Mynafee Gorse

Bill Dunn's page

Goblin Squad Member. Adventure Path Charter Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 6,533 posts (8,392 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 3 Organized Play characters. 27 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,533 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

It depends.

For the most part, rule changes don't bother me much (unless I find the changes themselves problematic). That's because the rules serve a secondary purpose in the game, as I see it, and that purpose is to operationalize what the players want their character to do. How exactly they do so can vary - so the specific rules aren't necessarily that important.

But when a new edition comes along, I'm looking for there to be substantial continuity in the lore and the niches classes, items, and monsters fill. Exactly how they do so may be flexible or they may have more options, but I don't want the old ones closed off. Too much re-imagining and I'll be re-imagining myself playing another game.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Ultimately, this is an exploit of the rules because the rules allow it. It isn't necessarily how a group of orcs is going to behave from an in-character perspective.

If this is fine for your style of play with more focus on the mechanics and clever use of rules than characterization, then have fun with it. But I'd be disappointed if my group chose to play that way and I wouldn't be sticking around very long.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
gnoams wrote:
But I am getting sucked in to my example, I wasn't intending this to be an argument about spellcasting, but rather about the setting of DCs in general. "Being easy" is a terrible argument imo, adding 11 should not be difficult for anyone.

It's not about being difficult - it's probably all about being easier than 11. And it is.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:

Interesting note: because fighter riposte happens on the enemy's turn, that gives you a full round to exploit it and go for that fight-winning critical success.

And yes, knocking a greatsword fighter down from 4d12+possibly some d6 down to 1d4 is basically fight-winning.

That’s assuming he can’t retrieve it or has no backup (which would be dumb on his part). Dropping it in his own space isn’t exactly a show-stopper since it would just be an interact (probably giving up an AoO) to pick it back up. You’d have to assume the PCs would succeed at picking it up and getting away, and I’m sure that’s a given.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It just feels like it should be uniformly easier, against a qualified opponent to feint them, grab them, knock them off balance, etc. than to force them to drop their weapon.

I'm not sure how you model this aside from "disarming requires a critical success".

Wouldn’t that be true even without a critical success being necessary? Level’s already baked into the attack bonuses and defenses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm surprised there seems to be so much resistance to our wanting a little more rules visability.

I think it's less a case of resistance to more visibility and more a case of "just because you didn't spot it doesn't mean it's a trap" or intent to "hide" rules by the writers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Fumarole wrote:
I'm curious where people get the notion that the majority of the populace only worships one deity. Surely it cannot be solely because of the limited space on a character sheet? Said character sheets also only have space for one character name, but that doesn't mean a character cannot have nicknames or aliases.

This has been a long-standing issue in the fantasy role playing community. I don't know if it's because we've been living in monotheistic cultures too long to really understand polytheism or what, but the idea that a character primarily venerates a specific god in D&D games is probably as old as the game itself.

It might make sense to list a single deity for a cleric because it makes sense they'd be a priest of only a single deity - though they'd obviously venerate every other one just like the rest of the population. But that's about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Corrik wrote:


No, we have, with the plethora of other things that were changed. Tier 4 and 6 casters do not exist anymore. Paladins can not lay on hands and smite in the same combat. Even if a strength spell does come back, odds are it won't increase your character's carrying capacity the same as it did 10 years ago.

Option 1: Things did change, but our characters lack the ability to observe and record this fact.
Option 2: Things always worked like this.

Option 1 is not possible, because otherwise the lore would need to provide an explanation to all of the wizards who have noticed their numbers are completely different now, for all of the Paldins who can cast lay on hands far fewer times in a single combat. That leaves option 2, and if things "always worked like this" then continuity doesn't matter.

There is no option 3 where all of the details are different but somehow continuity is important.

Ultimately, why would issues of in-character continuity be that important? I can see why players may have a problem with an edition change - because things work differently, because things they liked in one edition are changed or gone, etc. But why would anyone feel it has to manifest as a continuity change in the campaign setting that characters would perceive? I really don't understand why it would be an issue.

