Esquin's page

Did you just necro a thread that had been dead for 5 months to tell someone that the discussion still had meaning even when factually the information contained in this thread is no longer useful or even interesting because there are a dozen other threads and 3 guides that give him an answer.

I'm asking here because this is a thread made by a developer. Making new threads with these questions rarely gets a response, even rarer that you'd get a response with an actual answer.

The way I determine if someone should be an alchemist is the same way I determine if they should be a gnome.

"Are you an alchemist?"
"Yes - Good. keep doing that."; or
"No - Then be an alchemist."

It's like asking if you should be batman. If you are Batman, great. If you're not then you should probably start being Batman.

But seriously, if you're only after the poison creation then don't. They're too costly even as an alchemist. Theres a few ways around it but it isn't worth it.

Now mutagens. That could be fun.

Xethik wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Daring Champion have Precise Strike and Challenge?

Warpriest having only 2 skill points per level (Yes I know it was intentional, but it's a mistake)

Charmed Life taking a swift action. It should be a free action or even permanent.

I've seen the Dev team change classes/feats to make them weaker, why not also make the weak things stronger?

The dev team definitely buffed some weak options in this (Feral Hunter, for example, but also some Shaman options). It may not have been exactly what you were hoping for, but the PDT is definitely making things stronger.

That being said, I'm still sad to see a lot of the nerfs and no fixes for the Eldritch Scion. To be fair, I probably didn't post anything about that Magus archetype in the ACG potential errors.

After four calls for Eldritch Scion stuff showed up in a few hours last night, I rechecked the entire potential errors thread again to see what they meant, and yeah, I couldn't find it. I'd recommend making a FAQ thread for it so we can take a look at it too!

No offence but this is a pretty poor excuse. "You didn't mention it so we didn't know about it."

You had a year, plus the original editing time. You could easily have read the book yourself. You can't put the blame on the consumer when the real issue was, and apparently still is, that no one at paizo bothered to actually look at the content of this book on their own.

I think there is a big difference between directed criticism and constant complaining.

Directed criticism aims to get results, and we have gotten results, Pathfinder Unchained is professionally edited, it focused on just 4 classes, provided unique mechanics for those classes as well as providing a plethora of content that covers a wide area of the game.

Designers aim to do their best, and like all of us sometimes make mistakes, and shouldn't be condemned for eternity.

ACG was just a small bump in a sturdy road of game design.

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that just fixing the systematic issues makes the existing errors ok. The results we were after weren't just prevention of this in the future, but also resolution of oast mistakes.

But that's behind us. We have a time frame now so any further discussion should really wait to see what is in the errata. It sounds like It has taken a lot of work and if it solves half the issues it will be almost like a new book itself.

StarMartyr365 wrote:

I believe that Mark specifically stated that they were going to release the errata for this book as soon a possible. I could be wrong but I also recall someone saying that the book was selling really well and it was just a matter of time until it went into a second printing anyways. I'm in the middle of something and I can't search the references right now so take it last bit with a grain of salt.

SM

Pretty positive that ACG was selling really well until all of the editing problems arose and Erik Mona came by to say they were definitively working on errata. Quite frankly, all of the talk about them releasing the errata before the new print is out is hogwash; Paizo is not going to abandon their sales strategy. They're going to wait until the first printing of ACG is done, regardless of the fact that no doubt sales were stymied by the editing problems and from the expectation of the masses that other people will buy the books and they themselves will simply wait it out.

That would be a mistake. We have to hope they realise that. By taking that approach here they risk further alienating their fan base and customers and that would be a huge mistake for them.

They surely are aware of the fact that the ACG is not a typical book, either in how it was produced, released or proofed. So it should not be treated as a typical errata. I and most of us here cn see that, we need to hope that paizo can see that also.

Better to loose money now reprinting then to destroy the faith of your consumers by allowing the existing disaster to continue. Lets look at it this way, do they really want the current version to be the first example someone sees of their company? I know I wouldn't.

Recently played a scenario, a few actually, where the Aspis were portrayed as just very successful merchants essentially.

We blew up their warehouse. So with this in mind, and the attitude of many pathfinders.... are we the bad guys here? Because not gonna lie, we seem like the bad guys.

