Batsel Hoon

Disk Elemental's page

Organized Play Member. 590 posts (637 including aliases). 9 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 18 Organized Play characters. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
So the 7 INT manticore was played at human level intelligence (3 points different to an average commoner) and that's still valid?

7 Intelligence is Human level, 10 is merely the average--however this is a facile argument. I find your quibbling over Int scores to be wildly nonconstructive, especially when the tactic used amounted to "be high, shoot spikes."

Midnightoker wrote:
I am not even close to the only one with this viewpoint. I am not attacking this person, all I am saying is they are not playing by RAW or the way most people play (both true).

You've repeated this accusation at least three times, but have never explained it. What printed rule from the Core Rule Book is being violated?

The truth is, it doesn't matter whether you like how the game is played or whether you agree with the philosophy, because a playtest is a fundamentally different beast from a beer and pretzels weekly campaign. The purpose of a playtest is to play by RAW, and to do everything in your power to put the system through its paces--And I despise the number of personal attacks and straight-up bad faith engagement on the part of the community, in response to someone doing that.

The fact that the developers have gone so far as to legitimize this bullying by dismissing the criticism is frankly baffling.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
They communicated that was in line with their tactics in all combats, regardless of monster intelligence. Manticore was a part of the playtest and player trading tactics for the sake of causing long term TPKs was the standard.

But that's not even remotely what happened. You claimed the manticore suicide bombed the party, solely to kill 1 PC, and make the dungeon harder. When in fact, the manticore used its mobility and natural abilities to stay out of harm's way, and then when it had the party at its mercy, used them to further it's own ends--in a way that was close to mutually beneficial. That's not "durr hurr murder PCs" that's roleplaying an enemy with human intelligence.

All this data is available here, all it took to find was a quick glance at the user's post history.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Um that was a direct example of something in the persons playtest. It's not a straw man so much as it is evidence.

Except that literally did not happen, you are making it up. I went through their entire campaign journal to be sure.

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
If you have to eliminate any form of realism in a fight in order to have a good time playing there are countless systems that can support that.

See, this statement right here is proof you haven't grokked my point.

If the purpose is to see how well the combat mechanics hold up, what is/is not fun doesn't really matter. Personally, I despise save-or-suck spells as a player and as a GM, they aren't fun for me. But if I'm attempting to playtest the rules, to figure out how well they function as-written, then my own fun is irrelevant, the spells are going to hit the table.

Midnightoker wrote:
Manticores of 7 INT playing "I'm going to sacrifice myself to kill this PC so next time they're in combat they are down a party member and I have perfect knowledge of the PCs current hit points and condition status" is not 'good tactics' it's metagaming for the sake of winning combat.

What a lovely strawman you've constructed.

Midnightoker wrote:
I'm of the opinion that if you are going to create a house rule (grossly playing adversary encounters against RAW and granting NPCs 'God/hivemind' knowledge) then you're the one responsible for creating a house rule to solve the problems that creates.

I see no RAW being violated here. However, I do see you making wild statements and pretending that they are RAW. Would you care to elaborate on what actual printed rule is being violated?

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Giving NPCs and monsters tactics based on out of game mechanics, treating all monsters as fodder meant only to die to trade another enemy's life, and not playing monsters realistically to their intelligence level are not going to be standard at a lot of gaming tables.

But they ARE how you test a system. Testing whether your GM can arbitrarily decide to make a fight easier by using poor tactics, or forcing enemies to run, DOES NOT provide feedback on how to make the system better--because the system was superseded by something completely outside it.

If you really feel that such things are mandatory to balance the combat (which they're not in Pathfinder, they're not in 5e, and they certainly shouldn't be here), then Paizo needs to add a morale system, or some way to represent enemies breaking and running.

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Your playtest results are valid, but to be honest, I am not sure I am going to making any significant changes to the game based on a rather harcore approach to NPC tactics.

