Flamephoenix182's page

State of confusion wrote:

I'm missing something with this new coke thing. I don't drink coke. What is this new coke thing?

Coke produced "new Coke" formula which was widely regarded as terrible. It was done specifically to kill the new Pepsi formula that had just been released that was harming Coke's sales. Through they're marketing campaign and the their new terrible soda they were able to kill Pepsi's growing share of the soda market and then brought back the old Coke formula, which people loved/love, regaining their market share.

That's why many coke cans say "Original Formula" or "Classic" on them.

Funny story with new coke, in the blind taste tests coke conducted people consistently liked new coke better. So at least from the data coke had people would have liked it better. what new coke really teaches us is people are afraid of change even if it's for the better and will resist it just to avoid "scary" change instead of judging it on it's own merit...

Which seems to parallel a lot of what is happening right now on this board.

(second thing it teaches us is marketing is proper marketing is almost more important than the actual product...)

Note: I'm not saying pathfinder 2nd edition is like this as we do not have enough data at this stage to really make any judgement that hold weight since we are seeing it piecemeal.

Profession Smith 6 ranks wrote:

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

I think they said in the Know Direction interview that the goblin entry would have one such sidebar.

Thanks for the update.

Then I guess my question becomes: Then why is this storm still raging out of control?

I think it's very naive to assume that that will be anywhere near enough. People are going to want to play the goblin that they've been seeing and published material for a decade, and some GM's are going to want to let them even at the expense of other players.

This sounds like a GM and group issue, not a ruleset issue...

I think I'm missing something here? I'm not sure why there is such an outrage of goblins being core? Is it related to Pathfinder society where the gm doesn't get input on the characters? Because in my groups home games, nothing is assumed to be included and excluded in campaigns... Core or not... so if a goblin doesn't fit into the current campaign the GM just says no goblins or humans or elves or whatever.

I was curious what are people's go to builds/classes for a shapeshifting character that is not nature themed (As most of the builds I find are very nature themed shifter, druid, ranger with archetypes etc..)

I'm not too picky with having a ton of forms I just would rather be turning into different forms than animals/elementals/plants

I know of the spheres of power shifter and would love to try it but this upcoming campaign is 1st party only.

Ah that makes more sense.
And yeah I was just responded to the thread. I've never had an issue. The p
People I gm are good at self policing and not overshadowing the other characters

Extra Credits did a series of video's on Durlag's Tower from Baldur's gate. It is a video game but they go over the principles of good dungeon design, I feel it is very applicable to pathfinder dungeon crawls as well as general guidelines:

Durlag's Tower.

Seconded the 5 room dungeon. It is a good way to make a short dungeon crawl, that has all the elements. Just need to be creative with what you define as rooms

5 Room Dungeon

You could play with the wording of "normal" as well. Did they have backstories before they became adventurers? Generally I find adventures are short term things relatively, So this is very dependent on your campaign, but if I had a character who was say human and mid 20's, maybe only a year or two has actually passed in your campaign. So "normal" for them could be reverting back to their backstory selves.

Like maybe the cleric is now a level 1 apprentice in his local church, Someone could be a farmer etc...

This could also kick off an adventure where they know something is wrong and need to find each other living their day to day normal lives as merchants/inn keeps/labourers and get their memories (IE class levels back). It could also present an interesting challenge since they would have to do it with none of their usual abilities.

And it opens up things like:

I want to craft stuff cheap, but I don't want to use feats on my character: Leadership Wizard Cohort with all the crafting feats. Now my one feat turns in 5 feats.

Or I could take skill focus Knowledge for a +3, or I could take leadership and get a Level 8 bard (as Dominus) mentioned... Now I have a guy with all the knowledge and bardic knowledge so it's like that one feat gave +15 to to all knowledge checks (+ whatever the bards int ends up being) AND that feat now buffs you with spells and bardic performance

I tend to find the followers incidental to the cohort. most people I know just leave them behind to tend the castle or something.

Now the GM could kindof balance the leadership feat by creating the NPCs themselves and saying this is what you attract deal with it and make a fairly non optimized NPC or a NPC who doubles up on a role already done better by a PC... but that's a lot of extra work on the GM. and even a weak NPC is better than a +1 from weapon focus or something

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

HyperMissingno wrote:

I believe there are nonevil undead, but they're all sentient and they need really, really, REALLY strong willpower to resist falling to evil. Also ghosts are a thing.

