Fozbek's page

Maerimydra wrote:

meatrace wrote:

Fozbek wrote:

Where does page 209 say "instead of applying their normal effects"?

So in that case, if I ready an action to cast Dispel Magic to dispel a spell cast by an enemy caster, it ALSO acts as an area/targeted dispel?

No because you use the spell to make a counterspell, which works in a different way.

Right. And what I'm saying is that using Haste to dispel Slow is using it in a different way from Slowing the opponent-it's dispelling the Haste.

Nope, you're talking about a specifically defined separate function of the dispel magic spell. Specifically:

Counterspell: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster's spell.

Slow doesn't have separate choices on how to cast it. Countering is defined elsewhere in the rules as using the spell only to prevent another spell from functioning, so the "counters" part of "counters and dispels" obviously precludes the spell also functioning as normal, but there is nothing in the rules about the "dispels" part being a separate action that invalidates the text of the spell.

I use an Old Norse--English dictionary for my Boreal Sorcerer. He casts spells by drawing runes in the air (leaving a visible trail of frost) and speaking the names of the runes. These are the ones I have written down for him, although they don't include UM/UC spells:

Ray of Frost -- Kaldr (Cold)
Light -- Ljos (Light)
Enlarge Person -- Vaxa (Grow)
Mage Armor -- Herklaedi (Armor)
Shield -- Rond (Shield)
Nerveskitter -- Breyta (Act)
Expeditious Retreat -- Sok (Charge)
Magic Weapon -- Skod Frodleikr (Weapon Magic)
Rage -- Geisa (Rage)
Frost Breath -- Kaldr Ond (Cold Breath)
Stone Call -- Bjarg (Stone)
See Invisibility -- Sja Fela (See Hide)
Fog Cloud -- Thoka (Fog)
Kelgore's Grave Mist -- Draugr Thoka (Ghost Fog)
Elemental Aura -- Skikkja Kaldr (Cloak Cold)
Cloak of Winds -- Skikkja Vethr (Cloak Wind)
Versatile Weapon -- Herr Skod (Many Weapon)
Wind Wall -- Balkr Vethr (Wall Wind)
Greater Magic Weapon -- Storr Skod Frodleikr (Great Weapon Magic)
Wall of Ice -- Balkr Kaldr (Wall Cold)
Solid Fog -- Storr Thoka (Great Fog)
Summon Undead IV -- Draugr (Ghost)
River of Wind -- Heror Vethr (Arrow Wind)
Greater Mirror Image -- Soma Herr (Become Many)
Cone of Cold -- Storr Kaldr Ond (Great Frost Breath)
Summon Undead V -- Storr Draugr (Great Ghost)
Overland Flight -- Hjuka (Fly Off)
Suffocation -- Vaetr Ond (Nothing Breath)
Teleport -- Fara (Travel)
Transformation -- Skipta (Change)
Freezing Sphere -- Knottr Kaldr (Ball Cold)
Elemental Body III -- Soma Kaldr (Become Cold)
Extract Water Elemental --Soma Vatn (Become Water)
Giant Form I -- Soma Jotunn (Become Giant)
Elemental Body IV -- Soma Storr Kaldr (Become Great Cold)
Control Weather -- Vald Vethr (Control Weather)
Polar Ray -- Storr Kaldr Heror (Great Cold Arrow)
Mind Blank -- Soma Vaetr (Become Nothing)
Wall of Lava -- Balkr Hraun (Wall Lava)
Stormbolts -- Vethr Geisa (Weather Rage)
Meteor Swarm -- Stjarna Fall (Star Fall)
Winds of Vengeance -- Vethr Hefnd (Wind Vengeance)
Fiery Body -- Kaldr Likami (Cold Body)
Clashing Rocks -- Gnata Bjarg (Crash Stone)

Here are others I've seen in similar threads before (I believe the variations are for meta-magic effects, or multiple summons):

Cure Minor Wounds: (Elven)
May the grace of the Undying fill you for the slightest moment.

Detect Magic: (Draconic)
Ancestors, guide my eyes to visions of your glory.