Perhaps I'm missing the point of a playtest, but shouldn't you be welcoming data like this? If you're attempting to design any kind of system, then stress test data is infinitely more valuable for determining how well you've accomplished that end, than data from people refusing to push the system to its limits.

If your re-design of the dying rules hinges upon a GM interpretation of a nebulous term in order to function as intended, then the fault lies with the rules. Not with the person who found the issue.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
It's definitely the only form of attrition for martials.

Except for ability damage, spell effects, and conditions like fatigue, exhaustion, etc.

Also, isn't the selling point of martials that they can go all day? I seem to recall Paizo thinking so highly of being free from the constraints of uses per day and spell slots that they had to nerf the Kineticist into the ground.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:
The real fix to CLW spam is adding some sort of non-magical way to restore a meaningful amount of health, such as by letting you spend 5 minutes with the Heal/Medicine skill and a healer's kit.

You're still going to have complaints, because so many people seem to believe that HP attrition is the only form of attrition.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Some of us DO view it as an issue and appreciate the effort to fix it.

Then why not fix it in your own game? Blanket ban wands of Cure Light/Infernal Healing. There's no need to ruin the entire concept of a consumable, simply to fix something that GMs can house rule.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:

2) Why would any god want to have their followers make such things and then sell them on an open market?

3) Why would any cleric want to make a wand of healing to sell?

Hmm...

If you'll permit me, I'd like to extend this line of thinking. Why would any god allow scrolls, potions, wands, etc. to be sold? Every objection you've brought up to wands of healing holds true for every other spell in the game. Also, your argument is fundamentally flawed because CLW isn't limited to Clerics; no god is going to take offense at a Bard or Witch making a wand.

Snickersnax wrote:
When there are no good reasons for such an item to exist other than everyone wants them, its seems like the cost should be prohibitive or they are not for sale at all.

As I explained back on page 2, the best argument for it's existence is that it means that no one in the party is forced to play a healer. It also gives the GM more freedom when designing encounters and dungeons, with the tacit understanding that simple out-of-combat deal X damage obstacles are ineffective.

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
That's mainly the point - once you add a wand of CLW into the scenario, any HP damage that doesn't kill someone becomes completely irrelevant. The actual threats in the two scenarios you've presented are likely to be stat damage (which takes more resources to fix) or a set of enemies. That's a pretty important problem.

It's not a problem at all, because getting nickled and dimed to death via HP damage isn't interesting (since in the scenario you presented there's no way around it) or fun for the party. In the situation, the party needs the foresight and resources to obtain the wand, and the skills to use it, which makes it roughly equivalent to a Wizard preparing the right spell at the right moment. In addition, the problems a wand of CLW does solve, are fairly static and uninteresting in nature. As a GM, I'd much rather challenge players with more creative problems, that can be defeated with preparation and planning, as opposed to pointing to someone and saying "you take X damage" rinse and repeat until the party is dead.

Shadow Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Conversely, let's say there's a swinging blade trap. You have no way to disarm it. With effective infinite free healing outside of combat, what is the downside to simply walking through it, taking the damage, and proceeding on as though it didn't exist?

Lets dissect this situation for a moment, looking at the two major modes of play.

First, lets consider the case where this is a pre-written module, that I am running exclusively as written. In that case, if the party has no Rogue (say this was a PFS table, made from a group of random people), then I applaud their use of the wand of CLW as an alternative method to deal with a challenge they had no other way of mitigating. I don't advocate banning Dimension Door, because a Wizard can use it to teleport the party across a river they had no other way of dealing with; why is this any different?

Second, lets consider the case where I wrote this encounter, and knew my party going in. In which case, if they had no way to disarm the trap, and I knew they had a wand of CLW, why would I put a simple trap there? I wouldn't force a party of 20th level demigods to fight a CR 1/4 Skeleton, so why would I put the party up against something they're more than capable of dealing with? Instead, I might poison the blade of the trap, causing an injury that a cheap consumable can't fix; or I might have the clatter attract marauding creatures, who ambush the party and prevent them from immediately healing. In both cases, I've turned a simple axe trap into something that requires more thought to deal with.

