Dorje Sylas's page

Except the players, I hope!!!!!

Or is this going to be like one of those Japanese horror movies but instead of a girl coming out of our TV sets, we will have hoards of goblins jumping out of our computer screens to kill us and eat us?

Nothing survives! ಠ_ಠ

=====

Tangential...

I'm still in favor of NPC shops that sell the most basic of Tier 1 +0 starter gear. The stuff we currently farm off goblins in front of starter towns. Allowing players to exchange coin into a money sink if the RNG of them and other players don't provide what they need as STARTING GEAR.

The power in crafting comes from making reliable acces to Tier 2 or Upgraded items.

Since the infinite goblin farm for Tier 1 +0 there should be an NPC shop option. Its a defense against the vagaries of RNG. I'm not saying Tier 1 +0 NPC Starter items should be cheap, certainly there should be plenty of room to be under cut at the AH.

This does several practical things

1) Gives new players without friend support a path to Role specific gear they need without being RNGed out of it.

2) Shows new players what is considered "essential" equipment. (Which is much less than you'd think coming in from other MMOs or PnP background)

3) Gives new players a reason to check the auction house for lower prices.

4) Prevents monopolistic lockouts on basic "starter" equipment. (An indvidual or group buying out all 1cp or other cheap AH listings and increasing the cost.)

5) Creates an early game money sink where new players get used to the idea of the cycle: dying and buying replacement gear.

An NPC shop does no more damage to the Player side crafting economy than the infinite goblins do.

Yep I think way more might be a bit of a stretch but once we have persistent characters people will want to start developing them. Personally I don't THINK I have lost any XP with rollbacks but I can understand the concern when its a persistent character affected.

What that really means is we need a secondary catch. A character who's been Training for X amount of time (should be logged) should have Y amount of XP. This can be checked against the costs of all Feats purchased. If there is a discrepancy server side, recompile the total shown. To simplify storage requirements, store the Start and Stop dates of Training, and its easy enough to back check.

Its a change in methodology, depending on how GW has set up the programming on the back end. Instead of just adding 1 XP to all Training accounts every time unit, you store start and stop times as well to be a backup incase something like, THE ROOF OF THE DATA CENTER COLLAPSES FROM SNOW and shuts everyting down for a while. (It's been known to happend :P.)

Realistically the subscription to PFO is covering a months worth of XP gain. If your character(s) cumaltively have less than that GW would not have fulfill that obligation.

=====

It would reassure the nervice to know that such a real world date/time based backstop was in place, so they know that the XP credit they're paying for is protected.

I am also going to side with Audoucet. Goblin Works made commitments to those of us who KickStarted them. In many of the ways that matter we are their publishers and they need to deliver the product they pitched us. We aren't at that point of dispute, yet. So lets not go down the path of "they don't owe you, yes they do" quite yet.

=====

On technical issues. I've noticed that every time I log in recently with "Lokesh Brasten" he's stuck in Thornkeep and based on the description of the issue, desynced.

What would likely be helpful for US testers would be some method of identifying general regions that are controlled by which server.

If Goblin Works wants cogent bug reports out of us we need some additional forms of data on our end. A user facing ID of the Server controlling the Hex we're in, a log or onscreen display of those servers so we can add them to bug reports, a display of the number active players in said "region", and similar things. Help us help you, after all many of us are quite invested already. This thread is a good start.

What troubles me is if getting moved servers is the way load is getting handled, and many people seem to be getting dumped to Thornkeep... that just puts a load in the Thornkeep region at no one can escape from because of a self perpetuating overload.

I would point out that even CCP has to sometimes issue "travel" adversaries for players inside the EVE universe itself to warn player's of exactly the same kinds of congestion and overload. Players will even get booted back or forward, or sideways a system. Granted the server infrastructure for EVE is more or robust and granular so getting booted out of a system is less disruptive, but it still can happen.

=====

Speaking thematically, since every "character" is being supported by Pharasma, it would not be unreasonable to have some form of "souls" count on a "region" (a.k.a server). Pharasma has only so much influence to keep PCs "in the world". When that "influence" is getting over taxed (servers at or beyond safe capacity) it would be helpful to warn players ahead of time. That way they can either disperse and clear out the congestion or navigate around it to their destination.

Pharasma Influence Zones/Regions would allow for some degree of player self-regulation, as well circumnavigation of congested areas. This happens all the time in EVE (especially avoiding the Jita system), the largest functioning example of this kind of all-in-one-clustered-world structure.

So you want people to be evil/villains/miscreants, but have giant flags above their heads stating as much and allow anyone to take actions aagainst them with minimal repercussions?

So basically, no mysterious shadowy figure working in the background. No elusive thief that poses as an innocent crafter, no spies or undercover agents in organisations/guilds/kindoms, no subterfuge or backstabbing politicians working their way up. Everyone needs a flag to make things black or white.

Sounds very boring.

We may as well all just play LG or CE fighters and line up in trenches and have a go at one another.

Yep, or at least have those giant alignment flags as detectible as they are in P&P (by spells) because otherwise you get meta like EVEs where convoluted Out-of-Game spying using shell characters is a common and accepted practice. Doing what has no equivalent in-game mechanic that can be "fought" against.

I am 100% against the use of this kind of Meta-Knowledge for intentional tactical gain. If someone wants to be a shadowy spy infiltrating the opposite organization, make that a skill and make a counter for it. Or are you afraid to play a spy in such a system where your toons true nature could be discovered with appropriate resources.

Use in-game methods to hide what the character is so in-game methods can be used to discover it. Don't bull shit the system by creating a 100% Good aligned character as the spy plant for your Evil one. That is hard core cheating and abuse of the system. Ditto goes for the other way around, Evil flagged alts spying for "Good" mains.