Summon Monster:
(small fiendish scorpion) (Draconic)
Six scampering legs, two grasping claws, eyes of shadow and an acrid sting! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service! Come forth, fiend, and relinquish your will to mine!
Six shimmering legs, two frozen claws, eyes of shadow and an icy sting! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service! Come forth, fiend, and relinquish your will to mine!
A hundred scampering legs, two dozen grasping claws, eyes of shadow and acrid stings! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service! Come forth, fiends, and relinquish your wills to mine!
A hundred shimmering legs, two dozen frozen claws, eyes of shadow and icy stings! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service! Come forth, fiends, and relinquish your wills to mine!
A thousand scampering legs, two hundred grasping claws, eyes of shadow and acrid stings! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service! Come forth, fiends, and relinquish your wills to mine!
A thousand shimmering legs, two hundred frozen claws, eyes of shadow and icy stings! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service! Come forth, fiends, and relinquish your wills to mine!

(medium fiendish scorpion) (Draconic)
Six skittering legs, two rending claws, eyes of darkness and a vemoned sting! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service with chains of faith! Come forth, fiend, and abandon your will to mine!
Six glinting legs, two frigid claws, eyes of darkness and a freezing sting! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service with chains of faith! Come forth, fiend, and abandon your will to mine!
A hundred skittering legs, two dozen rending claws, eyes of darkness and vemoned stings! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service with chains of faith! Come forth, fiends, and abandon your wills to mine!
A hundred glinting legs, two dozen frigid claws, eyes of darkness and freezing stings! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service with chains of faith! Come forth, fiends, and abandon your wills to mine!
A thousand skittering legs, two hundred rending claws, eyes of darkness and vemoned stings! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service with chains of faith! Come forth, fiends, and abandon your wills to mine!
A thousand glinting legs, two hundred frigid claws, eyes of darkness and freezing stings! I call, you answer. I order, you obey. I bind you to my service with chains of faith! Come forth, fiends, and abandon your wills to mine!

(celestial badger) (Draconic)
Fierce heart, blazing eyes, tenacious jaws! I beseech your presence. Come to my aid, pure soul, so that we may defeat my foes!
Raging heart, frosty eyes, ice-bound jaws! I beseech your presence. Come to my aid, pure soul, so that we may defeat my foes!

(celestial eagle) (Draconic)
Two shining wings adorn your radiant body. Your eyes pierce mens' souls and your talons reap judgement. I beseech your presence, mighty one. Bind your purpose to mine for a time that we may defeat our foes!
Two shining wings adorn your aurora-clad body. Your gelid eyes pierce mens' souls and your talons reap judgement. I beseech your presence, mighty one. Bind your purpose to mine for a time that we may defeat our foes!

Summon Undead:
(human skeleton) (Drow)
Rotting bones in your shallow graves, come forth once more! Focus your anger to my cause.

Winter's Embrace: (Giant)
Winds of the north, sea of rime, gather to me! Steal the breath, freeze the blood, shatter the heart! Ye foe, bathe in Winter's embrace!
Dark tempest, glacial ocean, gather to me! Steal the shadow, freeze the essence, shatter the soul! Ye foe, bathe in Risia's embrace!

Produce Fire: (Giant)
O Surtr, bright-flame and world-ender! Grant but a sliver of your power to my touch!
O Angrboda, frostbitten and windswept! Grant but a sliver of your power to my touch!
O Rimurstar, rimebeard and death's-head! Grant but a sliver of your power to my touch!

Here comes the C-MD argument again.

There is no Caster-Martial Disparity, there is only AM BARBARIAN-not AM BARBARIAN disparity. ;)

If you're not over-the-top optimized, generally speaking melee is the weakest thing you can do.

The rage mutagen text does not say "+6 in addition to normal bonuses..." or anything such

It doesn't have to.

Logical process:

1. Are you using a mutagen?
Y: Apply mutagen benefits, goto 2.
N: End.
2. Does the mutagen increase Strength?
Y: Apply rage mutagen benefits.
N: End.

It would need to say "this replaces the normal bonuses from mutagen" or something similar in order to replace, or be an alchemical bonus (which wouldn't stack with mutagens).

My understanding of Gestalt rules is that you choose two classes and...

• Take the higher of the two BABs (Ex: Ftr's BAB is higher than Sor)
  
• Take the higher saves. (Ftr's Fort save, Sor's Will save, Ref is the same)
  
• Take the higher hit die. (Ftr's d10 is higher than the Sor's d6)
  
• Take all class features of both.
  