Shadow Lodge

17 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't seen a good explanation of this issue, so can someone please explain to me what the issue is with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds? And why this issue is drastic enough to warrant taking a sledgehammer to entire classes to "fix"?

From my perspective, having on-demand healing is beneficial for both the party and for the GM, in two major ways.

It benefits the players by not saddling a player with the role of healer. It has been observed time and time again in video games, that players do not like playing healers. It has gotten to the point the League of Legends had to implement a queue that gave special rewards for playing a healer, World of Warcraft found the need to do the same thing. While it's not a direct comparison, it's reasonable to believe such a trend exists in TTRPGs. So why force players into the role? A simple healstick both means a party doesn't *need* a Cleric, Oracle, Bard, Witch, etc. which allows for more interesting and creative party combinations. It also allows the people playing those classes to prepare a wide variety of spells, to do things beyond simply sitting in the back, and preparing to slap a band-aid on the Fighter after a battle. The wand of Cure Light also allows those who enjoy playing healers, to focus on damage mitigation, condition removal, wider varieties of in-combat healing, and other activities that are both more skill expressive and varied in their options.

It benefits GMs by allowing them to design encounters that test a wider range of skills. Rather than players constantly needing to budget their 1-2 healing spells a day, and wincing every time a CLW rolls a 1 or an enemy crits for damage they haven't the resources to heal, the party is more or less at fill HP going into every fight. Which means the GM can throw harder encounters at players, encounters with multiple parts, encounters with fun terrain gimmicks, etc. All without needing to constantly math out if the party has the raw numbers to not be crippled by fighting one extra skeleton.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
That’s an assumption you are having.

That's what being a God is. It's representing an embodiment of an ideal or ethos, to the point that your favor grants mortals the ability to literally glow with that ethos, as if they were inhuman.

Rysky wrote:
What’s a little bit more? That’s how it works. That’s how it always works.

No, that's how it works for some characters.

Making any kind of universal statement like that, especially about the personal arc of Player Characters, is absolutely antithetical to the purpose of a TTRPG. This isn't a videogame, where your endings are set in stone, your character's arc is truly yours, and yours alone.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Being equally about evil and law, like Asmodeus is, means that you would NOT simply wish to create an "ordered society". You would want to create an 'EVILLY ordered society." Lawful neutral is the one you'd want for an "ordered society".

Correct... thus a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Asmodeus would focus on the aspect that brings about a Lawful Society, with little care for the Evil aspect. Asmoedeus, for his part, would be delighted, because the society in his image would inevitably result in Evil being done, even if the initial conception was benign. The road to Hell is paved in good intentions, and having a deity that embraces that results in far more story possibilities than making a deity that is always mega-evil for reals. That's what Diabolism in Pathfinder has always been about, that even with pure intent, even if you personally keep your soul, any dealings with Hell means the cause of Hell will be served.

James Jacobs wrote:
This doesn't remove story options any more than the fact that we won't be likely to have a witch in the core rules "removes" witches from Irrisen.

I profoundly disagree. These changes mean Cleric, the actual mechanical class, can no longer be the vessel for stories that it once supported. Which is distinctly different than the relevant material simply being unavailable. I would liken this change to removing all Summoning from the Wizard list, limiting them solely to the Sorcerer. The general concept may still be available in another form, but characters (not PCs, characters) who once existed, no longer do.

Also, I find Zon-Kuthon allowing LN clerics to be even more puzzling, in light of this discussion. He exists solely to inflict pain and suffering on others, and has little to no constructive element to his portfolio.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Personally, for me, taking lawful neutral Asmodeus worshipers as an example... I see nothing natural at all about someone who worships the ruler of Hell itself in a way that isn't evil.