There will be more then enough action without Meta game bullshit creating an atmosphere of inherent mistrust.

Dorje Sylas wrote:

...provided you were willing to step outside the save "non-conflict" shell of a typical carebare play style.

I think, ultimately, I am not.

(I'm also concerned, based on past experiences, that players are not capable of creating engaging content that would draw me into a persistent world.)

And if you were randomly attacked by an AI wandering monster above your level instead of a player, would that be any better. Keeping in mind that areas your more likely to get attacked are also a higher reward (for your risk). Because in the end thats what open PvP is, a smarter wandering monster guarding the most valuable goodies.

By stepping outside the comfort zone I mean that you should be prepared to die. It is going to happen, be it from the AI or more likely at the hands of a player. If you can't get your head around occasional death then this game will never be for you, nor any open world game. Even in Minecraft on a non-PvP server you will die. Once you get over the fear of death and a bit of loss (as the trade-off for higher profit) then you are 90% of the way the way to being a Carebear in a PvP world. The other 10% is learning where the safer spots are.

You likely wont take me at my word but I was and am a carebear player. I generally don't like PvP when possible. Save for specific chosen instances. I was more then happy to do simple mission running until had built up a sufficient cushion of cash and gear. I then went out into the higher risk/higher reward spaces where PvP was less controlled.

I also used to be a mining boss in EVE, running crews of 12+ ships in belt mining, both safe and un-safe space. The important thing to be clear on is that you should not be alone. Most of the time I was doing missions or mining i was in a group of at least 3 or more. In low-sec (full PvP) mining we would also run with a small squad of PvPers for defense. We would also check local intel for troublemakers, keep an eye the region, and be ready to ditch if things started looking bad.

And that was EVE, which is way more PvP happy then I read the PFO devs want to go. More people doing PvP just to mess with people. If PFO is EVEs level of "meaningless" PvP it'll be fine, and if the devs can pull off their magic to make it less it will be glorious.

The last note and the important one, you should not be playing alone. Be it mining, exploring, dungeon delving, you should be in a group. EVEs failing for carebears was that it was very hard to find pickup groups. EVEs meta was so dark and the rater lax attitude toward griefing made it almost impossible to TRUST another player. This is where I hope very much GW can best EVE. If i want to carebear Good then I'm going to trust the Devs to have a system to insure other people with a Good tag are people I can trust.

@ Ryan

Ramen noodle never hurt anybody.

You can do amazing things with ramen noodles if you're willing to be creative and add other low cost ingredients. Costco bulk buying also helps. :P

Which reminds me, lunch time. *goes to put a pot of noodles on*

1,5MM, would that be million? Cause if that's 1.5 million and they even just drop in a buck that's the stretch goal and beyond.

If that happened I think Doug's wife should get a Social Networker's like 200 ft. tall solid mithril statue that can be seen for hexes.

Seen this happen in EVE more often then not. People drifting off because of either absentee or ineffective leadership.

However I guess it depends on how the settlement was created. In EVE a corp could give out shares and give share holders voting rights, which included removing and replacing CEOs and other officers if needed.

While I don't think a Vote is appropriate for all settlements, I think for ones that feel they want to be major players or have some way to pass down leaderships if a leader disappears (Real Life happens) it would be appropriate to have some optional mechanic for challenge and replacing current leadership.

Voting can be very Lawful, while a direct Challenge or Dual can be very Chaotic. Votes that are stacked toward certain elite cabals can be very Evil, while free and even voting can be very Good. Duals involving skills other then combat can be very Good, while duals to the death&explosion are a hallmark of CE groups.

======

As a far reaching Meta fix, players in a group with a leader who's just *poofed* into nothing could have recourse through GoblinWords admins. That could be for people who've just out right vanish and not be on for months, or even have stopped paying for their account all together.

I don't really think bug reports on the tech demo port are worth their time. The added overhead of the different browsers is making a mess of things far more then if it was a stand alone client. It's only 100MB of data and I can feel the pluggin struggling on Safari on OSX 10.6.8 to load some areas. Even with 6 GB of RAM, 2 quad core 3.2 Ghz intel processors, and a 5870 ATI Radaeon. Then again there are times Flash struggles as well. It's the nature of browser plugins vs actual optimized clients.

What's really cool about this is it gives them the option of throwing out chunks of specific things they want people to look at without needing to build a such a dedicated client. For example the Combat Pit when its focused on raw numbers and timing and less on graphics/animations could be a place where a single source file being interperated by Unity browsers plug-ins would be logical.

I love the idea, whoever came up with it deserves a cookie.

Cookie? How about the bakery. It's an amazingly insightful realization that the modern player base (especially coupled to the P&P scene) will rip into any mechanics like wild dogs, better to let them do it and aid your development then keep it close to the vest and end up with all kinds of broke stuff *cough* Mass Effect 3 MP *cough*.

Google Draw rough draft based on what I understand of the

PFO Kingdom, Settlement, Character alignment grid.

So oddly it seems like a Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good Kingdom can create party with both an LG and CE party members. Also comical is that a CE kingdom can generate a party with LE and CG, the Slaver and the Freedom Fighter in the same party working for a kingdom bent on general destruction. :P

%@#&, hit an invisible wall while climbing the hill the dungeon is built into. Sorry, old habits from Elder Scrolls. Gotta go mount goat everything. :P

Excuse the meme but... from a partly related thread

Jameow wrote:

You could run a P&P over the game xD

I had the entertaining notion of adding maps and miniatures to the game so people could play pathfinder while playing pathfinder.