Your understanding is incomplete. Your fourth point should be:

• Combine the class features of both; if both share a class feature, take the faster progression, but do not stack them.

A Rogue | Vivisectionist would have 1d6 sneak attack at level 1, 2d6 at level 3, etc.

The written evidence of this is in the gestalt rules themselves:

Class features that two classes share (such as uncanny dodge) accrue at the rate of the faster class.

Likewise, I think I wouldn't allow you to use the 'pounce' ability while mounted-- your mount makes the charge, not you (as others have said)

This reasoning also invalidates lances, Spirited Charge, etc. All specifically require you to charge while mounted.

Having actually played a Master of Many Styles with Crane, Snake, and Dragon styles, I can safely say that my experience shows that Crane Style is a good defense, but it isn't the end-all, be-all.

There's nothing in the rules that allow characters to breathe, either. There's rules for choosing not to breathe, for needing to breathe and not being able to, and for not needing to breathe, but no one has permission to breathe. Ergo, every non-Outsider, non-Construct, non-Plant, non-Undead PC automatically dies before character creation is over.

Just to chime in:

I've taken the wording "melee weapon attack" to mean that things like bite, gore or claw attacks can't be deflected. Have I been mistaken? Has this been clarified?

Bites, gores, and claws are still natural weapons, and are used in melee attacks, making them melee weapons. Nothing in Crane Wing's text says it only works on manufactured weapons.

Your actual intelligence has no bearing on your characters' stats and shouldn't be used to subvert or alter the effects of your characters' stats. That is, in fact, not playing with regards to your stats.

Here's two that I have run, both of which were well-liked by the players:

• The "boss" is a giant (as in, when at rest it appears like a large stony hill) snake-like creature called an uktena. On its head is a gem that grants wondrous powers, which the PCs need. In order to kill the creature, it must be shot exactly through the center of the seventh spot from the head--but the spots are only visible when the uktena is well and truly angry. The PCs have to enrage the creature, then survive its wrath until someone can hit the bullseye.
  
• The PCs have to protect a group of NPC spellcasters performing an epic spell that takes 10 minutes to cast and requires all of their concentration. About a minute into the ritual, a planar rift is torn open inside the ritual chamber and monsters begin to climb out. The rift slowly grows wider and wider, and the PCs can see truly monstrous forms trying to push their way through the rift, but unable to because it is too small. The PCs are able to attack the rift to reduce the speed at which it grows (or, if they do enough damage, even shrink it a little), but monsters are constantly coming through the rift and they have to balance their attention between keeping the rift a manageable size and preventing the mosters from disrupting the ritual until either the ritual completes after 80-90 rounds or they manage to deal enough damage to seal the rift.

Here's one I'm going to run as the final encounter of my Pirate Kingmaker campaign:

I never suggested ignoring your characters strengths and weaknesses.

If you would like to give we an example of where I said what your saying I said then I would be glade to critique it.

Even if your character doesn't have a good charisma you can use your intelligence to think of the best thing to say so that you can get the highest modifier.

You can always use your intelligence to help your character fight with the best strategy in combat.

You explicitly stated that the character's Charisma didn't matter, you can just use your own intelligence to give your character the best possible chance to succeed using Charisma. You explicitly stated that the character's intelligence didn't matter, go ahead and use the best strategies in combat regardless of the fact that the character wouldn't think of them.

That sounds like ignoring weaknesses to me.

I would never suggest ignore your characters strengths and weaknesses.

You have already done so by stating that characters with low <stat> should be able to do whatever they want with regard to that stat as long as there's no hard rule about it.

Obvious troll is obvious. Yay.

Why yes, you are.

They pretty much all already exist. They're called spells.

Unrelenting Force: telekinesis, but less utility.
Storm Call: call lightning or control weather.
Fire/Frost Breath: dragon's breath.

Etc. Every shout I've seen can be replicated by a spell in Pathfinder. So, to replicate them, just give those spells as spell-like abilities for whatever criteria (prestige class, rage powers, whatever).

ulgulanoth wrote:

are there any settings out there that are built using the Gestalt rules? maybe a homebrew you guys made? if so what are the big differences you see/made in that setting?