What about the people who simply wish to create an ordered society, unburdened by Abadar's focus on Wealth and Profit? Asmodeus is equal parts a god of Evil and Law; just as Desna is equal parts Chaos and Good. Why are worshipers prevented from focusing on one aspect in the former case, but not the latter?

One could argue that such half-hearted devotion is offensive to the god's sensibilities or somehow subverting their will, but that argument doesn't hold water, especially for a deity as pragmatic and forward thinking as Asmodeus. If offering the stability of a lawful and ordered society draws in servants, who may later be tempted to the path of evil, furthers the cause of Hell, why wouldn't Asmodeus give mortals enough rope to hang themselves? Why does Asmodeus only allow his will to be carried about by "true" believers, rather than accepting the service of any foolish enough to believe they can bargain with Hell and come out ahead?

I'm utterly baffled by this change because, from my perspective, it only serves to remove story options, and to make Golarion less interesting, not more.

As an afterthought, what does this mean for the Order of the Godclaw? Previously, they existed by focusing on the lawful aspect of all deities, but now since Asmodeus is LE and only LE, that means he conflicts with Iomedae and Torag.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:

This is not true.

A level 1 sorcerer / level x Wizard was always stronger than a level x wizard.

That's not remotely true, outside of the Crossblooded Orc-Draconic Evoker you already mentioned... which really only exists to allow a borderline useless type of character be boosted up to playable.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:
yep, dipping led to broken characters, where as true multiclassing meant you couldn't do enough.

A bizzare stance to take, when the most hideously broken PCs have always been the Single-Classed fullcasters.

Now we're going to see these full-casters being able to take toys from other classes, at little loss to themselves. If a Wizard can get into Eldritch Knight without losing spell progression, why wouldn't they?

Shadow Lodge

21 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm very disappointed that this is the direction 2e has chosen to go.

Multi-classing was one of the most interesting and skill-expressive mechanics in 1e, allowing players to create a character that's both unique and wholly their own. Reducing such mechanics to a handful of pre-defined packages is a massive loss for everyone who enjoyed the customization of 1e. If anything is reverted in playtesting, I hope this is it.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we take this as an indication that the 6th level caster doesn't exist in 2e?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been unimpressed with many of the changes thus far, but this does a good job of keeping the class's core identity, while greatly upgrading it.

Well done.

Shadow Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

In Pathfinder 1e, high level play necessitates martial characters load themselves down with magic items containing buffs or other abilities, in order to keep up if there's no dedicated buffer in the party. However, it seems as though resonance is designed to artificially limit the number of items like this that they can have. An effect only compounded by the fact that the majority of non-magical types don't have build points to spare on having a high charisma, and are therefore limited in resonance.

Would you care to explain the rationale behind such a decision?

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:
You’ll note that I suggested the class be renamed ‘Divine Champions’ with ‘Paladins’ only being the Lawful Good subset.

I certainly wouldn't have been opposed to that, but it's not the route Paizo has chosen to go.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:
I sincerely wish that Paizo had at least explored opening up Paladins to all good alignments, making your deific code of tenets the centerpiece of the class. We deserve holy warriors in the CRB to champion the chaotic gods who want to make the world a better place.

The stringent behavioral guidelines associated with the Paladin's Code, and the discipline that comes with it, are antithetical to the idea of a Chaotic God. In the example given, you've essentially created a code that can be summarized as "don't be evil", which is certainly a noble sentiment--but the Paladin is supposed to be beyond merely not being evil, it's about duty both to others, and to yourself, walking the razor's edge in the name of continually forcing yourself to be your best; and it is accepting that failure means losing everything. Chaos does not allow for that kind of stringent duty, nor should it! Chaos is the easy rode of kinda doing whatever you want.

I do think that Chaotic gods should have the option of having a holy Warrior (which is why I hope Clerics get some better martial options), and hope they get another class in the future.