Yes, yes you could do that. XD

Chat commands with /roll for dice and random number generation should be added if it isn't in the plans already. /roll should be familiar to anyone who's tried to game over chat clients between now and the early days of IRC.

LISA! RYAN! Anyone! Get us /roll commands for dice in PFO chat! This must become a thing!

There are many reasons beyond PDF reading alone to get GoodReader. It's built in web browser and ability or handle a vast array of file types have made it a critical part of workflow on the iPad. iBooks may be quick but I still find it a lackluster offering.

Also does iBooks crop PDFs? GoodReader does and can annotate to boot, and writing with zoom/guard. It can run its own WebDAV as a way to pass files and handouts to a digitally enhanced group.... I can't think of any other App that has been worth well above its value and has kept its value with goinging developement.

Based on my expericance with the iPad 2 and iPod Touch, if you don't have GoodReader yet... you'll want it. The biggest thing is that you'll need to Crop off the margins and that will help.

Personally with this hobby and also keep other full sized book references I just never felt 7 or 8 inch screens were big enough for me. Once you use GoodReader cropping to remove the extra margin space most print material will fit almost 1:1 on a full sized iPad.

BltzKrg242 if rules are meant to be broken, why have rules at all? As I said the purpose of the rules, in playing any formalized game, is to have a shared expericne that is at one level fair to those involved. When you start breaking the rules, changing them, you are altering the whole experience. Break enough rules and you're no longer playing a game, you're telling the players a story. Likely it's one the "audience" won't like.

Only DMs/GMs who's players trust them to deliver a good story when breaking the rules can get away with using that infamous "rule 0." The only way that happens is by proving over time that you have the player's fun and entertainment at heart. Additionally that you've got a grasp of what they actually find fun, not just your idea of fun.

Pathfinder and D&D games are shared stories. Yes, it begins with the GMs plot but there are many ways for the players to have a direct impact on it. The rules are there to give them a fair chance at doing so. They are also there to guide the GM in not just yanking control back on demand (the guidelines of challenging encounters for example).

A cinimiatic "leap, rope swing, stab" is all very and cool (I've used such little tricks myself in the past), but it needs be in keeping with that "fair chance." If the assassin just pops out of nowhere, does a rather rule breaking maneuver, which results in a player losing their chance to influence events, they are likely going to get mad and rightly call the GM on breaking the rules.

To quote some old DMing advice from a TSR board game, "the main objective is for everyone to have fun, and if game isn't fair nobody will."

Played in good "monster race" style one back in 3.5. Also in 3.0 had one shift mostly neutral to a tad evil.

The key to a successful evil game is that it must be the Party vs the World not PC vs PC. You are evil to the "others" and others being defined as anyone not afflicted with the Party's wants and goals. Having a bigger evil guy who is riding rough shod over the PCs who they will come to mutually hate helps direct things as well.

Personally I think the way Paizo structures it's adventure paths is a critical tool for keeping and evil party on task. The initial setup in character creation is important to stress that the PCs are all on the same "Team Evil". Look at COBRA, the Decepticons, any one of another evil organizations from Saturday morning cartoons. Take out the ineptness that comes from them needing to be foils for the heroes and replace it with Player level competence, and suddenly you've got what an evil group can look like.

Personally the original Generation 1 Constructicons are one of the best "PC" style evil teams. As a whole unit an adventuring party can be a rather primal destructive entity (if viewed as a single creature) while it individual parts can be quite brilliant actors. They even had a good point in the 1980s movie. "The Constructions form Devastator, the most powerful robot, we should rule!" Note the "we", very few villian groups think like that... but that's what a long term evil campigne needs to be setup.

@Talonhawke

This is covered in the 3.5 FAQ and has not be contradicted by anything printed or suggested by the Pathfinder development team, and is still valid

How do reach weapons work if they are of a different size than the creature wielding them? Say, an ogre wielding a Small or Medium glaive, or a human with the Monkey Grip feat wielding a Large ranseur? What is the reach for each situation?

A reach weapon doubles its wielder’s natural reach, but only if the weapon is at least of an appropriate size for the wielder. Wielding a “too-small” reach weapon grants no reach.
An ogre (Large) wielding a Medium or smaller reach weapon gains no reach from the weapon, and could thus attack foes either 5 feet or 10 feet distant (as normal for a Large creature wielding a non-reach weapon).
A human (Medium) wielding a Large or larger reach weapon could attack a creature 10 feet away (but no further), and could not use the weapon to attack a creature 5 feet away (as normal for a Medium creature wielding a reach weapon). A human wielding a Small reach weapon would gain no reach from the weapon.
The Player’s Handbook isn’t as clear on this as it could be, although an example of reach in action on page 113 in the Player’s Handbook provides pretty strong support: “A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away . . .” [italics added]. While this reference doesn’t mention the ability to wield a reach weapon larger than the appropriate size, allowing such a weapon to grant reach to its wielder is a reasonable extension of the spirit and intent of the rule.

Please remember Pathfinder still retains many legacy issues from 3.5 which were partly addressed in FAQs and Errata that did not make it into Pathfinder for very likely legal reasons. Paizo did not use d20srd.org errata modified material as their base but the RTF files provided by Wizards under the OGL license. Please, please, please, if you want to argue corner case rules issue keep these facts in mind. Pathfinder as it exists is not a perfected true standalone game as say Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or Anima: Beyond Fantasy. It was built on the bones of 3.5 OGL, and while it was polished they bones are what they are.

When there is a conflict between 3.5 and Pathfinder rules, Pathfinder trumps 3.5.

When there is no conflict 3.5 FAQ/Errata should be considered as valid.

