Ghostwasp's page

I think everyone has a right to say they have problems with a game even if they don't playtest. You can still be smart, gauge the content on it's concepts, and come up with educated theories and hypothesis. However, the OP really didn't do this, and only complained about things without providing any sort of interesting insight. Come to the table with more or else you do no one any good. You are just a seagull, swooping in, crapping all over everything, and then leaving.

Not at all true, dropping in and saying "don't like these things" is way more useful then not saying anything at all. Everyone who wants to contribute is required to do so only exactly as much as they want or can.

MaxAstro wrote:

Curtoss wrote:

So you haven't played it?

I can't upvote this enough. The amount of "I haven't played this system yet but I hate everything about it" on the playtest forums is mind boggling.

Maybe, but it makes sense to me. I'll explain, but first let me get out of the way that I am playing PF2 as part of the playtest.

Ok, here's my view. I read game rules all the time to determine if I want to run them. There are lots of game systems to pick from. If I have an idea for a campaign and I'm trying to pick a rules set, there's no way I'm going to give each medieval fantasy game a 6-month playtest before I make my decision. I don't have the time.

It is reasonable for a person to read a set of rules and decide they don't like them. It is also reasonable for a person to be unable to articulate what they don't like. The bottom line is they're not buying the product.

Admittedly, it is tragic for those with a financial/emotional investment in the game but that's the way it is.

Agree completely, I really wish pf2 was what I had hoped it would be and I could play it. Hopefully the play test works out and the game gets the refining it needs.

I'm not saying the only other option is silence, but I am saying that the best way to shape the game is through playtesting and feedback. If time is an issue? That's understandable. There are finite hours in a day, and not enough to go around.

If interest is the reason you don't want to playtest? That's fine, too - it's your prerogative and your choice. You're welcome to say that, too. None of this is meant to shout you down or anything, and I hope it doesn't come across that way. I'm just saying that the best way to shape the game is through playtesting and the feedback surveys. Nothing more.

Absolutely, but this is my feedback. Not the most helpful but it is what it is.

What should I tell them instead? I am not going to go through read every paragraph of the play test and write an essay detailing every change I do not like. What i do know is that Paizo most likely lost 6 players because we are that disinterested in the way the new edition is going. If that is not useful so be it, but I feel like it is important to share my experience and thoughts on my formerly favorite game since I don't want to waste my time play testing a game i do not like.

The only other option from play testing should not be silence.

Unfortunately we are not game designers but we can say we don't like something in the play test and that it will not work for us. Silence on this does no one any good, even if we cannot provide more helpful advice\criticism because of time, interest or ability.

Not a great sign when people don't want to play the game after just looking at it. My group and I took a brief look and so far the opinion is meh. While play testing it and giving feed back sounds good in theory, I don't want to waste my time on the play test when I am so disinterested in it (i play in/run 3 adventure paths right now). This release should have captured people's imaginations to be successful, but it just doesn't for at least a vocal percentage. Gamers tend to be opinionated and dislike changes they don't feel are warranted (i know I am), so maybe it feels insulting that paizo is replacing the entire base system some of us have been playing for almost 15 years instead of refining and improving it.

Thanks for the answer, did not see that feat there.

Has anyone else noticed that advanced armor training can be taken at 7th level and on, but most of the actual abilities seem to start before that and gain additional bonuses at 7th. Should AAT start at 3rd then, or do the abilities need to rewritten to accommodate the level changes?

One needs to have a general sense of humility.

I have DMed AD&D 2ed exclusively since it came out. Even with all the later additions, I stuck to 2ed Ed, it is what I invested the most time effort and energy with, "my world," so I was NOT going to buy new rules and change again and again and again.

I got more into wargames and painting for many years and decided to delve back into RPG's again with PF.

I DMed after only a couple of games, and have adapted quite well (no players quitting.)

I was and still am perfectly willing to let comparative RPG newbies, "school me," because I recognize despite my decades of experience DMing, it is in a different world, in a different sytstem.

So... yea, one has to have a general sense of humility.