I just hope it's not called Paladin.

Shadow Lodge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Dude I hate gunslingers. Hate with a burning passion. I hate Alchemists, they are dumb, they (and 'slingers) belong in a weird pirate-esque setting, along with the swashbuckler. They are too far ahead time-line wise to be around.

Guns predated Full Plate and Rapiers by nearly a century.

Alchemy has been around since Ancient Egypt.

Guns and Alchemy are no further ahead in the timeline than other things you'd consider fantasy staples.

Shadow Lodge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:
Only Lawful Good can be this shining champion against Evil, so... kinda means "Best Good" there. Given that other Good alignments are just unable to really channel the righteousness. Or use their armor, apparently.

Cleric, Warpriest, Inquisitor?

Xerres wrote:
As to Gods, Iomedae is the one that closed the Worldwound, Asmodeus is the mastermind destined to control all creation, Zon-Kuthon gets to wear the leather chaps, and Irori became a God by throwing up the horns and daring reality to stop him. And Abadar has a pretty good beard, I like it.

Iomedae's worshipers alternate between being punching bags for whichever writer is angry about organized religion this week, or faceless/viscous goons to slaughter (Hell's Vengeance). Iomedae herself doesn't get away any better, being presented as an violent, iron-fisted weirdo, in the AP ostensibly focused on her... who doesn't even play a major part in sealing the World Wound, since the PCs are the stars of the show, and their coalition actually has relatively few Iomedaeans, given where they are.

Xerres wrote:
Asmodeus is the mastermind destined to control all creation

Asmodeus gets consistently awful mechanics, and has been retconned to be wayyy stupider, in the name of making some social point.

Xerres wrote:
Irori became a God by throwing up the horns and daring reality to stop him.

So did Cayden. One is one of the poster boys for the setting, the other has so little lore most people can't tell you anything beyond his most generic traits.

Xerres wrote:
Contrasting that, Cayden is a drunk that no one cares about

Who gets the second most exposure of any god...

Xerres wrote:
Desna is the one who riled the Abyss enough to make it a problem to begin with.

First off, not true. Second off, Desna gets more exposure than any every other god. The majority of APs have a major Desnan NPC, who is always just super helpful and the bestest person ever, and some even bring in random elements of her faith in places it makes no sense to have. To cap it off, she constantly gets the best feats, archetypes, and domains. Like, Desna is so blatantly Paizo's favorite that it's kinda silly.

Xerres wrote:
Rovagug got slapped down by Sarenrae

Most powerful being in the entire setting, can apparently kill Azathoth.

Xerres wrote:
I think making them Lawful Good only is a big mistake. Its a pointless limitation and its only purpose is elitism as far as I'm concerned. Making it so Lawful Good is Best Good. I find the notion very disappointing.

It's not elitism, it's a reward for purposely taking on a significant challenge.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:
And I'll light a match and say that if they do create other alignment Paladins, they'll be intentionally weaker to avoid power creep, furthering my displeasure of of Lawful Good being Best Good.

Lawful good has never been best good in Pathfinder. Lawful deities are constantly diminished in the fluff, their chaotic counterparts get far better domains/spells, far more limelight in adventures, on top of the strict code of conduct which makes being LG more difficult than any other good.

If LG Paladin is truly better than the others (and I see no evidence to suggest it will be, history suggests that, if anything, the Paladin of Freedom will be the strongest by far), let them have it. The LG players get beat up enough.

Shadow Lodge

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Any chance we can get some numbers on LoH, or a quick glimpse at when Smite Evil might make a return?

Also, I really don't like Divine Grace being a reaction--it forces the Paladin to stop defending their allies in order to protect themselves, which is antithetical to the class's fluff. It also looks like it'll lead to reaction choke between Divine Grace, Retributive Strike, Shield Usage, and Attack of Opportunity.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting.