Pathfinder Dev FAQ/Errata trumps 3.5 FAQ/Errata.

All of Skyrims books for MOBI Link

All of Skrims books for ePUB Link

9 page annotated & printable map Link

See, I would pay for this as extra content, especially if it links into the save game and made a list of all the books you have in your house. Seriouslly, Bethesda could do some cool stuff with a smartphone companion app to this game.

Thank you for posting this. Ima go read now... but before I do I'd like to share my sharing of Skyrim on new mobile projector I got post-turkey day shopping (was not on sale itself sadly). 100" diagonal awesome (up to what my graphics card allows). I was a dunce and didn't make a video, but Skyrim did not disappoint.

First I treated them to the openning sequence of the game and the run from the dragon. Very dramatic as always.

Second I loaded up my current toon and went dragon hunting to show off the land scape and dragon fights. I quick traveled to a roost where I knew one was one to be... they got to see me totally fail and get frost breathed to death in one pass by an Elder Dragon (in retrospect I should have turned off Master difficulty).

Undaunted I decidced that the next step would be a classic giant hammer hit to the moon. First giant camp I fast moved to was still empty. So I picked on close to Whiterun, oh boy.

So I started antagonizing the giant with an openning Unrelenting Force, blew him into a tree. Now becaue of the way I had rigged it I was actually in another room and streaming the video to the projector, so my friends didn't hear me say "what the hell is that noise" just as a second giant ran up from by blind side and ground stomped, rocking the camera about. They did hear me scream "Ahahha!" as I spun, saw the second giant and all three mammoths coming for me. So now I got a momment worthy of Benny Hill theme music in the making as they chase me around the bonfire.... But we ain't don yet.

Barely into lap one what should appear from the dark evening sky and perfectly cross behind the mass of enraged critters? If you said dragon that would win you the prize. This was accompanied by another rather girly scream from me timed to just at the right momment with latancey for them to have the dragon just appear in view.

So now I got a three way going between me, two giants, their three mammoths, and a dragon. Giant 1 who I shouted at was up by that time and batting at the dragon, Giant 2 and the mammoth herd was still Oblivon bent on crushing my bones to make his meal, the dragon seemed to want some mammoth burgers, and I was still hoping to actually survive long enough to give a good show.

Bless "Become Ethereal", in the 30ish seconds that followed (I know because I shouted twice) it was amazing. Sadly the dragon eventually landed and got curb stomped by the whole giant camp. I lived just long enough after that to show them dragon absorbing effect... then I anti-climaticly got kneed in the face by one of the giants. No club, no fist, just knee... I think.

Thank you Bethesda. Your game can produce absolutely hysterical outcomes at just the right moments. I now totally buy that the footage you showed at E3 of the back to back dragon fights was legit (if culled from a stock of footage taken during production).

Nope, not going to do it. And I prefer "simulation" in my games more then most. Well to a degree perhaps. Unfortunately the gods I release to plague the world may not agree with the "natural" laws I set forth. The gods of magic seem to enjoy using thermodynamics and relativity has pocket handkerchiefs. The various deities that take over the portfolio of love (etc) seem to take "life will find a way" and add "with our direct and intentional meddling." Love + Magic gods... *sigh* What's and Over-deity to do? Every time I look away to build a new dungeon they've grabbed another pair of creatures and are forcing them to make out.

Absolutely not. You can't get a make beaver and a duck get it... they did... it hatched... what does it... you do realize this is going to make the "mortals" question the divine plan don't you. No one is going to believe that a creature with a duck bill, webbed feet, fur, and a tail, will hatch from an egg. No! We cannot count it as a "test of faith!" It wasn't to "be" in the first place! Get rid of... why are you pointing at... Milly! No don't you even... ah! Now what are going to do with a Half-"Platypus" Tyrannosaurus?

And thus the Platosaurus was "born."

=====

No, sadly the problem isn't the jump off the reality train of cross species breeding. It was the attitude of player entitlement to any-and-all templets presented in any-and-all printed books is what made things go screwy. That and a general lack of gods being tied to these things and player "assuming" that it was "natural" breeding.

Generally, and I'm sure people will have their own version of these terms/jargon

Munchkin- Someone who wants to "win" the game at all costs, usually by deliberately cheating or deliberately misreading rules. Usually associated with younger or immature players.

Power Gamer (sometimes called Min/Maxer)- Someone who wants to "win" but doesn't go the extreme of cheating. Usually, but not always, also a rules lawyer who will try to find the most powerful combat options and will manipulate the letter of the rules to their advantage.

Optimizer- One step down form a Power Gamer. Winning isn't required but the focus on finding the "best" mechanical method to support an idea is still there. This is most contentious term as some people see it as pejorative while others (like me) see it as a part of the game.

Cheesy- Used to describe and unbalanced or "unfair" use of the rules. As in "that's cheesy". Synonymous with cheap, unfair. Usually this result from combining different spells, feats, or abilities in a way they likely weren't intended to be used to produce a game disrupting result. This is NOT outright cheating but considered highly impolite.

Wine & Cheese- Miss connected to Whine or to complain. It is a play on words. Whine & Cheap/Cheat in other words. A way to be derogatory to a player who is perceived as being a Power Gamer or Munchkin. Also associated with people who think of themselves "elite", but to others appear snobbish or self-absorbed.

I hope these help you understand what your... Game Master was talking about. Old hands sometimes forget that new players don't know the jargon yet. Frankly as an "old hand" I find those kinds of statements to be a sign of a bit more intractable GM. There are better ways to say the same things and create a less adversarial atmosphere at the outset.

