Ben Kent's page

Hello!

I've emailed customer.service@paizo.com several times about this, hoping for some response.

I would prefer an answer by email - dungeon.master.monkey@gmail.com - if possible.

Count me in, too.

Count me in for pre-templated Words of Power cards, too.

And those "example word spells" seemed like a really good idea.

And Word archetypes for existing classes...

And maybe a Verbomancer base class...! (Lingomancer? Conversationalist...?)

And a "cleanup", on the rules, like you did with "River Kingdoms"...

It is a poorly worded paragraph, but the "assigned to their respective classes" refers to the Effect Words. The 4 listed classes simply know all Meta Words as they become available.

Thanks for the help!

Did a Forum Search, had no luck.

I'm (re-)reading Words of Power, and falling gently in love. However, there's one thing that's very unclear: How do I gain Meta Words as a cleric? In Ultimate Magic, it says clerics gain all the Effect and Meta words "assigned to their respective classes" ... but then on the class list, there's no Meta Words assigned to any class.

Do I gain any meta words? Or do Words of Power clerics need to take a Feat (Meta Word Mastery) to gain any Meta Words (besides Boost) at all?

For classes, I'd vote cavalier, magus, witch, and oracle. Covers you well for spells, and not too shabby in combat. Kind of lacking a skill-monkey, though, admittedly; might add in a ninja, or rogue...

For races, I'd add at least one "special" race, just for fun - probably of the rogue, since there's already an "iconic rogue".

And it's a very happy creature when it is throwing it's own poop.

Truthfully, though - who isn't, am I right?

...

Anyone?

The hero's of literature, movies, sports figures, and real life personalities are all created equal, this is after all the Pathfinder Pt Buy Zone. Create these "hero's" with only 20 pts and all no higher than starting level

There are a number of flawed premises here.

1) It's not stated anywhere that every character in the Pathfinder universe is "20 points". Or equal to each other. I personally have always assumed it varies, and that at "20 points", the PCs were on the high end of point-values - but not the extreme.

2) Pathfinder has - excluding Strength - very few ways to compare stats to real-world figures. There's no good examples of "how Charismatic" a 16 Charisma is. Was MLK Jr an 18? Was Ghandi? Or were they "16s", allowing for even <more> charismatic fantasy figures? What if they were just "15's".

3) Many of those figures, at the point that they were legendary, would have additional levels or HD. At 1st level, they all "sucked", by definition - they were first level. When they got to 4th level, they sucked much less - as they were 4th level.

TL;DR - This is only a problem if you make it a problem; the difficulty here is the constraints you put on the design process, not the idea of point-value characters (or even level advancement).

While I admit some bias, I have to agree the Raging Swan stuff is excellent. Many of (my favorite of their) products are "plug and play" adaptations for GM's use; monsters with class levels or templates, neat ideas for characters or backgrounds, or groups that you can plonk down in your campaign to see how the PCs interact with them (probably violently, admittedly).

3PP is exactly the same as 1PP - read it, and decide if it's good. Nowadays, 75% or more of 3PP stuff is "solid" or better - which is about the same ratio as 1PP stuff, really.

(To Chuck - 3PP hate doesn't bleed over to "adventures" because even if the module totally sucks, you still get a plot, some maps, and some monsters, and maybe a reusable encounter or two. And it doesn't bleed over to monsters because they only have to impress one person (the DM), they're on-scene only briefly, and if one is disbalanced, the person using them (the DM) can often 'tweak to fit' easily.)

To OP: Yeah, Time Stop, fun stuff.

I've realized I've never smurfed myself in such a thread. I have no avatar. What happens?

Edit: It works! :D

Just ringing in to agree that Raging Swan's stuff is most certainly top-notch. Even if you're not a "use it out of the book" sort, there's lots of ideas there for the plundering.

I'd agree with about AC 30.

AC 10, +8 for a Diminutive object, +12 for "speed" (Dodge, I guess).

And yeah, the Dodge bonus seems a little high to me, too, but I started with the final AC and worked backward. You could break it up to be, say, "Dex" +6, with a +6 Dodge bonus, if you want to think of it that way.

Giving it AC 30 means intercepting a fireball is something a level 15 archer can pull off "mundanely"; that seems about right. A level 10 archer can pull off "in a pinch", which seems good, and a level 5-7 archer can cross his fingers and hope, which again seems about right.

Plus, I'd bring this up with your DM before the combat round you want to try it in. While I'd allow it in a second, some DMs might balk at the idea.