At the end of the day until a date is set for the update release I and many others will continue to be unhappy. It's all well and good that you're trying to communicate about how complicated and difficult a process it is, but to be frank, telling us how overly complex and bureaucratic your internal organisation structure is does nothing to build my confidence on this matter.

Until there is at the very least a broad timeframe for release given I'll continue to assume that the update is in fact not coming at all.

I also fail to understand why some of the larger issues haven't been FAQd already. This entire book and the response to it has been, quite simply, an unprofessional mess.

Marc I would be more than happy to do that. Except that the issues happened in the first place. Bit hard to have faith in a company that falls so far so quickly. When you look at the quality of Season 5 PFS scenarios to .... well it's a bit of an issue. So we'll see how they look when they update it. If they fix all the issues then we'll see.

This problem isn't isolated to the slayer.

The issue of classes and archtypes having prerequesite issues is all through the ACG. Paizo appear to have taken the position of refusing the release individual faqs or digital erratas until they begin the second printing of the book. Which I find interesting given how broken the first printing is and how many people are likely holding off until the second run is out.

It's a bit of a paradox of stupid really. They should just release an faq for all the issues. But they won't. It's disappointing that a company which previously produced work of such high quality has fallen so very far.

And the acg stupidity continues!

Poog want kill the bad things. Poog not care about others with him, they be dumb and took Poogs win. Stopped Poog being best. Poog not best of course, Zargonel best. But Poog still pretty good. Not big fan of loosing.

Screw those guys. They all nearly dead anyway from lots-legs-kill-goblin-babies-many. Poog just channel to try kill bad thing. Stop bad thing and win! Yes. This plan is good.

But Poog forgot to look up. Friend goblins got channeled. Poog think this funny, Friend goblins fall to ground twitching. Then not twitching Dumb ugly goblins.

That's ok. Poog leave now, Poog no have to win. Poog run off into forest, find Poogself a new tribe. Poog was bored of this place anyway. Too much bad stuff try to kill Poog.

I will warn you that calculating damage gets .... weird at about level 8. The combination of close weapon mastery, shield spikes and a bashing enhancement boosts your damage beyond what the damage table allows for.

But it's somewhere in the vicinity of 3d6 by level 12.

Other tips. Don't be married to your shield. It's a great aspect of the class, but if you need to put it away to grapple then do it.

Put together a few martial flexibility combos that you can pull out in special situations. You'll need to be very familiar with combat feats to use the character effectively.

Shield Slam is amazing. Coupled with greater bullrush it gets just amazing.

I've discovered in playing mine that your character is not there for damage. Not primarily, and not at first. You're much better at being exactly what your class feature says. Flexible. You exist to fill gaps. Your role is to punch things when needed, be reasonably tough to hit yourself, and then walk up to the bad guys and just say no. You can't do that. No.

You have access to dirty trick and every combat maneuver feat in the game on demand. Make use of the and ruin peoples days.

Joana wrote:

Quote:

Silent Spell (Metamagic)

You can cast your spells without making any sound.

Benefit: A silent spell can be cast with no verbal components. Spells without verbal components are not affected. A silent spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat.

I've never seen that text before.

I believe I will continue to ignore its existence.

Eh. @OP: Go with Still spell and pass off the speaking as the magic words necessary to go into your book world.

Yeah can't say i'm a fan. Considering Bard magic is thematically supposed to be an extension of their perform skill i'd have allowed them to take either silent or still spell depending on what their skill lends itself too. I just don't get the sense of a dancing bard needing verbal components.

Your argument seems to be (and I'm sure you'll correct me) that you don't like good characters, but you're okay with them if they can be browbeaten into giving up their convictions. However the paladins are harder to browbeat because there are actual in game repercussions for them betraying their character concept.

Actually i'd say the problem is that many paladins don't have a character concept. Just some 2 dimensional idea with no depth.

The paladin code says

"respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

From that all I'm getting is that a lot of people play it to the absolute extreme. There is a lot of room in there for some really interesting characters.