Roman wrote:

I definitely prefer the 3rd option. I am somewhat partial to rules-heavy games, as I can ignore or gloss over the details of the particular rules I don't want to bother with and use the ones I consider appropriate for my campaign. :)

I generally agree with Roman (again!) as far as my personal preferences go, although I actually don't the third option because it's written out terribly, as-presented. I'd really want to clear that bugger up a lot before it would be published.

And the poll below, while giving more options (which is good!), is still too hard/extreme in its flavors to get any sort of real perception of what people are thinking. Again.

EDIT: also, what Epic Meepo said. That... was a very peculiar choice for Monte to put in there.

Well, that and the comic on the right. That was pretty hilarious.

It feels like a 3.5er Trap. Mainly to try and tease out which percentage of the online voting block is knee jerking directly to 3.5 rules.

Tacticslion, I like that breakdown

First paragraph: What does this mean

Second paragraph: Mechanics of the thing

Third paragraph: Oops I failed

Fourth paragraph: common-sense (but important to note) elements... because lord knows both GMs and Players have none. We the online fandom have proved it time and again.

Chart: it's a chart!

Fifth and Sixth paragraphs: things that adjust the basic rules outlined above.

That and putting all the rules relevant to the skill front and center. Things that make use of Skills should refer back to the skill (i.e. the scatter shot mess that is Stealth and Perception).

Even as this draws to a close it leaves me at least with a fun now way to layout campaigns.

Stats: Low, Standard, High, Epic fantasy

Race: Standard, Advanced, Monstrous

Wealth: Low, Standard, High fantasy

Progression (Exp): Slow, Medium, Fast

Fun :D

It makes me want to put together a really high end (Epic, Monstrous, High, Fast) game and maybe throw in some Gestalt class variant just put well and truly over the top.... Me thinks I've been re-watching None Piece too much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory#Simulationist

Nope think we're using it right in this jargon context.

Or would you prefer we use the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Model

I am also in touch with younger gamers. That book makes them scream. I would tell them get over it, it is not that difficult, but I am not trying to make money from them.

They don't really need a truly new edition to do a new format. That's what a revision is for. It doesn't even have to be a revision as drastic as 3e to 3.5. Pathfinder Core Revised, Gamemastery Guide Revised, done. Although this should still be a bit off. There are some things that need addressing first, stealth, crafting, a few other corner cases.

I'm looking forward to the 10 dollar PDF copies of the Beginner Box book. The 4 preview they already have is extremely valuable.

Here is the latest Legends & Lore article to fuel more speculation. "Live Together, Die Alone" is about party cooperation: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111011

OH GODS!

I didn't realize they were taking another round of batshit internet polling to help them rebuild a new edition. Looks like someone needs to go attend Apple University. Seriously, this is how they ended up with the Teifling instead of the Gnome, and Dragonborn over Half-Orcs (or just Orcs).

I agree with Pedantic, although it applies more generally to other "support" aspects then just healing. Quite honestly the picture they have there reminds me of a very classic party style, the "Wind-Up Fighter." Where the whole party pre-buffs the hell out of smashy man and lets him just Cuisinart his way through room after room, with maybe some light touch-up healing in between. There is even a degree of malevolent glee one can derive from such a style. Played in a group like that once. That was really satisfying to watch the Fighter totally and swiftly decimate combat after combat. Went really fast too.

Perhaps it's because I refuse to pay money on anything 4e, that I don't really see such in that edition that support the "Wind-Up Fighter" style. Is it possible in 4e to spend 3 out of 4 characters pre-battle resources on just buffing the crap out of one guy?

I tell the DM that I am going to take 10 on Perception and someone (DM or other player) says - "that is going to take too long". Or I say I'll take 10 on a Disable Device to open a lock. "Nope, can't do that. There's a chance for failure" (arguement ensues - other players are upset at me for not rolling dice and "getting on with this").

Flips metaphorical table in anger over people still confusing Take 10 for Take 20. RRRAAAA! My gods, they're two different f****** entries with two totally different uses! How are people still f****** this up. YES! You can take 10 on a roll with a chance of failure, THAT'S WHAT IT'S THERE FOR (and you can print this out and hand it to your next GM)!!! NO, take 10 does not take longer to perform, it is not 10 tries, it is ONE try assuming an AVERAGE 10 result for SAFETY because YOU DON'T WANT TO RISK FAILURE!!! RAARAAWW!!!

I ask to take 10 on a Stealth roll to peak around a corner and see if anything is in the next room (or crack a door open) and get the response "Can't do that"

Okay... that one's harder to call, but unless there is active combat (not the threat of combat) Take 10 should still apply.

*Edit*

Also please remind them that there are no Auto-Fail (on 1) or Auto-Pass (on 20) for Skill checks. To repeat, Skill checks do not Auto-Fail or Auto-Pass.

Dorje Sylas wrote:

Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.

WOW! Thank you Dorje. You have solidified my point!

At the end of that rule it says though the consequences might be long-lasting.

And with that, the spell Fabricate cannot be used in any fashion to make a magical item at any point of time. The question of whether or not such a thought was subjective has been clearly defined by my opponent.

Win !!!

No... still not there.

Yes, the consequence is the item has been created. A Masterworked item now exists where a pile of metal used to be. Nothing more. The spell is done. That was the consequence. No magic item was made for modified by the instantaneous wash of magical energy.

Unless you're going to argue that somehow Fabricate leaves some kind of cosmic stamp that reads "No Magic Items Shall Be Made From Me" on the item. That smacks of the spell energy remaining, which would be what Permanent is.

But fine, disagree. Just don't be surprised if you find many tables "playing wrong." Including the developers.

Kthulhu wrote:

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

2e to 3e was a big change, but 3.5 to 4 e was a massive, massive leap.