That still feeds into the problem. Why is being undead an inherently morally corrupting? The search for immortality and the process of becoming undead are easily things I could see being morally corrupting, but just existing seems backwards as a corruptive force. Like I could even see a lich or some graveknight doing the whole retired dictator thing where they try to pretend they aren't evil anymore because they've mellowed out since the whole consuming people's souls to make their phylactery days.

Like saying "becoming x kind of undead requires y evil action which stains your soul forever" works perfectly fine by me. Specifically the AD&D explanation for how liches are made, but when the method of creation is morally neutral or even selfless I don't see how that would corrupt anyone. Take mummies created by volunteers who are forgoing an afterlife they objectively knows exist to guard their king's tomb. That's noble and selfless. There isn't any reason their alignment shouldn't read "any lawful".

It has to do with the nature of negative energy as inherently anti-life. Creatures powered by it have all their instincts telling them to extinguish life (or similar unpleasantness)...and that has a tendency to make one Evil if listened to.

Not that intelligent undead have to listen to it, of course, but they do have to work harder not to be Evil than most living creatures. Which explains their rarity...but not nonexistence.

Which is convenient, since non-Evil undead are officially not nonexistent at all. Rare, but not nonexistent. And something I also quite like, for the record.

The name is escaping me but I recall in 3.5 Eberron they had a template for some good undead who were kept alive with positive energy (they were sentient of course). A pathfinder equivalent would be cool. Since to me for sentient undead positive energy makes more sense anyways, since it cures and heals

dysartes wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Andreww wrote:

Provided you arew willing to take the feats for them as even when wild shaped you are taking the penalties.

Relevant FAQ

Things I love that people hate.

Real FAQs.
Real Errata.

Because the wild enhancement doesn't work that way. The FAQ is wrong. The enhancement only says you retain the armor bonus and any enhancement bonus while wild shaped.

It's not even an interpretation thing. The FAQ is just strait up lying. That's par for the course with the FAQ though.

Having just read the entries on Wild Shape, Beast Shape I, and the Polymorph school, I'd pose this question - where does it say that while your gear is melded with you, you no longer take any penalties from it?

If anything, the bit of the FAQ that appears to be wrong would be the bit that says you don't take penalties while not gaining bonuses.

And I'm fairly sure that given they write the game, Paizo FAQs are real FAQs, even if you don't like them.

The problem is that if something doesn't say it happens, it doesn't. Humans can't fly because it doesn't say we can. You don't get the armor bonuses. It says so. Unless you have the Wild enchantment. Then you do.

The FAQ adds a bunch of unstated rules to a book that does not contain them. That's why it lies. The book does not say what the FAQ says it does. It's an Errata that isn't actually written into the books.

Often when these FAQratta are made they make things worse to boot.

And these "FAQ" aren't even solid, they change back and forth. Remember the spell-likes allow qualification for spellcasting? It went away after too.

FAQ are supposed to be clarifications of rule text that are unclear. It isn't supposed to conjure up new rules out of the ether.

I agree they are using the FAQ more as erratas... However the FAQ is on the main Paizo site and published by the creators... So it's not official... arguing it's not is madness. That being said unless you are playing society who cares! My games ignore official rules all the time.

Also on topic: I love psionic's I wish all casters used the Power Point system instead of the Vancian system

Hi all,

has anyone ever made use of the ultimate magic, Spell like evolution (minor magic, major magic etc..) I like the idea of having an eidolon with spell-likes, especially for when your trying to make an eidolon who isn't just about natural attacking. However then seem quite weak for the evolution point costs, has anyone had any success with these?

Well after a ready action triggers there is a clause "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."

So after the readied action the fighter (assuming he has any movement left) could just continue moving then attack.

IE: Wizard readies spell. Fighter moves say 20 ft (assuming 30 ft speed), gets ready to attack. The wizard triggers to ready action 5 ft away, then casts the spell. The fighter then continues his action move up 5 ft (so 25ft total) and attacks.

That's how I have always interpreted it anyways

Edit: Ninja'd