However, the biggest problem when it comes to playing "the type of fighter you want to" has always been the inordinate amount of feat taxes required to do something as simple as throw a javelin or axe without penalty. Even in the example given... being able to fire two shots accurately with a bow would require Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and likely, Rapid Shot.. then Whirlwind Attacking with an Axe would require Combat Expertise, Mobility, Dodge, and Spring Attack, not to mention the investment in Strength, Dex, and Int required.

Has this been addressed in Pathfinder 2e?

Shadow Lodge

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Of all the news I expected to drop without fanfare on a Tuesday afternoon, this is not it.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Banning an incredibly popular combination that's been around for 7 years, would be an absolutely asinine decision. Especially if it's not accompanied by changes to make the already-struggling-magus more playable.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The dcs for intimidate are just too low to deal with reasonably unless you want to have all NPCs with important information be paladins.

That's the real reason.

Diplomacy and bluff both have RAW circumstance modifiers that prevent them from working in certain situations; Intimidate has no such restriction, an has a ludicrously low DC.

10 + HD + Wisdom mod is ridiculously easy to beat, even at 1st level, and only gets easier as time goes on. I'm currently in a 4th level campaign with a Cha 14 Thug Rogue, who rarely fails any sort of intimidate check, even against CR 8 and 9 enemies. Simply because the DC scales too slowly.

Applying this to modules, you get to points where if enemies don't get the same resistance to intimidate as they do to bluff/diplo, you easily end up at a point where the party can do whatever they want, while shrugging off consequences with a trivial DC.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:
I dislike the implication that those who choose the Grand Lodge are somehow less than those who do not. There are people who are Grand Lodge because they passionately love the Society, warts and all.

I dislike the notion that licking the Ten's boots is what's best for the Society.

It's been proven time and again, that The Ten only care for themselves. They won't even stick their necks out to help the Master of Spells. Considering what's nestled in the upper floors of Sky's Reach, Sorrina Westyr shouldn't have been trapped in Orv for all those years, and retrieving Aram Zey should have taken an hour, at most.

If you wish to change the Society, you have to put pressure on the leadership; force them to be accountable to others in order to achieve their goals. You can't claim to be a transformative force, while also mindlessly following the very orders you wish to change.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:

Dark Archive is not the Cheliax faction anymore. And what happens during that trilogy fits perfectly with previous developments ** spoiler omitted **

Besides all that, Pathfinder Society does not allow for evil players while the infernal empire of Cheliax is a LE nation historically in conflict with the Society itself, so it makes sense for PFS to be opposed to Cheliax.

The Dark Archive isn't Cheliax, but it is a faction dedicated to securing dangerous knowledge, and is a largely apolitical entity. Nothing you do in the arc supports that goal. Liberty's Edge is a faction dedicated to fighting "tyranny" and is very much a political entity; which fits perfectly with the not inconsiderable number of crimes you commit in the arc, all in the name of opposing house Thrune.

What happens in the box text at the very end of the trilogy sort of fits with the previous developments if you squint and don't think about it too hard. Personally I took the interpretation that Tancred was just able to screw over Zarta solely because of his connections and political machinations, rather than some nebulous document. However, that event wasn't built up over the course of the arc. You literally find a piece of exposition sitting there in a plot convenient box, rather than a place that makes any sense or has any danger or mystery surrounding it.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:

Dark Archives has its own trilogy in season 7 and Zarta had a plot line peppered over 2 or 3 seasons... That's more than Liberty's Edge has ever had.

While Scarab Sages has been the most prevalent since season 5 started, you can't really say Dark Archives has been shafted more than a couple other factions who've only had one or two (if that many) scenarios total.

That trilogy wasn't Dark Archive. It did nothing to further the faction's overall goals and the thematic links only came about in the box text at the end of the final scenario. In fact, given what actually happens in the series, I'd say that trilogy is far, far, more thematically linked to Liberty's Edge. What with all the supporting anti-Chelish subversives, debunking House Thrune's propaganda, murdering law enforcement, and literally everything that happens in Part 3.