No bigger than 2e to 3e.

I am gonna disagree, the lack of vanican casting and changes to some core concepts alone made it a far larger change. 2e to 3e was big, don't get me wrong but I would call the departure and death of so many key parts of the system as a march larger change.

I'm going to agree with seeker on the size of the jump. The number of mechanics changes are almost enough is scope to about the same level. On top of that there are many radical changes in fluff and presentation that make it a significantly bigger change.

1e to 2e: Mostly Fluff, some mechanical
2e to 3e: Major Mechanical, very little fluff.
3e to 4e: Moderate Mechanical, major fluff.

====

On the "It's Diablo" allegations, to be fair, there was actually a cusp Diablo supplement. First printed in 2e format, then again revised into 3e format as Diablo 2.

deinol wrote:

I personally think that you could take some of the best ideas from 4E and bring them back into a more traditional looking D&D. In fact, the first thing I thought when I picked up the 4E Rules Cyclopedia is that it was a very tight ruleset. I really want to try to meld those rules with lighter, BECMI style character creation. I think it would work remarkably well.

I'm kind of thinking that taking the best ideas from 4e would lead to a clean sheet redesign. IMO, the most worthwhile idea in 4e was "healing surges" as a mechanism for making everyone responsible for their own hit points and eliminating the need for a healbot cleric and I think it was poorly implemented. I think the solution to that is some sort of out of combat healing which doesn't take party resources - PFS is moving this direction with wands of CLW. CLW and CMW are unused about two levels after you get them. They don't do enough in combat and it's much easier to wand outside of combat.

The core critical change is that HP are not literal wounds. Once you remove that assumption lots of options open up. Redefining what HP is the starting point.

Sorry gotta say it, Saga. Saga, Saga, Saga! If WotC had just used a cleaned up fantasy/D&D focused version of Saga from the start (and hadn't done a fluff cow hunt) they wouldn't have broken the community the way it did.

Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Arcane Mark is a range of Touch spell. If applied in combat to an opponent it requires a melee touch attack, which is considered armed. Yes it can be applied through Spellstrike.

Is this cheesy? As an infernal contract. However let us consider what is required to pull this off. First the Magus must make a concentration check to cast defensively or risk getting his teeth knocked in. If it fails he's blown a Full-Round action and takes a -2 penalty for it. If it succeeds he makes both attacks at a -2 penalty which is more or less the net effect of two weapon fighting, but slightly better average damage. At later levels while the concentration check is basically assured a true TWF character could have expanded the number of strikes with feats (see Ranger), and have options for either increased damage (see rogue) or attack bonus on each strike (see Ranger/Fighter, even Paladin).

I am Zorro! The Magus.

In other words, the point of a Paizo psionics system is to please those using 3.5 psionics and wanting it in Pathfinder (lets face it, those NOT liking the 3.5 system basically don't care or don't want it anywhere near Pathfinder). Most of...

I think the way forward there is to, somehow, officially recognize DSP's Psionics Unleashed (because lord knows some holdouts won't buy it if it isn't stamped with a Purple Golem) as the path for 3.5 Psionics update. Maybe use some of the less "powery" psionic monsters in an AP or adventure or something. Maybe feature a Souknife mid-tier villain (which would be the least class to pack into an AP). Like Tome of Horros, that would put some legitimacy behind DSP as the "3.5 to Pathfinder" Psionics guys and free Paizo to create a "Psy Ψ" system instead.

The only question would be, could a it be built to interact with (but not replicate) the old 3.5 style system. LIkely not.

Page 135 under "Firearms in Your Campaign", there are 5 suggested methods for dealing with guns.

No Guns
Very Rare
Emerging
Commonplace
Guns Everywhere

In the 1800s "Guns Everywhere" would likely be what you'd use. In the case of classes that don't have the Simple Weapon proficiency, not everyone immediately knows how to use a gun correctly. It's not a "built in" human trait even in the real world. This varies regionally as your background "this is a place where Traits could be useful". I did not grow up around guns, no have I ever fried one. I could likely pick on up and generally "point & shoot", but that key aspect of dealing with recoil, actually putting shot into a target past say... oh 5 feet... could be a tricky (-4 Atk), and then theirs reloading/safetying the weapon. I could likely learn quick, which is the point of a Simple Weapon proficiency. Then again I'd classify myself as an "Expert" NPC classed person. Wizards, Monks, and Druids dedicate themselves basically from the word go to their "art" be it magic, physical/mental training, or nature.

If you grew up around guns and used them as a kid (see character Traits) then you'd start off having proficiency in Firearms (but not other kinds of simple weapons). You may even have gotten one as a gift (see Heirloom Weapon trait).

He stated they're using the "Invisible" condition to make it easier to remember any modifications, it is NOT invisibility, per say.

See Invisibility (and the like) are magicks that pierce through illusions that conceal. The idea of being stealthy is your movement is so inconspicuous, the targets simply just don't perceive you yet. See Invisibility and the like don't increase your Perception, they just unveil what's magically hidden from sight.

Stealth isn't magical, it's a skill. Meaning you've mastered methods and techniques to stay out of sight and to move with little to no noise in order for your enemy to accept you as nothing to notice as any threat (or to not notice you at all). See Invisibility has nothing to do with that.

Unfortunately by RAW both See Invisibilty and True Sight specifically say you see Invisible(the condition) creatures. Neither indicate that it has to be part of a magical effect.

A creature point. A Will-o'-wisp and Invisible Stalker both have Natural Invisibility (Ex). Nothing magical. If your argument is correct that it See Invisibility and True Sight only work against magically (spells, spell-like, supernatural) generated Invisible (condition) then neither would work on these creatures.

