a wolf)?

Liberty's Edge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I'd give Irori's clerics IUS.

Thus sayeth Paizo's go-to guy for the gods.

If it's good enough for Vegepygmy, it's good enough for me. :)

Liberty's Edge

The black raven wrote:

Cavalier :

- Concept is so-so, but why not
- Name is a big NO-NO. Cavalier in French means horserider. Absolutely no way around it

Knight, chevalier, cavalier, cavaliere, caballero, cavaleiro, ritter, ridder, etc. all refer to same thing--a mounted warrior and later social class of the middle ages (much in the same way as the samurai of Japan). Of all these different words from their different languages, "knight" is unique in that it doesn't derive from a word meaning of "horseman" or "rider". Still, that doesn't make the English knight any less of a horseman or rider than a Spanish caballero or a German ritter.

All that said, "cavalier" is perfectly acceptable name for the class that's being described.

Liberty's Edge

Chris Mortika wrote:
The halfling / velociraptor thing was a real embarrassment.

Jeez! There you go again. Don't you think it's about time that you just let that one go.... I mean, it really seemed like a good idea at the time.

Liberty's Edge

KaptainKrunch wrote:

I'm not saying that the Sorcerer should be nerfed, or that Bloodlines are bad.

I just feel like the Wizard didn't get enough love with the new stuff they added.

I wasn't aware that wizards needed anything more.

Liberty's Edge

Vic Wertz wrote:

We don't sell directly to Amazon, in the US or any other country—our book trade distribution is handled by Diamond Book Distributors. Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Borders, and a bunch of other chains and mom-and-pop bookshops buy from them. So we don't have any details for you on that front.

I can tell you that we shipped every copy that Diamond ordered from us before our order deadline. And that was a lot of copies. However, some of the big guys did *not* get their orders in to Diamond on time, and Diamond has a lot of orders waiting for the second print run.

Diamond Distributors is pretty awful in and of itself... inefficient, disorganized and generally incompetent.

Liberty's Edge

ElyasRavenwood wrote:

How long do the “long lived” races in Pathfinder/ Golaron live?

How long do the elves live before they shuffle off this mortal coil?
How about the dwarves gnomes and Halflings?
Thanks

The answer lies here.

Liberty's Edge

Beckett wrote:
Is it just me, or have these boards really slowed down since the final came out?

No, I think you're right... the boards do seem to be a bit slower.

Liberty's Edge

Thurgon wrote:
Azzy wrote:

I said it had negligible effect on the cleric's game balance. Please note the difference.

Negligible in this context means near no effect....

I missed the word "near" when reading your post--my bad. However, I also emphasized "cleric's" as well to denote that, while this change may have negligible effect on the cleric's balance, it may give some small boost to those few classes that do start with HAP (if nothing other than as a consolation prize).

Thurgon wrote:
Doing it just to kick the cleric is my biggest gripe. If it isn't a balance issue then why steal the feat from the class other then just to kick them around.

I'm quite sure that it wasn't done to "kick the cleric", perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly, but the idea that it was done so seems rather irrational. Perhaps it would be best to wait for Jason to weigh in on this issue rather than for either of us to speculate what his motivations for this change were.

Thurgon wrote:
You were the one that brought up specialty priests as an excuse for this change, not me. I simply pointed out speciality priests did not even in 2nd ed = clerics, they were something else. And no both 3.0 and 3.5 had clerics, it's pathfinder that is lacking.

The concept on the specialty priest greatly influence the design of 3.x's cleric with its domains and domain powers. While you've point out the corner case of a deity's "specialty priest" being a wholly different class, most specialty priests were nothing but clerics with limited Spheres of spells and alternate weapon and armor proficiencies.

I really think we need to stop this, neither of us are do anything productive. I'm not going to (nor am I trying to) convince you that this change doesn't suck... because that's wholly in the realm of opinion and you're welcome to it.

If anything, I've only tried to point out that this change doesn't de-claw the cleric or make it useless as a class, and also that the addition feats that PF gives characters allows one to easily compensate for the loss of HWP.

Personally I don't think it's a big deal. but YMMV. In the end, I can only wish you good gaming and hope that you enjoy most of the other changes in Pathfinder. Heck, whenever the open playtest for the next edition happens perhaps you can lobby for Paizo to change it back.

Liberty's Edge

Very nice work, Erian!

So far, and I have done much with it yet, my only complaint is that the font size you use for the drop-down menus is so small as to be almost illegible.

BTW, I'm using Excel 2007 if that makes any difference.

Liberty's Edge

Asgetrion wrote:

Hmmm... I personally feel that this should have been +2 to STR *or* CON, as half-orcs are tough and ferocious (and this would have made them a bit more versatile, without giving them too much).

BTW, did half-elves get to choose between +2 to DEX or +2 to INT? Or do they also get +2 to any stat (like humans). I think the former option would have been (thematically) better.

No, they, like humans and half-orcs just get a +2 to any stat.

However, I really like the idea of half-orcs getting +2 to either Str or Con and half-elves getting +2 to either Dex or Int, and may end up stealing that as as a house rule after I ponder it a bit more. :)

1 to 50 of 934 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>