Somone mentioned that maxing out HP for enemies is the easiest way to significantly help the balance issue.

That'd be me. As long as your players aren't trying to break the game, maximizing hit points should bring NPCs and monsters back to relative combat parity with the PCs, at least in my experience.

If your players are trying to break the game, then there's not much you can do outside of the Orbital Bovine Launcher.

Fozbek wrote:

Skyth wrote:

Anyone who claims that they never sleep because there's no penalties for it is out as a game partner for me.

Glad to see you go, then, because that's a Paizo-sanctioned rule. There's an NPC in one of their adventure paths who takes a lesser restoration every day in lieu of sleeping.

The claim is that there is no penalty for not sleeping. The Barbarian never claimed to be getting a lesser restoration. No point without a penalty.

I thought you were taking your ball and going home? Good riddance, I say.

Penance is the process of atoning... the process of paying for misdeeds. However, once someone has paid off their debt, you don't get to keep charging them interest.

And once the succubus paladin has successfully atoned and redeemed herself for aeons of being the exact antithesis of lawful and good, she would transmigrate to something other than a succubus, and thus would no longer have the chaotic and evil subtypes.

Creatures with the [evil] subtype count as being of evil alignment for the purpose of alignment-based effects. That's what creature subtypes are for. It doesn't matter if that succubus has reformed and is now a Paladin, she still has the [evil] subtype and thus is at a disadvantage against anyone under a protection from evil spell. After all, even though she's Lawful Good, she's still a demon.

Okay, seriously, immunity to X is immunity unless something calls out specifically that they bypass immunity*. It's obvious that the intent is that even if you have Tireless Rage you're still fatigued. (Word count and the desire to avoid loopholes for tireless-rage-like abilities probably got in the way of being more clear).

Immunity is meant to be very very powerful. If it is meant to be overridden, it will be explicitly stated as such. In the context of the ability, the phrase "even if they would not normally be" is an obvious reference to tireless rage, not a reference to immunity.

This.

I'm sure we can find the right polearm for you!

Magic armor enhancement bonuses are for actual armor (in the armor chapter).

That's why magic vestment gives robes enhancement bonuses to Armor bonus to AC, right?

There is no simulationist, gamist, or logical reason that you can't add Armor bonuses to AC onto a robe.

Yeah, that's generally bugged me, too. Sometimes it works (Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series, for example), but usually it makes me think, "how has this society managed to avoid technological advancement in all this time?".

Why are you assuming that I'm getting worked up?

I'm just pointing out that you are entirely incorrect about infravision being darkvision. That isn't true, and hasn't been for quite some time. Infravision has different effects than those given by darkvision (for example, it's generally useless against constructs and undead, as they don't tend to have a different temperature than their surroundings unless they're flaming skeletons or ice golems or whatever; heat vision can't be used to read any text, including scrolls, because the ink doesn't have a different temperature from the page it's on; etc).

Sharks' electrical sensitivity is why they have blindsense. Which isn't darkvision.

Countering means you can use it with the counterspell readied action to counter whatever other spell. Using a spell in this manner has no other effect than to counter the target spell.

Dispelling, on the other hand, means it removes the other spell's active effects in addition to applying its own. In other words, if you cast daylight in an area where deeper darkness is present, the deeper darkness is dispelled and the daylight is active. Note that it only does this when cast, however; bringing a daylight spell into an area of magical darkness will just cancel each other out.

The Multiweapon Fighting feat exists for a reason. It lets you attack with all of your weapons at your full BAB with a -2 or -4 penalty to each attack. It also "counts as" Two-Weapon Fighting, but it's unclear how it interacts with Improved and Greater TWF; under the most liberal interpretation, every hand gets the effect of those feats, and even under the most restrictive, you still get an extra attack per feat with a single hand.

2) The game is already a munchkin's paradise. The power difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder is considerable. A 12th level Pathfinder character is equal to a 15th level 3.5 version. So by the time you hit 20th level, you are way beyond what a 20th level PC in 3.5 could do.

Good way to get your opinion heard; imply that everyone who plays the game is a munchkin and that the developers either don't know how to design games or are munchkins as well. Bravissimo, sir.

So why did you decide to mis-represent what Sean wrote

I didn't. The way things work now, what I said about synthesist eidolons having hit points that are simultaneously both real and temporary is true.