Considering I've never seen either spell ruled that way nor does it have really have a strong RAW backed reading, I can't agree with your analaysis.

Natural Invisitibly (Ex) on creature like Will-o'-wisp and Invisible Stalker are a primary reason I object to using Invisible (condition) as a blanket part of Stealth rules. I back a "Hidden" rage-esque pseudo condition that has many of the same features (when it comes to denying foes Dexterity to AC on an attack) as Invisible, but is not actually Invisible (condition).

This was back in 3.5 with a rather loose game, but it is topical.

In one game I played I ran a dedicated item crafter (Artificer, Eberron CS for those who care). We were a fairly evil group and got in trouble with another evil group(Dopplgangers). My Crafter was working as a jeweler as front while the rest of the party ran controband. The Dopplgangers came to me to craft busts of two of my confederates.

So I did, but also crafted them as "cursed items" which would explode like a full Necklace of Fireballs if specific kinds of divination magic (chiefly scry) were used on them. I also included Magic Aura in the process to hide my "trap".

Needless to say we packed up and left town. The "Scrys" we knew were coming were much delayed. I guess it took them a few days to find replacement casters. *smirk* I added injury to injury by keeing a personal Scry Trap (3.5 Eberron spell if I remember right) up until it triggered. I think they got the hint not to pock with the crazed animated construct after that (playing Warforged as race).

Lesson, if you want to defeat magic you need to understand how it works and not makeup rulings that are inconsistent.

A moving army isn't going to use them.

Unless you mount them on War Dinos or the like. Animated self moving siege gear is also an option. :)

In my view any player who pre-reads and adventure is obligated to help the GM walk the rest of the party onto any traps that may exist. That is to say with for knowledge comes deliberate obfuscation.

It is a painful responsibility to *not* point out the secret door or the insta murder death trap. Or worse be the one to put their character on the sacrificial block if the situation calls for it. As player who read ahead it's your duty.

Also let the GM know because sometimes it actually is helpful to have an inside man if the party gets stuck.

For the current player I'd still talk to him directly. Usually best solution. Offer him the chance to play with you and not against you. As I say above, he now has a duty to use his foreknowledge to keep things running on track. If the other players are going to expose the "who done it" to fast, it is now his job to help apply the breaks.

Ah the whip, or more accurately the Scorpion Whip. Personally one of my more favorite weapons. It can be rather a nasty shock for any humanoid single foe. While it has low damage dice, as any good Fighter knows the die can be less improtant then how you pack on the bonuses.

A few notes about Whips and the Scorpion whip in the rules:

1) You do get your strengh bonus to damage, it is a melee weapon.

2) It is a One-handed Melee weapon not Light, you can use it in two hands for 1.5 Str Bonus or for Power Attack.

3) High Dex not always required for good whip use, actually higher Str is better if you want to do maneuvers with it anyways.

4) A Scorpion Whip (Adventures armory, inner sea guide) does lethal damage even to people in armor.

Here is a fluffy trick to do at low levels. Spell combat taking a Disarm as one of your attacks and cast Mage Hand to "pull" the dropped weapon (5 lb or less) to you or into reach of another party member.

Armor spikes are your friend, as they are of all people who use reach weapons.

I'd keep two whips, one normal and one lethal. Use the non-lethal one in towns to avoid serious injury or trouble if needed.

Joana wrote:

Does acid bypass hardness? If not, metal has 10 hardness and won't take any damage from acid splash.

There is a rule that states that the GM can allow certain energy attacks to ignore hardness (such as fire on paper or wood) if he believes it is appropriate. So, some GMs might allow acid splash to eventually eat through a lock.

Just a slight correction. Default elemental damage is 1/2 to objects. A GM can allow it to do full damage. Hardness still applies regardless. Even with full damage to metal acid would need to get past a Hardness 10 in most cases. Paper has a Hardness 0.

A 1d3 Fire attack on wood would not work. Hardness 5.

That's assumng the lock is more susceptible to the Acid then other objects. If not then it does half damage before applying DR.

(1d3 / 2) - DR. Is lock made of leather with a DR of 2?

It used to be back in 3e that some types of energy attacks could bypass DR and do full damage. Pathfinder cleared that up. Unless the object is particularly vulnerable (GM discression, such as paper to fire) the attack does 1/2 damage. Then you subtract the DR.

Another issue is line of effect. Locks, the bolt part, are often inside the door with only a very narrow crack between door and frame. That crack would afford the bolt a cover bonus on the touch attack... If it's visible at all. Melting the keyhole will break the lock in the closed position.

Cantrips are very limited utitliy. The worst thing I've seen (mind you this would take lots of time) is a high level Druid or cleric using create water to flood a ship or dungeon. Possibly over saturate a hill to cause a mud slide. However we're talking lots of castings at an order of impracticality.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Dorje Sylas wrote:

I was rewatching Gurren Lagann again and was struck by the parallel between Pathfinder (D&D) and how the show continues to up the stakes at absurd rates with even bigger and more giant robots.

*FISTBUMP*

Best.Anime.Ever.

"Ore wo dare da to omotte yagaru !!!"
(Who the h*ll do you think I am ?!?)

Lots of great one liners and short motivational speeches, which is another parallel.

The reputation of [Party Name] echoes far and wide... When they talk about its bad ass leader, the [Gender Noun] of indomitable spirit and [Gender Adjective], they're talking about me!

And the ever classic,

Kick logic out and do the impossible! That's how team Gurren rolls!

Don't underestimate us! We don't care about time or space or multi-dimensional whatevers, we don't give a damn about that! Force your way down a path you choose to take and do it all yourself! That's the way team Dai-Gurren rolls!

