Erich Williams's page

So I was recently at my local game shop, and they have prepainted SF minis I don't even have unpainted yet. Clearly there's some incentive to stock stores before backers. I honestly want my refund just to go spend it on the prepaints that clearly exist and no one's talking about.

An assumption from PF1 seems to have returned. That is, unarmored defense. Sure, a monk with REALLY good stats (read: not using point buy and obtaining VERY good rolls) will MATCH a fighter in full plate without a shield. Now, give that fighter mithral fullplate and a mithral tower shield, both fully enchanted. That's our minmaxed monk vs an AC of +30, or a +35 counting an amulet of natural armor. Our monk could wear that same amulet as well as boost his dex and wis, but that's a total equipment-based bonus of +22 on top of however high he can get those relevant stats. For the sake of maths, let's say he started as a Wis/Dex race and scored some sweet 18s. That's a +32, going up to a cool +34. Through effort, you managed to be within 1 point of AC of the fighter who bought his way in. There's no "gulf," and if there was, it's the fighter who's on the far side.

Making it a static bonus instead of a score bonus is a buff, not a nerf. Hey, be proud of that.

Edit: I see a small math error. One that only narrows the gap. My point bringing this up was that a VERY powerful monk can keep up with a fighter, but unarmored defense wasn't broken in the slightest.

Subsisting on the streets is itself a full-day downtime action? I hope that includes begging/scrounging, because sleeping in an alley because I can't afford an inn shouldn't preclude me from bugging the locals about rumors.

MerlinCross wrote:

brad2411 wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

Which is bloody pointless when the math is done.

Everyone keeps going on about "Customization" and "Options" and "Greater build Varieties".
I stand by the idea that we'll be back to Builds X, Y, Z within time anyway.

Just to make sure I understand what you are getting at. When you say builds X, Y, and X are you judging that by optimization or something else? If you are talking about optimization then yes I agree with you there well be a finite amount of builds that will be optimal within the customization provided. Any math based game is going to have that. But for a lot of people optimization is not what judges a build for them to make.

If you are talking about not having enough class feats to truly customize then I also am a little scared about that myself. With all the different things in the game needing all this space for feats (every race, class, skill, and general)

Both? Maybe. Lemme try to stumble through this a bit.

I find it not fun to lag behind even if I build the character just the way I want to. Having to spend Class Feats to get back to just how I want to play runs the risk of being behind because everyone else took the smarter "Math" picks. Every level is going to now be "Do I take this for Character or for Math" and depending on the group, Math will win again and again. See PFS.

At the same time if the selection of Class Feats is smaller(Either by amount or viable) then everyones going to be playing near the same class anyway so what's the point in giving us expanded Options if we're back to the same way we were before?

So uh.. Don't offer any feats or choices so every cleric is the same and there's no better/worse options? 5E is over there, my friend.

5e offers less outright customization choices because EVERY character can DO more out of the box. A big complaint I have about Pathfinder is constantly errata-ing improvised gameplay out by statting every possible combat action; with twice as many feats (or more if classes gain feats separate from your character level), that's double the problem. Just consider that, even though edition wars are basically forbidden: you're asking for LESS options by asking for MORE purchasable abilities.

...so do clerics use spell points or don't they? Is it 2 spells a day, or is it however many the spell costs to a daily maximum of your Wisdom (score or modifier?) plus feat bonus? If it's just for domain powers, why call them SPELL points? If it's for domain powers, why have an effective 3 pools to track (spells as normal, "spell" points, and Channel)? I hope rewriting bizarrely complex construction is something the devs aren't against when taking feedback.
Then again, I HAVE played an arcanist using optional spell points rules as well as the stamina system (I had the CON, why not?), so it's not that having a POOL pool makes the game unplayable... just cumbersome.

Not sure how I like 2e's seeming habit of taking 1e classes and turning their abilities into feats. A big complaint I always had about 1e was the plethora of feat taxes. Sure, you do get twice as many feats, but I really think it hurts verisimilitude to have to "spec into" every little thing. To be absurd: I predict that Pathfinder 3e won't have skills, it will have skill feats. You'll still have to roll skill checks, but--shock horror--you can't roll on that skill without the feat. Good luck avoiding that trap!

I like the idea of this in-between style of campaign, longer than a module but shorter than an AP. I hope returning to form next year doesn't mean we lose this format entirely.