The archetype HAS to have a drawback relating to this advantage, or it's just more powerful and long-lasting than a regular summoner.

I'm sorry, Synthesists are in no possible way stronger than regular summoners. They are far, far, FAR weaker. Extra hit points and a stronger melee chassis do not make up for having twice as many actions per round--especially when one set of those actions is an even stronger melee combatant than the synthesist--fewer feats, fewer skills, less versatile evolutions (have to have arms), and less versatile spells known (have to know rejuvenate eidolon).

Fozbek wrote:

Correct. The Synthesist does not cover how to deal with Eidolon hit point loss (if there even is any--if they're temporary hit points, and the Eidolon goes away when the temp hp end, then its actual hp are never touched) upon being summoned, and the Fused Eidolon ability says "In all other cases, this ability functions as the summoner's normal eidolon ability". Ergo, it treats hit points, death, and so on like the normal eidolon, except that it can't normally be hurt. Therefore, its hit points are full every time it's summoned, and, because it cannot be slain (again, barring Split Forms), it can be summoned as many times a day as the summoner wants, even if the temporary hit points provided by the eidolon are depleted.

I see what you're saying. Unfortunately, the text on the regular summoner isn't clear and can be interpreted in two possible ways ("its hp are what it had when I last summoned it," vs. "its hp are what it had when I last dismissed it"). I talked to Jason about how he intended it to work (answer: when last dismissed), and just posted an APG FAQ item about this.

That's not actually relevant, though, because a synthesist's eidolon never takes hit point damage (except when Split Forms is active).

My problem with Epic Rules in the campaign setting is this...they've already pretty clearly defined the power level of some of the most powerful non-deities in the setting: demon lords. Hell, there's a nascent demon lord statted up in the Inner Sea World Guide, at CR 25.\

Actually, to my knowledge, not a single demon lord has been given official stats. Treerazer has, but he is NOT a demon lord. He's just a very powerful unique demon whose ascension to demon lord status has been blocked, leaving him weaker.

The most powerful being I'm aware of with official stats is the demigod Achaekek, at CR30, and he's been specifically cited as an Epic Bestiary candidate, meaning he'd be altered to conform to the epic rules.

Just because villain can reach CR X, that doesn't automatically mean that PC must be able to reach level X. I'm firmly a believer that there should be things out there that the PCs should NOT be able to engage directly with any viable chance of success.

And I'm a very firm believer that a PC of race <x> should never be barred from doing what an NPC of race <x or similar base power level> can do. Since humans have become deities in Golarion, PCs should be able to. After all, it's really hard to be the awesome hero if someone can point to another person and say, "Yeah, but he did that better".

Also, there's a bit of silliness involved when your characters do rival the gods in power. How does it make sense that a cleric of Sarenrae somehow manages to surpass Sarenrae's power level? At what point does that cleric stop praying to Sarenrae, and Sarenrae starts praying to her?

Ask Iomedae. She started out as a mortal champion of a deity (Aroden, IIRC), then eventually rose to Godhood.

Organ donors are completely different. You volunteered, before your death, to have your organs donated. The baby in question was not consulted, nor were his parents. The baby example is much closer to black market organs, where people are killed in third-world countries for their kidneys and other organs.

I'm talking about Epic-level content showing up in Golarion-setting material, not about something being invalidated in my campaign world. If Paizo releases an epic-level AP set in Golarion, or starts increasing the frequency of epic-level NPCs in their campaign setting sourcebooks that can affect me -- either by having to retcon it out of my campaign or by perhaps causing me to avoid purchasing the product entirely.

Too late; it's already there. Like I said, there's no way that Tar-Baphon, Geb, Arazni, or Baba Yaga are anything less than Epic-level content. The Test of the Starstone is also Epic-level; so is the Worldwound; so are (some of) Rovagug's Spawn.

Also, if (and this is my 3rd time making this point so please pay attention this time) Paizo devotes resources to developing epic-level content, those are resources that aren't available to develop content I might actually buy.

And I've already acknowledged--multiple times--that opportunity cost is a valid reason to want other things prioritized above Epic rules. However, you overstate the reach of the product lines that would be affected. The ONLY product line that is affected of a necessity is the Pathfinder RPG line. Just like they didn't introduce Chronicles, Companions, or Adventures products based off Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, they won't have to for their Mythic Adventures rules.