If this doesn't sound like your game pre-epic... you're not going to play epic :P

Episodes are on Hulu for those interested, it is rated TV14, very solidly T for Teen on all points.

I see people miss this more then they really should.

Auto succeed on a 20 and Auto Fail on a 1 are not a universal rule. It only applies to specific rolls where it is called out.

Examples of Auto/Pass Fail:

Attack Rolls
Savings Throws

Examples of rolls that don't auto pass/fail:

Skill Checks
Caster Level Checks
Concentration Checks

=====

You can take 10 on any skill check as long as you not in immediate danger or distracted, and the skill doesn't state an exception.

Way to may folks think that take 10 works like take 20, and assume that if there is a negative result for failure you can't take 10. Which is wrong.

I was rewatching Gurren Lagann again and was struck by the parallel between Pathfinder (D&D) and how the show continues to up the stakes at absurd rates with even bigger and more giant robots. Even to the point where they go fight in an imaginary universe, in a galaxy sized robot, against the equally sized robot that is the manifestation of the power of an entire race.

In total I think that's what those of us looking for Epic game play are expecting. The series can be broken in two halves "Against the Spiral King" and "Against the Anti-Spirals". AtSK is more like a Paizo AP, with protecting the world or freeing, or the like of equal grandeur. AtAS is post Paizo AP where you now go against a greater cosmic force and eventually challenge it in it's house. This could be a Demi-god, immortal wizard, a arch elemental or demon, but it's something clearly bigger then mortal. I'd call it something very Meta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurren_Lagann

This is why written words are evil and should be expunged in fire.

Demons — I break your body
Devils — I break your mind
Daemons — I break your very soul

When you stop to consider both the mind and body can drop off after death but the soul stays, having something break your supposedly immortal soul is rather messed.

I was going to say that Grappleling seems to already cover this.

"Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll."

"Damage : You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal."

A modification would be give a "Close" weapon property to various kinds of Light weapons. Like other special maneuver weapons it should grant a +2 to grapple checks (net -2) for the advantage of being able to more effectively pressure your foe with a weapon. Like wise Close weapons should recove only a -2 penalty when fighting in tight spaces.

You could also build a feat into Improved Grapple to further offset penalties or enhance the attack. Something that replaces Unarmed Strike as the prerequisite for Improved Grapple.

*edit*

I would further point out that in a strict reading of the rules you can Grapple without any free hands, you just take a -4 penalty for not having two free hands :P

Except for the fact that language is basically identical in all later specific item type entires.

Armor

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the armor, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the armor triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the armor's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

Weapon

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the weapon, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the weapon triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the weapon's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

Potion

The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.

Rod

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the rod, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the rod triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the rod's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

Scroll

The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. A material component is consumed when she begins writing, but a focus is not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused.) The act of writing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

Anyone noticing a pattern here?

Staves

The creator must have prepared the spells to be stored (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focus the spells require as well as material component costs sufficient to activate the spell 50 times (divide this amount by the number of charges one use of the spell expends). Material components are consumed when he begins working, but focuses are not. (A focus used in creating a staff can be reused.) The act of working on the staff triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the staff 's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

Wands

The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires. Fifty of each needed material component are required (one for each charge). Material components are consumed when work begins, but focuses are not. A focus used in creating a wand can be reused. The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand's creation. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

Wondrous Items

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the item triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the item's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

If you selectively ignore the general rule in preceding section regarding collaboration on requirements....

Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind. The prerequisites for creation of an item are given immediately following the item's caster level.

A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation process, the creator must expend one spell completion item or one charge from a spell trigger item if either of those objects is used to supply a prerequisite.

It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in the creation of an item, with each participant providing one or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may even be necessary.

If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator's level must be known.

Then clearly no item save one can be made with assistance.... In your misreading the only time that one can collaboratively craft is a Ring, as no mention is made of specifically of the "creator" needing to prepare spells.

Rings that duplicate spells with costly material components add in the value of 50 × the spell's component cost. Having a spell with a costly component as a prerequisite does not automatically incur this cost. The act of working on the ring triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the ring's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

To warp up this post, considering both characters are creators on the item either character can provide the spells. This is at least inferred by...

If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator's level must be known.

To state it clearly, the only time there is any distinction between the two (or more) as creators is when you pick the Caster Level of the item. For every other aspect of the process they are both the items creator. That includes proving spells.

I disagree with LazarX, Shar, Goth, and Selian's logic, interpretation, and overly narrow reading.

Hats off to a wonderful thread and exactly the kind of Optimizing I like. If this grows I would be happy to join you in this venture Ashiel.

As to the point of CHA being so low on Siegfried my first gut look says to cut back on Wisdom and then bring it up with an ability score increase but give the 15 point buy this isn't a bad spread. As Ashiel points out, by 2nd level Siegfried is now at a net +0 for Diplomacy. If he takes the 4th level stat increase to CHA he should have a net +3. Personally I would forgo Iron Will in favor of Skill Focus or possibly Persuasive. Mathmatcally you are not shooting for party face. In the party dynamic you are aiming for a reliable Aid Another roll to grant your party face that extra +2. At lower levels Iron Will isn't as needed to make up the difference on the low save. On the personal side the numbers say to shoot for hitting a DC of 11, this is for the ladies that are already impressed by his warrior reputation/skills (friendly) and have fairly together personalities (CHA 12). Total check +10 with a range of DC 11 to 14 (CHA 18). With a little magic and help from his friend (the party face) he could start going after the Indifferent without to great a chance at backlash. And all doable by mid-levels without damaging his primary job of smashing things in the face.