I wrote my response before reading the comments and it's hilarious to see I'm quite happy and positive about the rogue while most people seem quite upset by it.

Things I got from the blog:
* People are no longer flat footed for the first round of combat before they act.
* Debilitating effects from Pathfinder Unchained (or a variation) are now core (makes sense. I'm all for it).
* Skill monkey: I approve!
* Bluff has been renamed to deception.
* Skill feats (at least some of them) will resemble what we're accustomed to with rogue talents. Hooray!
* Class feats: Despite some very 4th-edish names, it looks like for the rogue at least we're getting class feats that are very much grounded in Pathfinder 1st edition.
* Action economy: I'm starting to see the benefit of iteratives at all levels with the -5/-10 penalty. It makes the "sacrifice an attack" abilities very competitive instead of in PF 1st edition which cost a lot to use.
* I like that they're finding ways to offer similar (yet grounded in reality) effects when it comes to spells (blank slate being an example).

Overall I'm much more happy with how things are looking for the rogue. However I am concerned we perhaps didn't get any examples of "legendary" skill feats for rogues. If they're over the top and break the "aesthetic" of the rogue, I continue to hope they'll remain highly optional and viable characters can be made by topping off at mastery for many skills (vs legendary for a few skills).

I am also happy to see no dex to damage. I hope Paizo can be creative in keeping the rogue credible without going "all classes get 1[W]+Primary ability score mod" for all attacks (no bards using charisma to attack people with weapons please. Let's have ability scores mean something).

I never understood this sentiment about ability scores. What bleeds more, a harder stab or a stab into a place that's more vital? There's an argument that STR shouldn't even be your attack OR damage stat, and that it should only be used for gear prerequisites, but the D&D legacy prevents that paradigm. The argument for strength seems only to come from the angle of keeping fighters and barbarians as a 2-stat class. Mind you, in PF you ONLY got sneak attack when flanking or when your foe is flat-footed (which after the first round is almost never), so after 1 round, unless you form the Conga Line of Death, the rogue's damage vanishes unless he has special tricks he paid dearly for. No one's saying bards should get CHA to damage, unless you're arguing spellcasting.

I need to know, do bantrids have... hands? Are they just organic bells with trackballs? How do they USE anything? The illustration doesn't show limbs of any form, but there isn't any restriction on equipment inherent to the race or any form of limited telekinesis.

When I pitched the idea for this book and wrote the outline, I wasn't fully convinced about including archetypes and feats. I wanted the subsystems for extra levels of intoxication (enjoying alcohol as much as I do) and narrative bar fights that any character class could participate in.

But after we brainstormed some ideas for the contents, I realized that we could have some fun with these player options! So I convinced Amanda and Adam to let me write those bits. So now we have a mixologist alchemist that make intoxicating bombs and a teamwork feat for getting drunk with your allies! The archetypes and feats work best with the new subsystems, but I tried to make the feats not too niche.

And the rest of the book is just *chef kiss*. The writers and Amanda and Adam took my original ideas and ran with them!

I am very excited for this book to be out in the wild soon!

I fully understand that I might be in the minority with this concern, but my group in particular hates being roped into taking teamwork feats to begin with, and now there's one for drinking? Drinking in battle maybe, there's archetypes for fighting drunk; maybe it ties into the bar brawl mechanic? Unless the campaign is about sword-n-sorcery bar crawling, why would they invest in that? I have a hard enough time convincing my players to use "social combat," and it's not that they hate the diplomatic route; they hate the chase rules as well, preferring to improvise the combat system.

It's assumed that you made the connection somehow - potions of fly, sharding longsword, what have you. And eventually, you'll have air walk to get you there. ^_^

It's supernatural because of the penalty on Fly checks. Like most of the class's features, it was always supposed to be a single attack with a longsword.

Which is strange. I may be blanking on a lot of PF content, but as far as I know no class grants you features you can't use without the aid of magic you yourself can't cast.

A friend of mine brought up something about the Skyreaver that I can't adequately answer, so I bring you his question.