If you're converting from one edition to another in the middle of a campaign, you're simply going to have to deal with the fact that some things changed form one edition to another whether it's dressed up with a "campaign changing event" or not. That's simply part of changing editions in a rules set when the changes are significant. If you don't want to deal with those changes, then don't change horses mid-stream. If you want to proceed with the switch, I suggest lots of hand-waving and not sweating it as the price you pay for switching.

If the conversion from one edition to the next is between campaigns, then it won't matter. You can just say "Things have always been this way".


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Big Lemon wrote:

Well "why" it's needed is because without it, attack accuracy would increase every level while defenses would not, but I don't think that's exactly what the question is.

Oh, you certainly could increase defense without using the proficiency system - you'd just add it directly without the proficiency structure.

Big Lemon wrote:

What would be the point of created a supposedly "universal" proficiency system and leave one of the three most important numbers on the character sheet out of it?

This is the issue for me. You may have a cool proficiency idea - but is it right to shoehorn subsystems into it that may not make sense just because it's a cool idea?

I don't have a problem with there being required proficiencies to get the most out of armor or at least not be a klutz in it. I do think it's not that great a fit packed into the same system as weapons and skills. They'd have been better off just straight up adding the character level to defenses like Star Wars Sage Edition does.

As it is, I'm sorely considering ditching the whole level addition if I decide to run PF2 for a home game. A gap in proficiencies like lore may make sense as characters level, but the defensive gap for putting on non-skilled armor is insanely deadly.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Colonel Kurtz wrote:


2nd Ed AD&D was the beginning of the ranger losing its identity; all that Drizzt baggage got attached.

The publication of the 2e PH was before the first of the books that featured Drizz't (who was never meant to be the main character either). So, technically, the TWF ranger was an independent development - if a weird one.

(Though it is possible there was some cross-pollination going on in the back channels of TSR...)

Before 2e, most players I know who picked rangers had focused on archery as a more hunty type of weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I don't really see why there's a limit in the creatures types that can be favored enemy.

Seriously, what is it about the ranger that:
1) invites so much redesign from edition to edition
2) is so oddly done on the first iteration (PF1 excepted)


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Corrik wrote:


Not really, a player being unhappy and leaving the game is almost as likely to end it as a DM being unhappy. Sure this is less of a concern for society games and the like, but people generally don't want their friends to be unhappy or have them leave/be kicked out of the group.

That might be a problem for groups without a lot of options or a small player pool. But it hasn't been my experience in general. GMs are far harder to find/recruit. Even for the groups I play in - both of which have been together over 15 years - it's still mainly the same few people running games in each one. And if they are gone, the group isn't going to be playing, while they probably will if it's just one player being the hold-out.

As a result, I definitely come down on the side of the GM being the final backstop on campaign theme, tone, and approved/banned content. If a GM isn't happy with the game, that affects everyone. If one player isn't happy but the others, including the GM, are, that affects the one player.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
CyberMephit wrote:


Unless there are pineapples in it.
Or unless you have a vegan in your group.

Who could have ever guessed that pineapple would replace anchovies as the most polarizing pizza topping?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Danbala wrote:

There were also few things about 2e, that were more difficult as a GM than I expected:

First up: Action List. When I played to 2e at Gen con and I said “I swing my sword” Jack, our GM, would often correct me by saying “Ok. You take a strike action.” I found it irritating at the time, but now that I have a game as GM under my belt, I know why he did that. Each of the actions have different attributes. The GM needs to understand clearly what action you are using because these actions may trigger certain reactions. For example, if you say “I take a potion out go over to James and pour it into James’ mouth” what you are really saying is “I use an interact action to take out a potion. I use a Stride action to move to James. then I use my final action to use Interact to poor the potion into James’ mouth.”

Yeah, I'm with Malk_Content in that you don't need to be that anal. You could say (and I'd hope to see more of this): "I take a potion out, go over to James, and pour it into his mouth. That's an interaction, stride, and interaction for my 3 actions, Dan."

Then it feels more natural for the description, but includes the player accounting for the specifics with the GM.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I've been chewing over this issue for a few days. At first my reaction was "Of course a 13th level alchemist's armor proficiency improvement should only apply to the armor types inherent in the class" (or weapons for various classes where that applies).