You don't split the difference in any of this. Just keep adding stuff on from each section.

Perfect, that's what I figured.

And I think that's Kalanth was trying to say. I apologize for misunderstanding you, if that's the case, Kalanth.

Thanks much!

I did not specifically acknowledge the "initially +1" in the OP, and that is my fault.

Your answers appear contradictory.

I'm speaking <only> of the animal companion "stat block", plus the 4th / 7th level "advancement" section of that block.

There's a number in the initial ("base") animal companion section stating the companion gets +X natural armor.

Under advancement - the bonuses a druid applies at 4th or 7th level - it lists "+Y natural armor".

For an advanced companion, is the natural armor:

+Y (only what's listed under advancement),

or

+(X+Y) (adding the two listed bonuses together).

I'm aware that the "animal companion chart" gives a separate bonus, but I know how that "part" works, so it's not involved in this question.

It is just like advancing your Base Attack Bonus in that the +2 Natural Armor is what you should have, thus increasing the +1 bonus by +1.

Alright. So then to be clear:

Under advancement, it reads, "+1 natural armor".

So, in this case, the armor gets <worse> as the creature advances?

I'm not unwilling to be wrong, but this seems to be a very counter-intuitive way to present the information, and the text is certainly ambiguous.

Let's say I have a Cat, Big as my animal companion.

Initially, under AC, it says "+1 natural armor".

When I reach 7th level, for "Advancement", under "AC", it says, "+2 natural armor".

I have always read this as meaning the Cat, Big animal companion of a 7th level druid has a +3 natural armor bonus - +1 initially, improved by +2 more at 7th level advancement.

I've just had a fellow player disagree with me...

...so I'm hoping for a little clarification?

You could try Trailblazer. It's "10 minute rest" mechanic involves this (kind of). It goes on to do a lot of other things, too, but that's somewhat secondary to this discussion.

The key "problem" is, outside of a fight, a Wand of Cure Light Wounds is simply the most efficient source of HP recovery. In a fight, it's awful (1d8+1 is barely noticeable from level 4-5 on), but between a fight, it's often definitive.

Try allowing characters that are able to take a ten-minute break to simply recover to full HP (or close to - Trailblazer says 75%). Once I did that, my level 10+ parties no longer carried the 5-7 wands of Cure Light Wounds they used to.

Edit - I meant, "try looking at Trailblazer".

...bunch of awesome stuff...

Perfect. Thank you.

When I look at the NPC Gear chart, it has "basic level", and "heroic level". I'm wondering how NPCs would be assigned gear in a number of situations. Can someone give me a yes / no, in their opinion?

Examples-
A human NPC. He's a level 6 Fighter, CR 5. I would assign level 6 Heroic gear, based on the character's level.

A gnoll NPC. She's a level 4 Ranger, CR 5. Based on the notes on monster advancement from the Bestiary, I would assign level 5 Heroic gear, based on the monster's final challenge rating.

A human NPC. She's a level 8 Adept. I would assign level 8 Basic gear, as they're not from a heroic class.

A gnoll NPC. He's a level 8 Warrior, CR 6*. I would assign level 6 Basic gear, based on the notes from the bestiary, combined with not being from a heroic class.

...does this smell right to everyone? Can you provide counterexamples or clarifying text?

The remaining balance on the order is $41.55.

Excellent. I've sent an email to customer service to look into resolving this.

Thanks again!

I got an email advising of troubles with this order. My card shows an amount has been taken off, I presume for the PDFs included. Can I get a total on what remains unpaid, so I can get this dealt with?

Thanks in advance!

They're all great. My vote is for the Adventuring Party, but both the Grey Maiden and the Witch are very, very good besides.

It was a tough call.

While I know that goblin and skeleton encounter packs would be winners, I would suggest that a Summon Monster series would be extremely useful (especially the lower level spells).

Wow, that's a great idea. Whomever is in charge of these packs, note this idea. The Summon Monster pack is a great idea. Other people, agree with Scribbling Rambler, so the folks at Paizo know we think it's a great idea.

Also, the Gargantuan Green and Tarrasque mini. Make it happen. Hook me up. Where's the pre-order button for those bad boys? Must be a glitch on your website, because I'm not seeing the pre-order button for 'em yet. Get on that.

Seriously. Both of these pretty much have to happen.