By the way, here's some non-OMGMUSTKILLALLFUNEVERYWHERERAWRRRRRRR Epic-level gameplay from 3.0/3.5:

Sepulchrave's Tales of Wyre

Have fun. I'll see you in a few weeks when you finish reading.

I don't know what else you can offer a player after level 20 that doesn't rival the power of the deities of pathfinder!

Perhaps people want to rival the power of the deities of Pathfinder? Perhaps they want to take the Test of the Starstone? Perhaps they want to hunt down and kill Achaekek, who is explicitly statted out so that he can be killed (Deities aren't statted because they aren't intended to be fought, but demigods are statted so that they can be--this is straight from Paizo). Perhaps they want to stop a Demonic invasion of their homeworld by travelling to the Nine Hells and enlisting the aid of one of Asmodeus's lieutenants (or perhaps even the deity himself) to take out the greater Demon Lord who is masterminding the invasion?

The limits of someone else's imagination should not impact the ability of my players and I to run the campaigns we want--or buy the products we want.

The only people who have more fun at 20th level than 1st level are the rules monkies. People who live to destroy everyone else's fun by finding that combination loop-hole that is totally unstoppable.

Your first two paragraphs were at least reasonable. This one is just insulting, to everyone. You might as well call everyone who wants epic/mythic rules (which includes at least some of Paizo's staff) racists for all the logic and thought you put into this position; it's pure hate speech, and arrogant to boot, for presuming to judge people you don't even know the existence of.

Reprehensible.

PS. I am actually a game designer by profession, thanks. I'm quite qualified to criticize game design. Even if I weren't, playing the game that they are trying to sell me qualifies me to criticize it.

Stop trying to censor people. One, you don't have the authority. Two, you come off sounding like a yes-man or megaoverzealous fanboi.

EDIT: Now, I'm not saying Prof. Cirno isn't being a bit ... overly-aggressive with his postings. He's gone a bit off the deep end, IMO. But saying, "You can't criticize Paizo! You havn't ever made anything!" is A) not necessarily true, and B) stupid.

Fozbek wrote:

One, that's a straw man. I'm not asking for the exact same balance. I'm asking for one choice not to be obviously inferior to another. Totally not the same thing.

How is "look, maybe you are looking for a game with a different design philosophy" a strawman.

Because it's an answer to a position that isn't my own that is weaker than my own. For the second time in as many posts, I AM NOT ASKING FOR PERFECT BALANCE. That's what SKR's post was (snidely) saying. It is not in any way relevant to the discussion at hand.

Fozbek wrote:

Two, are you seriously claiming that it's perfectly legitimate for archetypes to be balanced based on how "fun" the designers think they are? That only "no-fun" archetypes can meet the mechanical challenges that form the heart of the way the game is balanced? That only "no-fun" archetypes can scale well into higher levels? That's what you're saying, by responding, "I see no problems with that" to the statement, "you should not have to sacrifice effectiveness for fun".

If so, I'd like to sell you a book full of Holy Baker-style archetypes. It'll take me about 5 minutes to write, since balance is irrelevant to you, and it'll be more fun than you can possibly imagine, because all the classes will be worthless mechanically!

Wow, I tought that you misquoting, being upset for everything you don't agree with and implying things that weren't said more than once was just a coincidence. I see now that's an habit, an habit that make it kinda pointless to argue with you about anything. I was wrong in thinking that I could get into this discussion again. My mistake, sorry.

Now THAT's a strawman!

Please cite ONE misquote. You said, "I see no problem with that" in response to me saying "you shouldn't have to sacrifice effectiveness for fun".

That means, by the rules of English, that you see no problem with HAVING to sacrifice effectiveness for fun. That means that you don't see a problem with having to play a mechanically inferior character if you want fun. Because that's exactly what you said: you see no problem with it. It isn't a problem for you. That classes SHOULD be forced to sacrifice mechanics for fun, because that's exactly what I was saying shouldn't happen, and you said it's fine. If you really mean that classes shouldn't be forced to sacrifice effectiveness for fun, then you shouldn't have said you don't have a problem with it.

Please don't use ad hominem attacks to disguise the fact that you suddenly realize your position is untenable.