For the Skyreaver ability, do you also need to be flying in order to use it against a flying creature? It specifies that it's meant to be used against flying opponents, but you likely have no means of flight (or shouldn't be expected to since nothing in your build should've given it to you by now) so are you expected to fly up to an opponent, or are you supposed to hope they don't have flyby attack and hit them near the ground where falling will only knock them prone?
Also, it is a SU ability instead of an EX, which is strange because an equally potent power (Savior of the Swallowed) is just EX. What's supernatural about hitting something in a way that makes it fall?

Or, out-of-left-field possibility, was this originally supposed to be a ranged magical attack?

The suspense is killing me. I don't think I've ever been this excited about an RPG product.

Why are people refreshing?

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I'd love to see more "non-Japanese" weapons from Asia.

Edit 1: I guess I should make a list and link to info/pics.

Edit 2: On the off-hand, this book would also be a good place to detail more weapons from non-humans (elves, dwarves, halflings, araneas, etc.).

For that matter, I'd love to see some 'half' weapons. "Great Scimitar: This weapon was developed by Half Orcs who liked the power of the falchion but preferred the option to use it one handed." (basically that would be a refluffed katana, but weapons made to play to the half breed's strengths is my thought.)

Apologies, but I can't resist complaining some more about how a very agile one-handed weapon in real life became a ponderous 2-hander that's bigger (but weaker) than a greatsword in D&D/Pathfinder. Maybe on Golarion "falchions" are an orc thing, but how and why?

I wish there was more support for a lot races.

There's gonna be loads of support, considering the vast majority of the bestiary creatures are going to be playable sentients. Of course, they might miss on some favorites, but a certain publisher's minion has all but promised to cover that base...

Short answer: no. Long answer: the question implies that I'd be leaving 5e. I'm a multi-rpg fan, but unless Starfinder is absolutely amazing, 5e will remain my favorite RPG.

Barachiel Shina wrote:

Legacy of Chaos? Legacy of Balance? Legacy of Law?

Oh...wait...Paizo doesn't care about the non-Good and Evil aspects of the game. Sad.

Hyperbole much?

The Books of the Damned are divided along the chaos vs law lines, for example.

But necessarily evil. He means Law as in "Lawful X," neutral as in "Neutral X," and chaos as in "Chaotic X." Law, neutrality, and chaos as facets of evil, or facets of good, instead of forces in their own right were the commenter's issue. I personally don't care because a lot of alignment-based crunch is inherently limiting and campaign-centric, but I feel you missed his point.

Is there ever going to be an official character sheet that incorporates post-CRB features, or are we pretty much exclusively switching to third-party sheets now?

I personally am willing to nerf the vampire's power in order to make dropping some weaknesses fair, because so many players (me included) just want to play a vampire, not an ancient vampire lord. It's clear vampires as written were never meant to be playable, because all of their weaknesses seem tailor-made to prevent adventuring. Of course, it's not fair for a vampire to not have weaknesses, but sometimes I prefer VTM over Dracula. And even Dracula was only rendered immobile by the sun, not burned, which is IMHO a fair tradeoff.

One thing I am hoping for here is a guide to help those who haven't run horror themed D&D set the mood. It's a delicate game of balance, as dark and scary all the time is too much and too little can result in Scooby-Doo.

*Ruh-roh Raggy!*

I'd like a guide on how to be less dark. My depression, and love for the horror genre, tends to come out in every campaign I run.

So what happens if someone with a belt full of pellet grenades gets set on fire? Don't they all go off, or does just one harm the owner? Then by the rules, wouldn't it be impossible to, say, sabotage a ship by throwing a bomb into their powder reserves, since multiple explosions don't accumulate?
I swear, some rules of the game exist purely to ruin immersion. Balance be damned, in a game where 40 AC is attainable through clever building alone but you can't jury-rig a WP grenade from a thunderstone and acid because an item exists to make doing so prohibitively expensive.

At risk (or promise) of response from Devs, while I think the removal of feats and skill boost would be "more" balanced, Azlanti really seem to be only included more as "monsters with class HD" rather than a playable variant of human, therefore balance really may not be the point. They were the pinnacle of Golarion humanity, and their landlocked inheritors are mutts in comparison. This is, of course, conjecture. As far as I know, the confirmed extraterrestrial humans that populate the solar system (and possibly beyond) are assumed to use the base human stat block, so I have little to go on with the Azlanti.

So much modding... is there a "Clarification of the Clarification of the Clarification of Posting Guidelines" thread? Because the lines I've read here are blurry and non-static.