The balance I have struck is this: if its in the core rulebook, we aren't hyperlinking to it since most people know that stuff. If it is in another book we will, either to the official Patfinder Reference Document or PFSRD (presuming its in the official PRD we will use that, we always have a preference for the official).

The exception is this: if it is in the core rulebook but the author thinks it would be useful for the GM to review a strange or uncommon rule. For instance, in the adventure by me and Jason, there is a fight with a Tiny creature which has some unique rules that not everyonoe remembers, so it made sense to hyperlink reviewing the rules for Tiny creatures.

First, thank you for firstly making this thread available to us, the fans, and looking for our input. And secondly, thank you for directly replying to me, and giving me a warm fuzzy feeling. It reminds me of that time I swallowed a kitten.

The "balance" you suggest seems to match what I anticipated*. I'd suggest it's worth being overly-generous with the links rather than not having enough of them - as you say, a link to initiative probably isn't required (if you're fuzzy on how to roll initiative, mid-adventure might not be the right place to learn), but a link to a spell (for a spell-like ability), or an activation-based magic item - even the "classic" spells like fireball - probably won't go amiss.

Again, I'm very interested to see it - but even more interested in adventures set up under your electronic-document format (...which I also think you need a name for - may I suggest Legendary Documents?).

* - It's not quite what I <suggested>, but there was hyperbole involved in saying "link everything".

What things would you like to see for a functional electronic product on the cover/home page?

I'm assuming every one of those names is a link. Is there a way to make pictures - for items with unique pictures, that is - appear if you hover over the link? Many people are much better at retaining visual information - "It was on the page with the wavey sword that was on fire" - than numbers ("Page 88") or text ("Sword of Kick-Buttery").

Further - although you only asked about the title - everything in the item's description that <can> be hyperlinked to ... well, just about anything, <should> be. Mentions of races (or monsters) or classes; spells; skills or abilities; other product(s); conditions; curses; all of it. If the weapon entangles, it links to the condition; if it acts like Cause Fear, it links to the spell; if it's bane vs Orcs, it links to orcs.

Also, while I realize it's terrible advertising, I'd personally - if I bought the PDF - think the glaring links to elsewhere on the front cover were annoying. I'll grant that they're all useful links; maybe it's just that they seem emphasized; the visual emphasis seems to be on the "links to elsewhere" area, instead of the "list of awesome stuff inside this document".

I'm eager to see one of your finished PDF products. I'm maybe a little disapppointed it's a "simple" list-type product instead of a more complex and inter-related type of product like an adventure, because that's where I think the willingness to truly innovate and expand the nature of PDFs would have the best results.

Aberzombie wrote:

And can we hope to eventually see some of the Spawn of Rovagug?

I've wanted a Tarrasque model since like 1985.

...

I'd pay like $100 for a pre-painted mini like that.

Just ringing in to support a line of Huge, Gargantuan, or even bigger minis.

Oh, yes.

Edit - Also, because of this thread, I now have a mental image the owners of Paizo, running down to the Warehouse like children on Christmas Morning, eager to open case after case of minis and compare who got the More Awesome ones.

These statuettes are to those other miniatures what baseball cards are to M:tG. There is no collecting incentive in the current market.

I file a polite dissent with this statement.

You're right in the main - obviously, with Magic, or D&D Minis, or Clix, you want to "get 'em all" to have the most powerful ones. And that's good incentive.

But did you ever collect a sticker album as a kid? ...what was the incentive on a "complete" album, besides having a complete album?

Or baseball cards - and yes, some people still collect baseball cards.

There's still incentive to collect - having the whole collection.

Yes, <less> incentive - but not none.

(Also, as others have mentioned - with the minis game dead, the WotC minis are still demanding good aftermarket prices, so clearly there's non-game demand involved there, too.)

This should be the upcoming release schedule for Pathfinder RPG:
1. Ultimate Combat
2. Bestiary 3
3. Advanced Race Guide
4. Mythic Heros (but actually just from lvl 13-20)
5. Pathfinder Core Rulebook Revised & Expanded
6. Ultimate Adventurers
7. [Something blah blah blah]
8. Ultimate Companions

Keeping comments out of the list is tough!

I hate that I noticed this, but...

...the race(s) are all overly-slanted toward spellcasters. The difficulty in making an effective Pony martial character prevents the races from being (seriously) viable.

<sigh>

Now I have to think of something to give them that aids their martial prowess, but is both fair and pony-like.

Finally. I now have the means to create the unicorn cohort that my club-wielding barbarian character has always been lacking.

The Lawls. I have them. And I think you have them to me.