Fozbek wrote:

No, we wanted them to be roughly the same, not dramatically worse.

Worse from which point of view? The one that this archetype lets you have guns at first level? The one that makes you play a Sacred Sheriff, the character you always wanted? The one that there is really no point in discussing maths in a game about fantasy adventurers?

Now, before the endless balancebalancebalance mantra ensues, I would like to point out that while maybe many players cannot comprehend why would you choose something that is mechanically worse that the core, and would rather have a game where everything is obsessively balanced, many players actually can understand why you would pick something flavourful over something "balanced", and that's because they have fun with it.

I'm just glad Paizo is not catering only to the first group.

You do realize you can play a Sacred Sheriff with a Core Paladin, right? Every Paladin ability works with guns by default. There's absolutely zero reason you can't have exactly the same flavor of character with a normal Paladin. There's no need to nerf yourself into oblivion for the sake of flavor.

As I've already said, the only advantage Holy Gun has over normal Paladins is that you can start with a gun at level 1 instead of waiting until level 2. That's it. That's the sum total of the advantages.

You can whine about "obsessive balancers" all you like, but your entire post is a false dichotomy. You're saying that it's impossible (or undesirable, which is even worse) to have archetypes that are both mechanically useful and flavorful. That's bull****. There's no reason we should have to sacrifice usefulness for flavor. Mechanically weaker classes are not automagically better for roleplaying.

No.

If dexter is evil simply by virtue of the fact that he kills people, then his victims (who have all done the same) are also evil and killing them is a good action regardless of the reasons because intent/the reason behind it isn't even rated high enough to warrant a mention in the alignment section of the rules :(

Killing evil things is not an inherently good action. You cannot atone for a genocide by then going out and killing every murderer in the world. You're still evil.

It's also disappointing that the evil alignments clearly describe villains, while the good/neutral ones don't even acknowledge the possibility of such

This is because the alignment rules are written from a player perspective, and market research has shown that the VAST majority of player characters are good or neutral. Evil PCs are very rare. Evil is almost always encountered in villainous NPCs. Similarly, good or neutral villains are comparatively rare.

The alignment "rules" are guidelines. They aren't a straitjacket.

Fozbek wrote:

There's nothing wrong with the alignment system if you don't approach it as a straitjacket. No need to "smash" it.

There's no benefit to alignment as it stands now.

There's no benefit to prices on gear, either. Just smash it or remove the mechanical enforcement!

You want to replace an ability which works outside of combat for scouting just fine with an ability which has no counters at all...

What? No. Where the bleep did you get that from?

Perception is, always has been, and always should be the counter to Stealth. Not invisibility purge.

What would you like to discuss about sound. How does it affect things?

If a successful stealth check only grants the invisible condition, and the invisible condition function as proposed, then stealth simply does not cover moving silently. It would be impossible to move silently using the rules of the game if successful stealth grants invisibility. This is because invisibility is specifically defined (even in the re-write) as being undetectable by sight but detectable normally through every other sense. That means there's no way to mask any noise you make, and any non-deaf creature automatically detects you because you cannot hide the noise you make "sneaking" up on it. Same for any other sense; you can't mask your scent with scent maskers like modern hunters do, you can't stagger your footsteps in the sand to prevent sandworms' tremorsense from detecting you, etc, which are all things Stealth should cover.

Alternately, if you change "invisible" to mean "undetectable by any sense", then you make all the other means of invisibility considerably better, and still make see invisibility and invisibility purge even more awesome spells, empowering mages even further.

Also, I'll note that some creatures get see invisibility and true sight as an always-on ability. Is it really fair that they become completely, 100% immune to stealth, where AFAIK only creatures with Blindsight (very rare) are intended to be completely immune to stealth?

I have three major concerns about this rewrite:

1) Using invisibility as the "successful stealth state" has quite a few potentially nasty rules consequences.
2) Disallowing any standard action is overkill. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to use skills like Sleight of Hand stealthily.
3) Scent still needs to be addressed with respect to its interactions with unseen characters.

All the "Lawful Good is the hardest alignment to keep so it should be rewarded" folks really have no idea what they're talking about.

Maintaining a strict alignment, ANY alignment, in the way paladins must is very, very difficult. Antipaladins are essentially unplayable, for example. At least the Paladin can cooperate with others.