Also, Liberty's Edge had a major arc kicked off in 9-02.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Always disappointed to see factions disappear, hopefully their departure will be handled significantly better than Shadow Lodge(#StillCastsAShadow). For an organization devoted to obtaining knowledge and preserving history, removal of the history preservation faction strikes me as a very odd choice. From my perspective, it makes much more sense for Liberty's Edge to be given the boot, since the Society doesn't particularly care about social justice, and has a good motivation to cut ties with everything Maldris touched.

It's also strange to me that the Concordance of Elements is showing up again, considering Unleashing the Untouchable pretty handily ended the Society's forays into the elemental planes...

Shadow Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAlicornSage wrote:
I never argued that pfs doesn't allow them, only that it seems that pfs is focused on a video game style of play, which includes a relience on rule 0 clauses rather than providing direct support for odd solutions.

You're contradicting yourself, or at least muddling your own analogy. A video game only has X set solutions, and any deviation from that is simply disallowed. A module provides text for X solutions, while giving the GM the freedom to allow for other solutions as they come up. The module can't provide direct support for all solutions any more than the video game can, it's simply not feasible.

TheAlicornSage wrote:
For less experienced gms relying on modules, this makes sense when those modules are not giving any kind of examples, options, nor support for such situations that might need rule 0 handling

Once again, you're making up things that aren't supported by fact... many scenarios with the possibility for creative solutions *do* include text on how to handle the most common ones, and the scenarios that don't, still have an end condition for the encounter. Contrary to your assertion, every GM I've taught has had a far easier time improvising or accounting for player variance when the start and the goal are both fixed points.

TheAlicornSage wrote:
If I can't trust to be told the objective, what can I trust? Without that trust, what point is there to the game?

Admittedly the scenario does a poor job of conveying it, but the fight is meant to simulate a battle between the combined forces of all competitors and a near-infinite army of the monk's spiritual bodyguards. You can't simply rush the platform, because there is a wall of bodies in the way, thus your party must whittle down the enemy forces to force their way through the throng.

I've played this scenario and run it; perhaps all the people at the cons I attended were outliers, but none of them had your interpretation of the objective. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, because it fits the narrative you're attempting to construct.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terminalmancer wrote:
I'm late to the party, but thought I'd leave a comment for future PFS philosophers. I make a poor philosopher myself, but I do think that existentialism isn't a perfect fit--this really looks like textbook absurdism to me. But I am philosophizing without a license.

That's certainly the vibe I got from her; although I, personally, would put her a bit closer to epistemological nihilism than pure absurdism... but for the vast majority of tables I think the distinction is moot. Glad to see all those philosophy books I spent lunch period in highschool reading to look smart have finally paid off!

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
As a con class capable of mitigating the cost with actions, the burn mechanic isn't really as bad as people believe it is.

-1 Con Modifier hurts no matter how high your Con is.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
A character can choose to specialize in one element or spread their power across multiple elements.

At level 7.

You get your second element at level 7. Until then, you're stuck with one blast, from one element. Which means whatever blast you pick at first level must be generally useful, lest you're rolling the dice and praying you don't run into a scary enemy that's immune to your only form of attack. It's a bad mechanic that feels as if it's been designed to trick players into shooting themselves in the foot.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The out-damaged by longbows argument is so played out that I'm not even going to begin to get into it. Suffice to say, it's a disingenuous argument. That ignores a lot of what the kineticist can do.

Kineticist's out of combat utility is so situational it's hardly worth mentioning. The class is primarily a martial one, therefore I don't feel it's "disingenuous" to compare the Kineticist to other ranged martials, and expect it to be able to perform on a similar level.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
As far as monuments go, I wouldn't dedicate it to failure until you play one for a few levels.