2.) Now my wife is hassling me to run a Ponies game...

Yours, too?

She's already planning to switch her Cleric to a Unicorn. I'm not sure it's worth my effort to persuade her this is not a good idea...

Where's page 35?! Someone more clever than me get to it.

For whoever did it, you did a great job, for what it's worth.

I do want the Cutie Marks rules...

Lostwriter wrote:

Also, since he's firing 3 shots and has just the right set of feats, he can do 30-50 hp damage every round at level 5. With no save.

Can you post this characters stats?

Agreed - this seems to exceed most other playtests, by a significant margin. It would seem very useful to see how this character has been optimized, because your numbers - if accurate - may in fact indicate a significant problem.

Oh come on, this thing writes itself. All island adventures have the following....

Cannibals

A very large dinosaur

A rickety rope bridge

A volcano into which human sacrifices are thrown

Lost pirate treasure

I agree with these, uh, mostly. I don't think the "large dinosaur" is going to last against "12th lvl party". The cannibals, either.

No enhancement, other than the generic ac enhancement bonus, should ever be something that a character has to put on their magical equipment.

(Some) Players in my games treat "Fortification" as "must-have", and "protection from gunfire" is certainly no more must-have than Fortification. But for players, and GMs, for whom this is a "problem", having a balanced-and-available solution seems like a prudent idea.

Personally I think that if guns have been around long enough and/or guns are common enough, that GM's should just rule that armour technology has 'caught up', so to speak, to guns and can resist gunshots.

I don't find this inherently objectionable, but it suggests to me that you're one of those who feels "guns (can) use Touch AC" is out-of-whack with the real-world effects of firearms. I neither agree, nor disagree, with this.

Truthfully, I don't care if the guns in Pathfinder are "real-world-accurate". I care if they're game-balanced. Paizo has decided to balance them based on "guns hit touch AC". I believe strongly they have the talent and skill required to balance guns around this point.

What I'm suggesting - including rules for how, mechanically, to make armor work against guns (fair GP / feat costs for doing so, that is) - allows Paizo to "have it's cake and eat it, too". They get to stick with "guns hit touch AC", which they've more or less committed to (a lot more, rather than less, from what I've seen). But they include rules on how to "work around that". If I as a GM want bulletproof red dragons, they've included rules for that.

I think it's a compromise that might end up with both parties having access to the option(s) they want for their game.

Note - I do realize that "bulletproof" armor will be immensely desirable in one game, and virtually useless in another, but in that sense, it's about the same as "Bane Vs. Undead" weapons, or blindly picking a Ranger's favored enemy. If the BBEG of your campaign is a Gunfighter, well, "bulletproofing" is prudent - just as, if the BBEG is a Rogue, Fortification is an excellent idea. But, just as with Fortification, it can be - has been - done.

Hello.

My actual playtesting has been limited, because my time is limited. I've been reading the playtesting of others, though, and their opinions - particularly regarding guns versus various forms of armor.

It is my opinion and suggestion that armor properties - preferably magical and mundane - that allow armor(s) to resist gunfire (in part and / or in full) be included in Ultimate Combat, setting a price for "bulletproof" armor.

(My personal suggestion is something along the lines of Fortification - a scaling set of bonuses against guns, for a scaling set of costs. But I'm at best an armchair designer, at this point.)

I'd further suggest a Feat or series of Feats that benefit creatures with high levels of natural armor when they are shot.

If Paizo doesn't include such abilities, they will come about - DMs will house-rule them into existence. And that's not inherently bad! But I - in general - trust Paizo to design better Feats and Magical Armor abilities than, say, me. Or most others.

Thank you for your consideration.

B) Paizo buys WotC from Hasbro.

As a former Magic: The Gathering player -

Paizo is not now, and will never be, large enough to buy WotC.

Large enough to buy away the D&D license? Sure, maybe; I can happily live in that dream world.

But large enough for ALL of WotC? No.

...and...

Are your players / characters the sort that, upon finding the abandoned temple / cave / structure, say, "hey, we should check this out"?

Or do that need some of that "motivation" stuff I hear so much about to go exploring in old, dangerous, musty, trap-infested ruins?

I need a one night adventure that challenges the players. This is the highest level game I have ever attempted to run and frankly I am out of my depths. So, dear Paizonians, I ask for your help. Write me up an adventure...please.

The major challenge part, is that I need it in 6 days. Can you do it? Are you up to the challenge?