For instance, there's nothing in there saying you can't use evil to fight evil. There's nothing in there saying that you need to tell everyone the truth about everything, just that you act with honour. So if you're on a mission where you need to hide your identify and someone asks if you're a pathfinder, sure you shouldn't say you're not a pathfinder but you don't need to answer the question either. Nothing saying you need to impose those views on others either.

The code is actually very vague and very flexible based on what kind of character you'd like to play. I may actually make a Paladin now and bring that along so that I can play the kind of Paladin I want to play.

Dylos is technically right.

However the ACG, season 5 and many of the recent productions have been edited and proof read so poorly that I really don't think we can trust much of it at all.

And if the GM had said "Theres a special rule in place on this monster" that would be enough.

Smugly saying "I know" with no further explanation is just rudeness.

Rushley son of Halum wrote:

He can't be readied. It wasn't an aoo.

Your GM is doing something that a lot of GM's tend to do where they don't really describe whats happening and feel that because you're "only" the player that they don't need to explain the rules behind what they're doing.

Some do it as a way of preventing metagaming. I see it as just kind of cheap. Obviously we don't need to, and shouldn't know all the details of a monster right away, but when the interesting quirk comes up they should explain it when asked.

But I think thats what happened. Some kind of unique trait that the GM just didnt explain.

Y'know, I don't necessarily agree. I play with some pretty darned advanced players and frankly the standard monster mashup of DR/SR/Combat Reflexes/AC/resistances/immunity/FH/regeneration just doesn't draw their attention any more.

Gone are the days where the player is in awe because a troll gets back up a minute after it's "killed". "OMFG, what do we do?!?" Gone are the days where a succubus can actually pass itself off as someone a PC might actually want to kiss. No. Now it's all about carrying different weapons for different DR, and having magic circle against evil up to deal with charms and influence spells, and it's all about death ward so heaven-forbid a monster tries to enervate, nothing bad comes of it. Basically, there's no WONDER anymore.

So. Strangely, my monsters occasionally have oddball abilities. Things that bring back the challenge and the wonder. "What?!? I hit him and he got STRONGER? What?!?" Nothing broken, nothing that doesn't feel like it fits the game, but not necessarily something that the players can recite chapter and verse, quoting the source book and page number for.

I'm not saying that's what happened here, but the idea that every monster's abilities should be open-book explained and documented upon encounter doesn't rub me the right way. You roll your knowledge check. You get to...

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I'd just like to add something.

As has been said, monsters cheat, thats fine. But when a player asks how something is happening in regards to the rules, like in the original post, they're just as entitled to a response as the GM is when they ask their players. "Just because" shouldn't be an acceptable answer from either the players or the GM.

This can be easily answered by looking at the faqs.

ChainsawSam wrote:

Furthermore with no iteratives there is no incentive to not just get a flank for SA.

You can't always flank. It's not so simple as using a move action.

Can I always flank? No. But with my acrobatics of +25 and a repositn talent I can do it often enough. And if I can't flank I can certainly use my mobility to force enemies to go where I want and limit their options.

Can I disable a door so hard it suffers a spontaneous existence fare? Yes. Can I steal the glasses off your face and then put them on in front of you without you noticing? Damn straight I can. Can I back flip out a third story window, land on my feet then escape? Yes.

If your rogue is broken its not the classes fault, it's because you're using it wrong. It's not a dungeon bashing class. Stop trying to make it one. It's like being annoyed at the wizard because he can't wear full plate and wield a long hammer.

No longer allowed to "bomb first and ask questions later"

No longer allowed to pursue vendettas against level 5 magus' with a level 2 ranger.

Just because it's made of wood does not mean we should burn it.

The gunslingers ammo pouch is not a "back up bomb"

When asking "what could possibly go wrong" the answer is always "treachery demons."

Precise needs point blank as a pre-req. Also point blank applies to bombs. Just the bomb damage itself mind you, not the splash. But still good.

In regards to brew potion, I would suggest that if you're taking brew potion you might not need infusion. Since you can brew anything from your formula list anyway if i'm remembering right.

Bow or repeating crossbow are good options. But remember you're taking -1 to damage on your bow attacks. Also that the grenadier alchemical ammunition ability applies to things like acid flask, not your bombs.