There seem to be two readings of lightning reload and no real guidance on which is right. Please correct me if this has been hashed out in another thread, but the debate still seems to be going here, and nobody is really speaking up for interpretation number 2.

It all revolves around this sentence:

lightning reload wrote:

If she has the Rapid Reload feat or

is using an alchemical cartridge (or both), she can reload
a single barrel of the weapon as a free action each round
instead.

(1) The gunslinger can, once per round, reload a single barrel as a free action, or

(2) Each round, the gunslinger designates a single barrel. She may reload that barrel as a free action as many times as she likes because she is not limited to doing this once each round, only to selecting a barrel each round to be the target of the effect--a la 3.5e dodge.

It says she can reload a single barrel as a free action each round. So, at the start of the round she fires both barrels of her double pistol. Then, she reloads one barrel as a free action and fires again. Since she can reload that barrel as a free action (but only that barrel), she reloads again as a free action, and fires again. If she has more iteratives left, she continues.

"Each round" designates how often the verb in the sentence can be performed (admittedly, in a confusing wording). The verb is "reload", not "designate", "select", or anything of the type.

"Each round" is obviously a text error, because it doesn't really make a lot of sense as written. I can see a case for the error being that it appears at all; in other words, that the correct text is "she can reload a single barrel of the weapon as a free action". The only other viable intended sentence I can see is to instead read, "she can reload a single barrel of the weapon as a free action once per round". I cannot see any possible simple re-wording of the sentence that would support your #2.

It is a core class feature, though. Clerics, Druids, Rangers, and Paladins can already get flying mounts, and of those only the Paladin has any kind of thematic focus on mounts. Why, then, should the rules explicitly deny the ability for the class that is the most focused on mounts the ability to get a flying mount? This isn't a general "we don't mention it" thing we're talking about here--the rules explicitly deny the Beast Rider the ability to choose a flying mount.

Again, no one's asking for anything that is unreasonable (no dragons, no level 1 flying mounts even though other classes get it), nor anything that other classes that don't even have mounts as a focus don't get.

You've been very lucky, then, Tebbo, or your players just aren't complaining to you.

DMing for an unbalanced party is much, much, MUCH harder than DMing for a balanced party. With a balanced party, every party member is threatened roughly the same amount by a given challenge. With an unbalanced party, that isn't true, which means that you have to jump through a lot more hoops to provide everyone a reasonable challenge.

As a player, if the DM doesn't jump through those hoops, you're going to wind up with everything being A) too easy (if you're above the power level the DM is targeting), B) too deadly (if you're below it), or C) just right but wrong for everyone else (if you're right at it but the rest of the party isn't).

Also, people do play in PFS.

I think the reason people resent Point Blank Shot is that, unless you're playing a Human and/or a Fighter, you cannot effectively play an archer at level 1, and that's just dumb. Only Humans and Fighters can take both Point Blank and Precise Shot at level 1, which means everyone else is eating a -4 to -8 penalty on every single shot they make (where Humans and Fighters only take a -0 to -4, depending on angle).

Precise Shot is the "allows you to play an archer" feat, and PBS just feels like filler because it doesn't actually contribute to letting you play an archer except as a feat tax before you're allowed to take the "allows you to play an archer" feat.

It's dumb. I understand why it exists, but it's still dumb.

The word "string" does not appear in context with bows or crossbows anywhere in the Core Rulebook. It appears in the word "stringent" twice, several times in reference to the Perform skill, once as part of a sling, several times as plain string for spell components, and twice in reference to strings of beads in magic items.

Bowstrings do not exist as items in Pathfinder.

Further, if you want to get technical, the Sunder combat maneuver targets "an item held or worn by" the target. Bowstrings are neither held nor worn by a person, except when stringing the bow.

Fozbek wrote:

Ksorkrax wrote:

So basically: If one would create a class that gives out flying at level 1, there'll be some trouble.

What, you mean like druids?

Druids don't get flying at level 1. Unless you're using the extreme example of a gnome druid with a roc companion.

Druids don't get flying companions at level 1 ... unless they do?

Exactly. They do. There are quite a few medium sized flying animal companions, and I'll point out that the iconic druid is a gnome. It's hardly extreme.