But thinking more about how the proficiency bonus actually works (and doesn't work) has got me going the other direction. I don't really think that a 13th level alchemist should get better at heavy armor, per se. Rather, I think folding the level factor into specific armor and weapon proficiencies is problematic for a couple of reasons:

1) As a character levels up, the gap between using a trained weapon/suit of armor vs untrained widens. Higher level characters don't get broadly better at combat, they get better at just their class's specific gear. Anything outside of that is, ultimately, self-defeating and in an increasingly big way as the character levels up.

2) If a character broadens their skills by taking an outside weapon or armor proficiency, that skill falls behind as the class-based ones increase. And that devalues the choice (though not completely since you're still adding your level, which is not an insignificant benefit).

I think a better option may be to have offensive and defensive proficiency. The increases from a class would be to the overall offensive or defensive proficiency from trained to expert to master, etc. Then the weapon and armor proficiencies would just determine when you get to add the full value of those proficiencies or suffer a -4 untrained penalty.
So the 13th level alchemist wouldn't get Light Armor Expertise, he'd get Defense Expertise. Any armor proficiencies the alchemist has retain the full relative value they've always had.

Ultimately, this debate has also gotten me thinking that differing levels of armor proficiency other than untrained/trained for each class of armor is kind of silly and overly complicated. It may represent too much of an attempt to force a proficiency system that the designers thought was cool for skills onto places where it doesn't fit.

It's also complicating my evaluation of PF2. There are plenty of places I see improvement and then there are places like this where I would rather scrap it.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:


Your level is encoded in the proficiency bonus.

This also means the gap between using something you're at least trained with and not trained with--whether a skill, armor, or a weapon--will increase as characters level up. Another reminder for PCs to stay in your lane.

That may have always been the case with skills in PF1, but that's a new feature with weapons and armor. So, suppose a 10th level bard gets disarmed of his long sword, can't get it back, and there's a scimitar lying on a nearby table - that scimitar is a no-go. He'll suffer at least a 12-point loss in attack bonus in PF2 compared to 4-points in PF1. And he shouldn't even think about putting on the guard's chainmail if he breaks out of a prison cell, his AC is much better if he's naked.

I bet that trips a few players up for a while.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Cavall wrote:


For instance, taking a level of druid or shifter, now you may ask any question with the spell in druidic. Since they must answer in the same language asked... torture.

Sure, but since I can use a fireball to kill all the kids in an orphanage, is that also evil? In the PF cosmology, there are things that are inherently evil because they tap into evil forces. Even if they're used for a good purpose, using them involves doing at least some evil. There are also things that don't use inherently evil forces but can be put to evil use - using them isn't necessarily doing evil.

That's the difference between Interrogation and Confess.

You may not like the way Paizo has defined those things, and you can change that in a game you run. But, frankly, I don't really have a problem with it. I kind of like the Confess spell - it fits right in with what I expect a class called Inquisitor to incorporate. It may be a little dark, but so's the whole idea of an Inquisitor in the first place.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
zimmerwald1915 wrote:

He's an NPC, and what's more a 2E NPC. He can't "level up" per se.

That’s about as ridiculous a complaint as I have seen. As an NPC, he’s as tough as the story (and GM) choose to make him. And yeah, he can get tougher even if he doesn’t do so the way PCs do.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kayerloth wrote:


PS: yep, they changed it from con loss to bleed. Very different things. Greater 2 weapon fighting with a pair of wounding weapons could end up with a rather insane Con loss per round.

Indeed, that 3.5 version of wounding (3.0 involved something more like bleed) was pretty harsh. Brutal even. Probably worth a +1 over and above any version that just does bleed.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:

Since Cheliax came up, I remembered another thing that always sorta bugged me.

In general, Cheliax/Devils/LE outsiders do a really poor job feeling actually lawful. Sure, they're organized and regimented, but they lie, cheat, steal, betray and usurp almost as much as demons do which all kind of fly in the face of loyalty, honesty, commitment, tradition and duty that are supposed to form the backbone of the L side of alignment.

Between devilish double-dealing and paladins acting against the more rigid and cruelly impersonal structures of social hierarchies because they're good, I think you get to see how the other alignment axis corrupts pure lawfulness.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Sean K Reynolds blogged a defense of improved crit stacking with keen back when D&D 3.5 originally nixed it (they did stack in D&D 3.0). And mathematically, there may not be much wrong with allowing it.