I played one until tenth level. I've seen one played up until fifteenth. I'm sick of the constant refrain from Kineticist apologists "Oh you just need to play the class", as if anyone who has a different assessment of the class than them must be ignorant. It's tiring, and more than a little insulting.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Occult classes are simply a mess. I love occult flavor and despise the "x-man" feel of psionics and its descendants; but Occult simply failed. Poor editing, outright ignoring playtest data, and lack of identity plagued the classes. Mesmerist and Occultist, and an archetype or two, are the only worthwhile additions from the book; even if the the Occultist is the only one whose design reaches the realm of "good."

I had 0 interest in Ultimate Intrigue, mainly because the flavor didn't interest me initially, but the Vigilante has honestly won me over by being a solid martial class, that can contribute out of combat. I've taken to affectionately calling it the Unchained Fighter, and stand by the assertion that Vigilante is what Fighter should have been all along.

Horror Adventures and Adventurer's Guide had no new base classes, but both greatly disappointed me in their lack of usable content, and over reliance on reprints.

Which brings us to Ultimate Wilderness. I had high hopes for the Shifter, which have since been dashed by what is, quite possibly, the worst class since Samurai. Supported by more reprints, and only a smattering of usable content.

I loved Ultimate Intrigue, and was excited in the direction Paizo seemed to be going in. But the last three books have effectively killed all interest I had in new Pathfinder content from Paizo.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I must say, I'm very unhappy with how Paizo has handled this discussion.

Banning all discussion until during the initial launch day rush reeks of attempting to stifle criticism, and sell as many copies of the book as possible before the truth about it comes out.

Shadow Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
People want X, they get X and barely notice. People want X, they don't get X. 1/5 STARS PAIZO YOU PRETTY MUCH RUINED MY LIFE NOW. Welcome to the world of creating content for anonymous, socially challenged nerds.

A small percentage of people want a minor tweak A, are given A and are therefore happy.

A much larger percentage of people want major thing X, are given Y instead, then are belittled and insulted for pointing out that Y is not X, and for ever wanting X to begin with.

Welcome to the world of attempting to voice dissent with people who can't separate a product from their identity.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Painful Bugger wrote:
The only real solid defense of the Shifter I've seen is here.

Could you point me to one such post? I've been largely been only responding to people who respond to me, and must've missed it.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MythicFox wrote:
Is it possible that it's not -- and shouldn't be -- up to you what reviews other people leave on the book? Your feelings should not get to decide how other people feel about a book or what they have to say about it.

I am encouraging others to stand by the low ratings they've given, not for others to give low ratings. Once again, I'm so glad that Paizo has fans dedicated enough to twist words and ignore context to defend their products.

Shadow Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
For one, I think "armchair design" is fine and dandy, but it needs to be supported by more substantial evidence. Armchair design is like stating a scientific hypothesis, but the next step is to actually perform an experiment to see whether the armchair hypothesis was correct.

This, right here, is proof you haven't taken the time to read the criticism that's been posted.

Very few people are complaining about the Shifter in regards to its mechanical efficacy, although basic number crunching shows the class has several issues in that regard. The overwhelming majority of complaints stem from an issue with the core design of the class, the copy-paste nature of the class features, and the limitations on shape shifting. Those issues are completely independent from builds, or theory crafting, or optimization. They are part of the class's identity.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Heck, kind of feels like nobody cares about anything in book besides the shifter :P People aren't reviewing the book, they are reviewing the class

The Shifter is what Paizo has been overwhelmingly using to promote the book, and the reason many people bought it. For many people, the wilderness rules are either uninteresting, or too niche, to be concerned with; you saw the same thing with all the subsystems in Ultimate Intrigue.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Well there is the thing: you don't have to pay for the luxury. No one is forcing this book or any other on any one.

However, Paizo is still attempting to sell it. Which is why I stand by the low rating I've given the book, and would encourage others to do so as well. This content is not worth paying for, and should not be purchased without a great deal of forethought.

1 to 50 of 218 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>