All the experience in the world with 2nd Ed Greyhawk would not mean anything when running or playing in Pathfinder's Golarion setting, without taking the time to understand how they are different, all that experience would make you better at it if you did however. It is not really about humility, rather its knowing exactly how far your knowledge goes.

Ghostwasp wrote:

Snowblind wrote:

Bill Dunn wrote:

PIXIE DUST wrote:

AD&D is nothing like PF...

You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this isn't actually true.

You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this is actually true.

See, I can make completely unjustified statements too.

How about you describe all the ways AD&D is similar to PF. Then we can all learn something and/or some of us can dispute it and give reasons why (and probably learn from that too). Either way, we can actually discuss things in a discussion forum, instead of shouting meaningless sentences at each other.

So Snowblind you have played AD&D and 2nd ED? You have seen how the rules systems have change dramatically over time? I think not, otherwise you'd know how little has actually changed.

Argument from authority: I have played 2E AD&D for nearly 18 years, and I've played Pathfinder for nearly 6 years (with a smattering of others here and there). I Have seen the difference between the two, and they are more dissimilar than similar - excepting that they're both the same genre of games: fantasy pen and paper rpg. Proficiencies, thac0, saving throws, ability score rolls vs skills & feats, different saving throws, no ability score rolls and more. The similarities are in that they share some of the same names for rules (ability scores, saving throws, to hit, spell resistance, etc.. are similar in name only) and they both use the same set of dice, plus one major point of similarity: spells with the vancian system. But even spells have changed, in how they improve over levels, how they interact with opponents, how one obtains them with some classes.

As someone who has played both, they even have a very different feel about them - although this is more my own opinion than any quantifiable thing.

Skills, feats, spells, to hits, and all those changes don't really change what the game was, is, where it has come from, or how it is meant to be played. Sure an android gunslinger is new (not really though), but he base assumptions of the game have for the most part always been the same. And that is the point of Pathfinder, even if it feels different than what has come before, it is suppose to also feel like the game has continued on rather than been replaced.

Amazing... people are tired of an argument from authority which is usually a subargument in a threads which are rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Experience is helpful; it doesn't make you right. What would be better is a commitment to new or more interesting discussion on the boards instead of the same old nonsense.

Well of course just having done something for longer doesn't automatically make you right, just like trying to insert a "fallacy" argument into your post doesn't make you right. But it does give you perspective and knowledge that can only be gained one way.

Bill Dunn wrote:

PIXIE DUST wrote:

AD&D is nothing like PF...

You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this isn't actually true.

You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this is actually true.

See, I can make completely unjustified statements too.

How about you describe all the ways AD&D is similar to PF. Then we can all learn something and/or some of us can dispute it and give reasons why (and probably learn from that too). Either way, we can actually discuss things in a discussion forum, instead of shouting meaningless sentences at each other.

So Snowblind you have played AD&D and 2nd ED? You have seen how the rules systems have change dramatically over time? I think not, otherwise you'd know how little has actually changed.

The reason people list how long they have played or what their experience is because there is literally no other metric in which to measure someones ability or knowledge of the game. You can say all you want that you know every rule, but on a forum that means nothing since you have all the time you want to look up rules. When trying to decide between to opinions who would you rather listen to, the guy who has stayed with the game for over 5 editions of the game or the one who thinks that they can "fix" Pathfinder after playing it for a few years.

Seranov wrote:

Ghostwasp wrote:

Seranov wrote:

Yeah, tossing out Paizo classes and spells in favor of PoW/Psionics/SoP has significantly improved my Pathfinder experience. The spellcasters aren't wildly more powerful than their mundane counterparts, everyone has their niches, and everybody is happy.

But nope, too anime. Because that's a valid argument. One type of nerds getting hissy at another type of nerds isn't a hilariously hypocritical thing at all. Nope! Can I stop sarcasming now? My eyes are going to roll right out of my head.

You have to use 3 different sources that significantly change the core game to make it close to what you want, than why are you even playing Pathfinder? Well I guess you are not actually...

I am, actually. I just don't consider it fair or reasonable that one guy can play the world-altering magic fountain while the other gets stuck swinging a stick his whole career. So EVERYONE in the games I play is effective, fun and has lots of narrative power.