The problem is in play. Does anyone really want to have to roll a confirmation whenever the fighter with a keen falchion and improved crit rolls a hit on 12 or better? Stacking the two felt wrong even if the math wasn't bad. It slowed things down even more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


This is a good idea, but only really works if your core character concept isn't dependent on one of those uncommon character assets.

Well then it's clear that your core character concept would NOT have worked with that GM in the first place. Good thing you showed up with one that will! Sounds like it works to me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


It's the paralysis caused by the unknowns (see any of my above posts, or threads related to this topic for numerous examples of confusion and frustration). As written many common and iconic character concepts simply aren't possible without a GM to allow it. This is incredibly frustrating for players who don't have access to a GM.

If you don't have access to a GM, then what are you playing? If you're creating characters in a vacuum - absent an ongoing game, that's not really affected by rarity. Go nuts and create to you heart's content.

If you aren't creating in a vacuum and have a GM running or intending to run a particular campaign - then you have access to a GM. Ask them!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

It's a challenge with incorporating various tropes from pulp stories and other influences - not all of them were racially sensitive at the time they were published and that may taint things a bit even if Paizo tries to handle them with a more enlightened approach. A gorilla king harkens back to Tarzan stories as well as Gorilla Grodd/King Solovar and makes for a great, evocative hook. And I'm sure that was why it was included on a continent that would be the natural home for a gorilla-dominated society.

Same with the Varisian wagons, Harrow cards, scarves, and shady reputation.

That's the challenge. You want enough familiar tropes to populate a world so that RPGers can relate to them. Cultural, historical, and geographic analogs, tropes in literature and mythology. And you want to do them reasonable justice without having to write a PhD thesis on each one and without suggesting the worst aspects of the tropes and stereotypes involved.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Translucent Wolf wrote:


Paizo saw this coming a while back, and determined to cater to a customer who was interested in a simpler experience in chargen and play. A customer who needed to be guided through the experience and then have assistance with 'well, what should my character do now' from 1 to 20.

And so, we now have PF2, which caters to a customer who enjoys having many of their decisions made for them. Pick a given path in a class, and then at each level, there's only a couple of things to choose from, rather than the massive number of options available in PF1.

<snip>

As things stand today, however, I will not be transitioning the players at my table over to 2e.

Frankly, with the level of disdain you seem to have for the players you think Paizo is catering to, I'm not sure why anybody'd want to play PF2 with you. You certainly did load your language here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Captain Hawk wrote:


I think the line you object to "could be sexually attracted to a succubus" mean that it doesn't apply if it doesn't feel to your verisimilitude that it should apply. If you've established in the lore of your story that Jack the wizard is not into girls, then some DMs would rule that he's immune to the lure of the succubi, while another DM doesn't feel that way. If a DM thinks rock monsters wouldn't care, then they are immune.

I think it may come down to something like this. Paizo has spent some effort making sure they validate everyone’s gender/sexuality identities and preferences from the game’s perspective. They don’t want some monster in the Bestiary ignoring that effort. How do you think a player would feel if they’ve established their character isn’t into women yet the DM rules, “Yes, you’re still attracted to her?” Kind of invalidates that choice when it’s actually important.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
McDaygo wrote:


Dark Souls was an over exaggeration I’ll admit but no I don’t play as GM trying to actively kill my players (when I do GM); I just want the game to be challenging. For example: I think a Level 1 Goblin NPC should have an equal chance of killing the Level 1 fighter vs. being considered a “trash mob”.

I guess that depends on what's a level 1 goblin? Do you mean the base goblin in the Bestiary (warrior 1, CR 1/3)? Or do you mean a CR 1 goblin (who would more likely be a level 2 PC-classed goblin)?

You've got the tools to make the game as deadly in combat as you want. You may just have to go a little outside the encounter creation guidelines to do so or work at the top end of the scale.

McDaygo wrote:
I also think the game should have a Horror Factor rating just because you made the knowledge check to identify the (insert monster) there is a difference between reading about and experiencing it in the wild. Small realistic mechanics like that (Yes I understand wanting realism in a fantasy setting is silly).