...what type of adventure do you like to run?

Should there be RP, or just Violence?

...what kind of monster(s) do you enjoy running?

Do you think it's too much to require a feat to get such a steed? Or perhaps having to hit a minimum investment in Ride or Handle Animal? Or should it be something as simple as a very high-priced "exceptional horse" type of thing.

Both.

High-priced mounts (and I wouldn't balk at all-the-way-up to 5,000 gp or more, if you can make it look good) for Great Mounts.

And then more GP cost for magical items that make, summon, or enhance your mount(s).

But a Feat best give me a downright Awesome Mount.

Hey, I was just having a rather similar dilemma.

Would it be arranged that any not-shipping-right-now items would be payable via store credit? Like, if we ordered a special order / backorder item, we could pay for it via store credit?

Allow a new +1 modification: Channeling

This is a pretty good idea. I dunno about the name (Channeling is what Clerics do, after all).

Although, on second thought, I'll point out it's (essentially) functionally identical to what Gworeth and I already suggested.

Perhaps cost-out the "partner" based on it's total Enhancement bonus on the Armor chart (so, half-cost)?

For 1000, I think this is underpriced.

Make it so that you "Enchant" the set, and each weapon gets a +1 Enhancement bonus less than the set - that is, if you pay for a "+2 weapon", on a "set" of short swords, you get 2 short swords +1.

...this is much more cumbersome to explain than it is to think through. Basically, you "split" the one weapon into two, reducing the Enhancement bonus by one in the process. ... yeah, that sounds about right.

(It's notably similar to Soulknives, I'll point out.)

Not a bad idea, though. I do like the idea - at this point, it's just about implementation.

Edit - Nevermind. I'm terribad at top-of-my-head math. Gah.

I kill mounts with disturbing frequency. Like, all the time. My players tend to feel that a 2-3 encounter survival for a mount is actually doing pretty well, as horses go.

My players and I have an informal understanding that if you've paid for a horse, you've got a horse - if your horse dies a messy death (and it will), you might find another horse, steal a horse, be given a horse by your patron / church, or any number of other things to replace your deceased wealth.

Companion. I meant, deceased companion.

Honestly, from AD&D 2nd Edition and on, my group just assumed this is what Tenser's Disk was <for>.

In fact, we've repeatedly joked that this Tenser guy must have been some kinda lazy, to make up a spell just to float around on.

Never in the last *mumblemumble* years ran across anything "game-breaking", and never made Fly or Levitation obsolete.

Although, reading the description and trying to imagine not "knowing" it works the way I've always figured it does, I guess I can see where the argument comes from.

So, probably RAW, doesn't work (but might).

In gameplay, always been a stylish way for the Wizard to avoid mudpits, shallow pools, and actually having to walk, and will continue to be.

Hello!

Does anyone know if these are pre-painted?

I ask because the related cave walls say they're not. And if these aren't, well, I'll be sad.

Also, it says "special order", but also "usually ships in 2-6 business days". Which seems contradictory, to me - which is more accurate?

...but for some reason, I can't reset my base address in my profile, for future mail-orders.

It should be to an address involving "129". I added this address while placing a recent order, and deleted a previous address involving "85".

But now, the "85", while not under my profile, appears when I go to start an order. But if I go to my address(es) and press "edit", only the "129" address appears.

Basically, I want the "85" address gone, and the "129" address made default, if possible.

Alternately, if this isn't the right place for this sort of thing, might someone present me with directions <to> the right place for this sort of thing?

Thanks!

Ah, ship.

There's no ducking special terms for it?

...I hope this doesn't count as censor-dodging. He told me to.

Two points -
Firstly, I suspect board-talk (here and elsewhere) leans mechanical because mechanics are, ultimately, easier to discuss, and there's more similarity between mechanics at different tables than there is similarity between roleplaying. I've played at tables where an eight-hour session with 2-3 dice rolled is considered an accomplishment and a great game; and I've played at tables where five minutes of "Where is the dungeon, again?", followed by swords swinging and spells spelling is the order of the day.

Simply put, on the matter of role-playing, these tables have little to say to each other. On such topics, they don't speak a common language. There's nothing to talk about.

(Making matters worse, two different "all RP, all the time" tables are probably going to have such massively different styles as to make discussion difficult, too.)

Secondly, I agree with those who say this is an example of the Stormwind Fallacy. I'm fascinated by system mechanics, and love RP. It's possible to do, want and enjoy both. An either / or choice is a false dichotomy.