This is a pretty common trick of you and your ilk: you'll claim anyone who isn't playing the same way as you isn't playing the same game. And to that, I shall remind you that you do not get to decide how anyone else should be playing the game.

But I'm talking to a wall, really. You wouldn't be so intent to disparage how I play PF if you actually intended to have a civil conversation on the subject.

to be clear what you describe is known as the no true scottsman fallacy.

To be clear if you say "I am playing Pathfinder" that means something completely different that "I am playing Pathfinder. Except for not this or that thing, and this book, and magic is different and everyone is also a anthropomorphic badger with barbarian levels for free". No true Scotsman would be if I said no true D&D/Pathfinder would want to change the magic system for their home game, which I did not.

Ghostwasp wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Ghostwasp wrote:

If you want "fighters" to cut mountains in half, jump for miles, or to be an anime character play a different game.

I like how "anime character" is a derogatory term in a game where building a robot ninja maid is entirely a viable concept.

Also amusing when perfectly boring normal western heroes accomplish similar feats in myhtology and fiction.

Last I checked Path of War was pretty damn popular for a 3pp. It's not perfect, but I can tell you given the bias against 3pp it makes zero difference.

Well "anime characters" is derogatory because Pathfinder is not anime, just like it is not science fiction or western. Pathfinder supports those genres but it is a terrible idea to model the core mechanics on them, as I said. As to "3PP" they are almost universally regarded as unbalanced compared to pathfinder products, although some are real gems.

Who did you poll to determine "universally regarded?"

The entire Pathfinder fan base obviously.

TarkXT wrote:

Ghostwasp wrote:

If you want "fighters" to cut mountains in half, jump for miles, or to be an anime character play a different game.

I like how "anime character" is a derogatory term in a game where building a robot ninja maid is entirely a viable concept.

Also amusing when perfectly boring normal western heroes accomplish similar feats in myhtology and fiction.

^^This. If you want to play an anime character, you don't need a different game, they're already well supported by this one. Ever notice that ridiculous anime-esque sword the iconic Barbarian is wielding, or the fact that if if you replace "Wizard" with "Ninja" and "magic" with "chakra/ninjutsu" the game pretty much tells you how to play Naruto? Then there's your repeating crossbow-wielding monster hunters (Inquisitors), your sentai-style transforming warriors (synthesist summoners), normal people with green, blue, pink, or other unnaturally colored hair (gnomes), guys who can do 60 foot flying kicks (unchained monks), alien robots with nantes in their blood that allow them to do magic (androids and the android sorcerer bloodline)... I could really go on all day. It's hilarious when some grouch does their "my Pathfinder is anime free and I like it that way" rant, when Pathfinder has more anime in it than it does Lord of the Rings.

Actually I completely agree with you on everything you just said. Play the game how you want, just do not think that the game has to change to fit your own preferences.

Yeah, tossing out Paizo classes and spells in favor of PoW/Psionics/SoP has significantly improved my Pathfinder experience. The spellcasters aren't wildly more powerful than their mundane counterparts, everyone has their niches, and everybody is happy.

But nope, too anime. Because that's a valid argument. One type of nerds getting hissy at another type of nerds isn't a hilariously hypocritical thing at all. Nope! Can I stop sarcasming now? My eyes are going to roll right out of my head.

You have to use 3 different sources that significantly change the core game to make it close to what you want, than why are you even playing Pathfinder? Well I guess you are not actually...

Ghostwasp wrote:

If you want "fighters" to cut mountains in half, jump for miles, or to be an anime character play a different game.

I like how "anime character" is a derogatory term in a game where building a robot ninja maid is entirely a viable concept.

Also amusing when perfectly boring normal western heroes accomplish similar feats in myhtology and fiction.

Last I checked Path of War was pretty damn popular for a 3pp. It's not perfect, but I can tell you given the bias against 3pp it makes zero difference.

Well "anime characters" is derogatory because Pathfinder is not anime, just like it is not science fiction or western. Pathfinder supports those genres but it is a terrible idea to model the core mechanics on them, as I said. As to "3PP" they are almost universally regarded as unbalanced compared to pathfinder products, although some are real gems.