Realistic, in this case, is fairly subjective. Should they really be horrified by everything or only things that are really horrific, and what constitutes horrific? A dragon? A giant? A gnoll? A bear? A pixie?

Would the addition of such a mechanic add to the game or just suck the energy out of the room?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like 99/100 contracts I'd be happier with Abadar signing of on than Asmodeus. Having Asmodeus inovked on a contract basically signals "this is not a fair contract, someone is trying to get one over on someone else."

Asmodeus wouldn't literally be signing off on your typical contract (nor would Abadar). You invoke the goddess of art when you make art, you invoke the goddess of revenge when you seek successful revenge, you invoke the god of contracts when you make a contract...

I can imagine an Asmodean notary public available in many good-sized cities.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I kind of doubt there are all that many places where all kinds of Asmodean worship would be illegal. He is, after all, the god of contracts. That gives him a reasonable reason to be propitiated or invoked to bless a contract if not actually worshiped anywhere.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Kind of depends on just how 'activist' you see the gods being. If you take a more Greek model, you figure the gods are constantly meddling in mortal affairs. Alternatively, you could take a more passive approach in which the gods are more concerned with grand cosmic stuff and not stooping to curse a lowly lawyer. Either approach might be valid for a campaign.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Reksew_Trebla wrote:


Also, the way you were brought up is wrong. The game is closer to hack and slash than it ever will be to dark souls.

That is highly subjective and depends a lot on how you play. The D&D family of games may be highly amenable to hack and slash murder hoboing, but since the first day they've been published they've aspired to much more.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:

Some of you need to practice more thorough reading (not intended to be rude, we all skim at times). You answered my first scenario of designating on a thrown dagger, you failed to even acknowledge the second example. I will quote it again here for you to consider an disect, with extra emphasis.

bbangerter wrote:


Or give my two handed weapon of choice the throwing enchantment, then apply lesser designating and gain all the benefits? So while making such as weapon would require a total of +3 worth of enchantments and only provide me with a net +2 attack/damage, so not as good for me personally as just adding +3 enhancement bonus to my weapon, it does wonders for a party with multiple melee classes, or for my full TWF build since I don't have to stack as many bonuses on my off hand weapon.

I wouldn't have a problem with it. The throwing property turns it into a ranged weapon and that should be good enough to plop on the second property. Of course, without the returning property, you're throwing perfectly serviceable (and expensive) melee weapon at your target only to have to go pick it up again and for just a 1 round morale bonus. I'd seriously consider putting it on something smaller and cheaper and already throwable to save the extra +1 of magic bonus equivalence.

Though, I suppose whipping a dagger at the enemy doesn't have quite the same "Boo-Yah!" cachet to it as throwing a whole two-handed sword.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Claxon wrote:


This is why classes generally give bonuses to skill and not bonus skill ranks. It works basically the same, unless you want to take a feat that relies on having X number of ranks in a skill.

Bonus ranks also might come for a skill in which the character has invested no ranks. Gaining bonus ranks would allow them to make certain skill checks that require them to be trained. That's something just having a bonus to the skill wouldn't do.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

And if it works with the group you play in, why knock it? If it were a bad fit, sure, then complain. I think fellow players would have a right to do so. But if it fits in, great, even if it isn’t pushing the envelope on individual power.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

It’s also, I think, an anti-piracy measure. They make the rulebook PDFs fairly cheap to make it easy for interested players to “do the right thing”.

The other PDFs don’t get such a discount because they aren’t the rulebooks and probably won’t sell nearly as many copies. They can’t make up for as much of the production cost with volume, volume, volume.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Though I will not the long running common complaint of "It makes no sense that I forget how to cast fireball. If I know it I should just know it."

So for some subset of players, even old school D&D spellcasting is dissociated.
Often it's fluff framing device that leads to most players finding a mechanic dissociated or not. PF1 is full of limited use mechanics with varying (or in some cases no) justification. Point pools, once per round, x/day, once a day, etc.
I just took Improved Iron Will in one game. That leads to exactly the “I better not try to catch this ball one-handed, because if I do I won’t be able to make any more one-handed catches today” situation. And there's no real attempt at any justification for it.
4E did do it more and did it more generically - making most of the powers work that way, which made it more obvious.

The exception for spells (much less fireball) being the fact that any system of magic is, by definition, arbitrary. The rules of magic can be determined to be literally anything we want it to be - and thus be very convenient for a game. The rules of achieving a particularly spectacular attack result? The disconnect is more strongly felt.

And I agree that as PF developed, it picked up more fiddly bits that tended to be dissociative. It may have a lot to do with why I don't like later developed classes as much as earlier ones.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Cavall wrote:


Bonuses for crits get used for confirmation. Hence true strike. Takes care of a lot of range penalties too.

As for cost, I already said it was expensive. But then again its sort cheap when you simply hand wave away a boss fight every day. Dragon? Once a day please. Demon lord? Sure. Item cost you 78 k for a rather nice loot haul. Seems pretty cheap actually.

Hell just give it to the bloodrager. He can cast true strike the round before and also is full bab. Reach level 11 (right about the time its affordable) and doesn't even need that round before.

In fact here's a fun combo.

Blood rager rages, free true strike. Activates Helm. Kills boss. Oh but there was secretly two bosses! Haha got you.

"I end my rage. While I'm exhausted guess I'll just put on my new helm next round. Only costs 5600. Oh wait even cheaper since it seemed smart for us to take some craft feats."

In fact, he could craft it with character wealth at level 9 and still have change over.

The problem is we can't say "why not just ban that combo" while at the same time saying "RAW doesn't care about something being OP". Only reason it's that absurd is because we asked the question "is there a way this comes back to bite us in the ass" and yes. There is.

I know I'm taking it to the extreme of being silly but these are items off the top of my head. I'm positive someone else can do worse.

Honestly, if it's too good with a thrown ranged weapon, it's too good with a melee weapon considering all the ways a character could use to close with that boss. To me, that says the problem lies some place other than the fact that a weapon was thrown.

Given the presence of a powerful magic weapon effect that triggers off a specific die roll, any item or power that gives you the ability to pick that roll when you want it has to be suspect.

Interestingly, we're working through a similar issue in Star Wars Saga Edition. Jedi Masters have the ability to auto-roll a natural 20 at the cost of a full round action + a swift action. Rolling a natural 20 on a Use the Force check to activate a Force power refreshes all of their encounter-based Force powers. Meaning - any Jedi Master can very easily recharge all of their used Force powers. It's a very potent ability - potentially too good.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
The good news is that PF2e doesn't need to compete with 5e.

But it will. People don’t have infinite time or money, they’re in the same genre, they will compete. That is inevitable.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
vagabond_666 wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
It's worse than that. He didn't just commit suicide, Joseph Batten stalked and murdered his estranged wife then committed suicide.
As tragic as that whole episode is, it's a fairly basic management failure, because there are plenty of much more prozaic ways that a single staff member can end up leaving a software development project, and if you've set yourself up so that one person walking out cripples your ability to deliver the application on time, well, that can't really be put down to "this incredibly rare tragedy took place".

I think if he’d simply left the company, they’d have soldiered on. It may be a bit of a management failure in the sense that he could have been killed in a car accident or died just as suddenly from some other reason. On the other hand, the way he went out was pretty shocking and it’s kind of cold to blame management for not getting the project back on track.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Does it actually seem overpowered to anyone to allow keen on a thrown dagger? Because I'm not seeing it. Meanwhile, the rules could be interpreted any which way, so why not let the combo work?

The question is not about daggers, but the underlying mechanic.

If it applies to daggers, it applies to starknives, nodachi, fauchards, etc.

...so? Is it problematic that allowing a dagger to retain the keen-influenced threat range when thrown means you should do the same with starknives? I don't think so. And throwing any of those weapons that aren't meant for throwing? The rules already saddle you with some problems with those (-4 to hit, bad action economy, poor range, gimped crits). The keen benefit isn't exactly going to break anything.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
EldonGuyre wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
EldonGuyre wrote:

Let me see if I can't make this clear in a different way:

Four friends start a business venture. All four work together to do the basic job that needs to be done - but one guy is a computer systems engineer, in addition to the work he does for the venture.

Do you really want to call him greedy if he wants to be paid for spending an extra 20 or 30 hours building the network it would have cost much more to have built otherwise?