I have played d20 D&D since it came out and AD&D before then, with short term group, in campaigns that last for years, with newbies, power gamers, grognards, and mixed groups. I have seen the power difference between "wizards" and "fighters" at high level and at low, both as the player of both and DM to both. From all of this I have to say that D&D (now Pathfinder) is what it is, always has been and should always be. If you want "fighters" to cut mountains in half, jump for miles, or to be an anime character play a different game. If you however want them to hold off a dragon with nothing but some plate armor and an enchanted sword while the cleric calls the blessing of the Gods, the wizard lobs fireballs while flying, and the rogue snipes from the shadows than you'll want to play Pathfinder (the most popular, well supported RPG in the world). This game is not developed and written by idiot monkeys, but professionals that love this game and literally work to make it as great as they can. If any house rule or 3rd party product actually "fixed" anything than it would be a very popular product (or even added to as a pathfinder product like unchained), rather than just another option in the pack. But that has not happened and it wont, because the majority of players like the difference between the classes (or don't care) other than the vocal group on the internet who believe that the difference between "fighters" and "wizards" is something that needs to be fixed.
This is my game, go elsewhere if you believe that D&D/Pathfinder should be changed for your pleasure.

In my game Wednesday my players are going to be fighting cyclopes, my question is how that ability would work with abilities that force re-rolls. The specific instance is with the Preacher Archetype Inquisitor warning shout. I think that it would not work, because the cyclops is not actually rolling and flavor wise I cant see a warning shout trumping a monster seeing into the future to make sure his attack hits. Let me know what you think everyone, Thanks!

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor/archetypes/paizo--- inquisitor-archetypes/preacher
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/giants/cyclops

(P.S. Sorry I did not insert the link correctly)

I have a similar character that is a 3rd level Paladin, I went Aasimar with the celestial champion alternate racial trait for +1 to hit and AC vs Evil Outsiders and the character trait Purity of Faith (Iomedae) for a +1 to will saves and another +1 to all saves vs Evil outsiders. Those two are a nice bump to all your basic combat stats and have a nice RP feel to them (that your always better vs Fiends). Hope that helps.

My playgroup has played with Dex to damage forever and STR characters are on-par, if not better.

Anyone who claims that Dex-to-damage, with two feats as requirement, overshadows STR builds, clearly hasn't made the math or thought about the implications.

Dex-to-damage characters do have two very important advantages: skills and initiative. Of course, that is VERY IMPORTANT for DEX fighters, because if they lost initiative, their flat-footed AC would be damning for them.

Anyway, I challenge anyone to make a character that has Dex-to-damage through a two-feat investment that is outright better than a STR fighter. Barring, as I've said, skills and initiative, I find it impossible. The STR fighter usually has much higher damage potential and more room for feats, not to mention more versatility in battle.

The one exception might be a Slayer, but I haven't been able to theorycraft with it yet.

Dex to damage has nothing to do with fighters, whether or not they can take dex to damage. Dex to damage only matters when you allow easy access for everyone, PC's and monsters. Because if it breaks down anywhere then it is unbalanced, which it is. Just because str fighters maybe better (or not) than dex fighters does not mean anything.

Small cat dex at 1: 21(base)

Attack +6; Dam +5 (size bonus to attack)

Big cat dex at 1: 17(base)
Attack +3; Dam +3
big cat str at 1: 13(base)
Attack +1; Dam +1

Small cat dex at 4: 21(base) +1(l3) -2 (advancement) =20
Attack +5; Dam +5

Big cat dex at 4: 17(base) +1(l3) =18
Attack +4; Dam +4
Big cat str at 4: 13(base) +1(l3) =14
Attack +2; Dam +2

Small cat dex at 7: 21(base) +2(l6) -2 (advancement) =21
Attack +5; Dam +5

Big cat str at 7: 13(base) +2(l6) +8(advancement) =23
Attack +5; Dam +6 (size penalty to attack)

Note that at level 4 a form that advances at level 4 should outperform one that advances at level 7. If finesse is retrainable the big cat is only 1 point behind for greater long term potential. If it isn't the druid will switch companions at level 7, which she can do at no cost.