The difference here is that the PC with the feats spends no extra time at all but ends up with a substantially wealthier character than his fellows. The principles of economic justice that would compensate a real person for real time - not that applicable.

If it works for the group - fine. But it wouldn't fly with any of the groups I play in.

No extra time?

So you just ignore those rules?

Sorry, I should have said player of the PC. There's not a whit of extra effort expended here.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
EldonGuyre wrote:

Let me see if I can't make this clear in a different way:

Four friends start a business venture. All four work together to do the basic job that needs to be done - but one guy is a computer systems engineer, in addition to the work he does for the venture.

Do you really want to call him greedy if he wants to be paid for spending an extra 20 or 30 hours building the network it would have cost much more to have built otherwise?

The difference here is that the PC with the feats spends no extra time at all but ends up with a substantially wealthier character than his fellows. The principles of economic justice that would compensate a real person for real time - not that applicable.

If it works for the group - fine. But it wouldn't fly with any of the groups I play in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

A full attack action can be considered a subset of the set of all full-round actions (which may include things other than making multiple attacks). So they're not exactly the same.

But the kicker here is that since a PC can only take 1 full-round action on his term, he can't do both the Tiger Claw attack and the Flurry of Maneuvers, each of which would take the full-round action. It's like finding out that a plate of potstickers costs $5 and so does a pint of beer. You can't use the same $5 to pay for both of them.

Same with the charge. Each one is a full round action. You don't have enough full round actions in a round to pay for them all.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I'm of the mind to keep it simple as well and leaving the crit range modified by keen whether wielded by hand or thrown. I don't see much point in nitpicking the piss out of it.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
Personally, I can't even draw a blank. So it's hard for me to be too critical of art that I could never reproduce if I had 100 years of practice.

Indeed, I won’t be too critical either. Yet if the art really turns me off, it’s really going to affect my relationship with the product. Fortunately, that hasn’t been a problem with many products - and never with a Pathfinder product yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
RangerWickett wrote:

Warning: the following is hearsay from what other people have talked about online. If someone wants to show me this is false, I will gladly delete it.

There also was the disaster that the lead programmer for their online tabletop software committed suicide. 4e was clearly designed to play well in a 'click your power and choose your target on a grid' sort of system, and as I understand it WotC expected to launch a Roll20 style online platform easily 3 years before any of the current players were up and running.

I think they expected 4e to be popular for people playing with laptops, with everyone's characters linked together through a subscription-based service.

Instead, you had to play the game with minis and doing the math in your head, and it was doable, but not what the system was intended for. When the programmer died, I think that whole team lost their drive and it was scrapped.

It's worse than that. He didn't just commit suicide, Joseph Batten stalked and murdered his estranged wife then committed suicide.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I'd allow it. The AoMF isn't just about punching things - with ghost touch, it gives all unarmed attacks and natural weapons a chance against incorporeal creatures. If it didn't allow a grapple, it wouldn't allow improved grab and that would keep non-pouncing rakes from being of use. And I don't think that's part of the intent of how AoMF with ghost touch is supposed to interact with the regular incorporeal rules.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

If you're having trouble with the idea that it's doing damage twice in one round, it really isn't. That first 2d6 damage is really the hold-over from the previous round because of the 1 round casting time. It's technically occurring before the caster's next round starts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

4E's fundamental problems were threefold:

My recollection from the time was that there were some non-rules issues at play too.

The marketting campaign was not well received and the pulling of the Dungeon and Dragon magazine licenses from Paizo was equally unpopular (to an admittedly more limited section of the fanbase).

However, a hugely significant event at the time was the pulling of 3.5 PDFs - many, many people cited that as being a reason they'd never support WotC. It's kind of faded in people's minds I think, but that was a big deal ten years ago.

They did set themselves up with a perfect storm to try to fly into.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Illrigger wrote:


Yeah, definitely. I remember the various sub models they pushed and then abandoned for 4e. They could never figure out how to get books you bought into their system so you could use them with the sub, which made the sub useless shortly after it came out. Not the most well-planned thing ever done in the game industry, let's just leave it at that.

It was also supposed to tie in to an online playing tool, kind of like Roll20. But a murder-suicide pretty much crippled efforts to get that up and running.

WotC tabletop tragedy

1 to 50 of 6,533 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>