The big cat has at least +1 damage from larger dice and more significantly gets 5 attacks instead of 1 on a charge. Even with finesse the small cat is probably not worth it. The defenses are a bit better (sans barding from the feat not used on finesse) but animal companions can be replaced for free in a day.

Nethack wrote:

You feel sad for a moment, but the feeling passes.

Kudaku already pointed out that it isn't good for the small cat to gain the 4th level advancement (thank you Kudaku for pointing out the rule I was using), take the +2 dex and con instead and stay small ( for a dex of 26). It makes the small cat an amazingly better option at 4 and in almost all ways at 7th. Look at my stat blocks on page 2 for the comparison, its crazy how much it messes with things, even if it costs 2 feats to get dex to damage it is so much better there isn't a choice.

Small Cat at 7th level: HP 39 AC 24 To Hit with claws and bites +13 dealing 1d2+8 and 1d4+8 (average damage with all hits of 28), Init +8, reflex of +13, CMB +5/+11 with trip, CMD of 19, and a stealth of +16 (only has one skill point).

Big Cat: HP 45 AC 19, claws and bites +10 dealing 1d6+7 and 1d8+7 (average of 32 with all hits), Init +3, reflex of +8, CMB of +12 and CMD of 21 and a stealth of +3 (with only one skill point).

The only differences in the above stats are the small cat chooses to take weapon finesse as one of its feats and puts its ability increase at 4HD into dex instead of str. Other choices or abilities such as special attacks, movement speeds and other stats have been discounted, so I'm just going to focus on the above for now. Sure having a feat over the big cat included is a big game changer, but it illustrates the point quite well.
And please before you say there is a mistake please, seriously please be right. I'm not here to explain how basic pathfinder works-that is directed at you Kudaku.

Anlashok the situation that immediatley comes to my mind was with my last character a druid who had a small cat as an animal companion. By forth level I was getting +7 damage to each bite and claw attack (at first level each one was at +5), without any magic items, spells, or other feats. That is broken if you consider that same +7 went to AC, reflex saves, initiative, and its to hit (+5 at first level to all of those) all only from its dex. Imagine this type of problem applied evenly between players and monsters across all the levels, if it isn't an obvious problem to you then you may want to increase your understanding of how pathfinder is balanced.

So Zapbib you think the following feats are balanced?

Brutal Defense
Perquisites: Str 13
Benefit: You can use your Str score in place of your Dex score for AC as long as you use do not use a weapon two-handed.

Brutal Archer
Perquisites: Str 13
Benefit: You can use your Str score in place of your Dex for all ranged attacks.

Brutal Speed
Perquisites: Str 13
Benefit: You can use your Str in place of your Dex for initiative and reflex saving throws.

If so I'm glad you have no influence on how future feats are written up.

How would Str based characters get two extra feats and 3 points at character creation, actually what does that even mean? The problem with giving dex to damage easily is that if you are to balance it you have to look at it reversed. If you allow one stat (lets say str) to govern melee to hit, ranged to hit, melee damage, ranged damage, AC, initiative, and the reflex saving throw would that be balanced? Not even close, that would be broken as hell, even if you did not get the bonus from 2 handing a weapon. If that is broken (which it obviously is) then doing the same with dex is broken, even at the cost of multiple feats.

Neither Improved initiative or Lightning reflexes are even close to being as good as adding Str to Initiative or AC (or both for the cost of one feat), they do not even compare. And so what if you can add Cha to AC or Wis to hit? What you want is one stat that can do ALL of that and more. I've played in games where people think that Dex should be added to damage, some adding it as a bonus of weapon finesse some as a separate feat that requires WF. Both ways are horrible in game, it creates so many situations that are unbelievable or cause balance issues.
I will say however that there are some situations where dex to damage isn't broken, but it is rarely.

I have a question for everyone who believes that using Dex for damage is the way they like to do things. Would you allow feats in your game that allowed you (lets say 2 or 3 in total) to add Str to initiative, all ranged attacks, ac, and reflex saves? Even if you added that you only gain the benefits when using a weapon one handed (so no 1.5x str damage), and had to deal with Armor check penalties, and the like-this would seem over-powered to many people, myself included.

I have to say that this is awesome, and I am going to use it in my game this week.

Sigh...your reasoning is unfortunately spot on BigNorseWolf.

How is this even a question?

graystone, no rule spells out this exact situation. It is ludicrous to expect the pathfinder writers/developers to do so for everything.
The simple fact is if an enchantment can only be placed on a slashing weapon that implies that it can only be used while slashing. To believe/argue otherwise is willful misinterpretation and simply wrong, sounding solely like "it doesn't say I can't" rules twisting.
Without a developer chiming in or this getting FAQ how ever there is no convincing you, so I'll just be ignoring your post in all message boards from now on.

graystone, the relevant text is obvious: "A weapon with two types is both types if the entry specifies “and,” or either type (wielder’s choice) if the entry specifies “or.”" Since vorpal can only be used on slashing weapons (daggers can count as such) then when it is used as a piercing weapon it is no longer slashing and can longer use the vorpal enchantment. Your also saying that a duelist can use a dagger as a slashing weapon and still get the precise strike bonus which is again obviously wrong. When commenting in the "rules questions" section of the message boards please use the actual rules and not your house rules.

So graystone you think that a duelist can use a dagger as a one handed/light piercing weapon to add precise strike to his attacks while also being able to crit with a 20 and get a vorpal instant kill off is the way the rules work? That is obviously wrong, unless you have a different idea of how that situation works?

God all of these arguments are annoying, but I'll dive back in and say I do agree with Redneckdevil, there is no other way to argue it this point without ignoring how pathfinder works in all most every case (the developers write conservatively, please understand that).
I will also add an interesting piece to add to this argument however: the dwarven maulaxe. It specifically calls out that it works like my view point. But is this an exception or an odd addition of text or the way it is expected to work? I believe its obvious that this is the general rule, but feel free to cry "but the rules don't say I cant"!

blackbloodtroll, I've shown you the rules defending my position, stated the problems with allowing daggers used as vorpal weapons and piercing in the same attack, if you are not convinced then that is the end of it.

The view I have is that vorpal can be placed on a slashing weapon and if for any reason the weapon stop dealing slashing damage it is no longer a slashing weapon. I follow how pathfinder generally works, if you lose a perquisite than you lose the ability needing it. So the dagger being used as a piercing weapon loses all feats/enchantments/class feature benefits that require it to be slashing, they all fail to activate. To me this includes the vorpal enchantment.

Seriously, really seebs...the example of the vorpal dagger is actually two different weapons one of which is vorpal and slashing, while the other is only piercing-generally speaking it does not matter however. A case were it does is my previous example: it is impossible to use precise strike and a vorpal weapon that is "P or S", since it is either slashing and vorpal , or piercing and precise. This is how it works, this is the way it was intended and written.

Edited for clarity.

Have a quick question for you blackbloodtroll, in your opinion would a duelist's precise strike class feature work with a dagger if she used it as a slashing weapon rather than a piercing weapon? My opinion is no because it is not that type of weapon any more. As such I also believe that while a dagger can be enchanted as vorpal (it is a slashing weapon) that as soon as it is used as a piercing weapon instead it loses all benefits gained from being slashing (while still being enchanted) because it is not being used correctly. Any civil response is welcome.

Yes, they are. It is seriously misguided.

You are correct Seebs, I should be a little more understanding. Thank you for pointing that out and for actually reading the way weapon damage types works. As for blackbloodtroll I told you how it worked and told you were the rules were, believe me or do not, but I am not required to present you with more evidence that I have. If you think I am wrong tell me why and how, or at the least explain how my view of the rules in incorrect or problematic rather than just blindly challenge me because I disagree.

graystone, unfortunately you are wrong. A dagger can either be a piercing melee weapon or a slashing melee weapon based on the choice of the wielder. A vorpal weapon must be a slashing weapon, as such a dagger can be enchanted to be vorpal but when used as a piercing weapon it no longer can be used as vorpal since it is no longer a slashing weapon (even though it is enchanted as such). Done.