Alain

Gregg Reece's page

423 posts. Alias of slicertool.


RSS

1 to 50 of 423 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They're publishing more short fiction? Orly? I wonder if this means they're finally going to publish those orphaned novels at some point in the future.

I miss getting my novels/epubs from Paizo.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Gregg Reece wrote:
You're saying having an evil lich inviting hero parties into his dungeon and having his hapless minions (ie: the players) setup traps so that he can impress the vampress two dungeons over isn't long-form story-telling? ;)
Isn't "evil lich" redundant? :-)

"Are you a good lich or a bad lich?"

-- Glenda the Good Lich of the North


Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
NielsenE wrote:
I hope that's what made it into the book.
Given that it's Mark Seifter saying it and he helped write the book, that seems very likely.

I hope that's no secret! But if so, might as well make the big reveal: Hi everyone, I'm Mark! I wrote a lot of this book thing we're all talking about here.

Oops, guess that's not Avoiding Notice.

:ducks under the desk:

You failed to Avoid Notice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
R0b0tBadgr wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Gregg Reece wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Aww.. shucks folks. I am just happy to have the opportunity to share my stories with all of you. This really is the first chance I have ever had to tell a long-form story and share it with a wide audience. And I really have to give credit to all of the great players I have had a chance to play with over the years, and this group is no exception. Great players make GMs better!
You're saying having an evil lich inviting hero parties into his dungeon and having his hapless minions (ie: the players) setup traps so that he can impress the vampress two dungeons over isn't long-form story-telling? ;)
Well.. I mean, other than that one!
Wait what??? What is this other one??? Where is it??? Where can I find it????? I NEED MORE JASON BULMAHN IN MY LIFE!!!!!! Once a week isn't enough for me... :'(

It's a session game he's been slowly developing over the years to torture/amuse convention-goers. I got to play it at PaizoCon one year. It's gloriously silly.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Aww.. shucks folks. I am just happy to have the opportunity to share my stories with all of you. This really is the first chance I have ever had to tell a long-form story and share it with a wide audience. And I really have to give credit to all of the great players I have had a chance to play with over the years, and this group is no exception. Great players make GMs better!

You're saying having an evil lich inviting hero parties into his dungeon and having his hapless minions (ie: the players) setup traps so that he can impress the vampress two dungeons over isn't long-form story-telling? ;)


Thank you, Vic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Azih wrote:
Seriously though it seems like the website is built on technology that is decommissioned and no longer being very actively maintained. That's not great for either troubleshooting issues, or for hiring people to work on it.

The website is custom-built. Partially because of how things are interconnected via forums/product-pages/blogs/pfs-reporting/etc. It is actively maintained by their internal IT staff which is constantly writing updates for the website and working on additional projects which may/may-not see the light of day or are behind-the-scenes interactions with their partners like Roll20 and HeroLab/RealmWorks.

The main problem is that the system is very old and while there are a lot of things that have been replaced and other pieces tacked on, it is still an incredibly large, proprietary piece of software which helps run their entire business.

They know what they're doing, but there is over a decade of legacy code interaction that needs to be taken into consideration whenever they make any changes. Plus, occasional distractions like adding features to work with Humble-Bundle, PaizoCon, Kickstarters, etc.

However, it is actively maintained. They recently had to add features dealing with legislation that went down in the EU which also takes away from their focus on fixing/updating other things.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Tinalles wrote:

For now.

Paizo, seriously. Your site was down for a week. In the early stages of a vitally important playtest.

Down time like that costs you revenue, tarnishes your brand and erodes your relationship with your customers. You have got to get a handle on the reliability issues. They pose a very real threat to the viability of your business.

I'm sure they're happy to have such wonderful analysis of the situation from forum-goers on how a primarily web-based store works since they've been running one for over 15 years using this same custom-built software solution.

I also imagine that under the hood there are a lot of things that needed optimized and fixed after extreme strain on their website from the playtest. I'd guess they took this week to do some emergency code updates or possibly moved the website to larger/cloud hardware in order to meet the needs. Perhaps even both. Not that this has been a recurring problem for quite some time with slowdowns happening during major sales throughout the year.

But, until your post, I'm sure that none of those points occurred to them at all. Thank you for your service to the greater community.


There's a color dryad picture that looks really awesome. I love the wood grain as her skin texture.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

The problem is that if you roll a natural 1 on Stealth, the natural inclination is to change your mind about sneaking in the first place.

Player: I'm going to sneak into the campsite!
GM: OK, make a stealth check
Player: I rolled a 1... I guess I just won't go

But you've already decided to sneak, so to change now because you had a bad roll is metagaming, and in my opinion not fun. So to play it right you have to sneak knowing you have absolutely no chance of success, which is a bummer.

Player: I'm going to sneak into the campsite!
GM: OK, make a stealth check
Player: I rolled a 1... but you guys have to be ready to come save me when they see me in like 5 seconds.

Neither option is appealing to me. The GM rolling for Stealth in secret takes away the "metagame or suck" choice, while also keeping an element of risk in sneaking. If the player doesn't know what their Stealth check was, it's much more suspenseful.

"Hearing the twig snap under my foot, I back off and lay low for a while."

"One of the guards was absentmindedly staring at the log you just stepped over and saw your shadow against it."

Not all natural 1s are something that you did.


Brew Bird wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
I disliked how bomb-focused the Alchemist is. One thing I liked about the PF1 alchemist was that it had lots of different options and didn't push any of them too hard. In PF2 almost half the class feats involve bombs and most of your fixed features are either directly or indirectly about buffing bombs.
Same here. I'm a longtime fan of the alchemist, specifically mutagen-focused approaches to the class. Pushing what used to be a 1st level class feature to 5th level (or 8th level if you want Feral Mutagen) is a big turn off. It's a bit like if the Ranger got TWF for free, but had to wait until a 5th level before any archery options became available. Sure archery would still be viable once you hit 5th, but if the game is going to support a particular approach to a class (as they seem to want to do with mutagen alchemists), there should be options to support that build at 1st or 2nd level.

They've actually addressed this. The reason mutagens are higher level in PF2 is that in PF1 their point was to help the alchemist keep up with martial characters a little better. Being as the math is so close in PF2 they moved mutagens to a later feature.


I'm doing a strength/poison Alchemist.


technarken wrote:
If I were writing the book, I'd have just given monks Monastic Weaponry, as without it they have no ranged options. Unless Paizo decides "flight" means "but no more than 5 feet off the ground" that's a lot of useless for our monks.

I went Gnome with First World Magic and chose Ray of Frost. Tada.


Look at the cantrip vs bomb debate like this.

Wizard cantrips are their weapon. Not their special ability. Spells are their "bomb".

Alchemist weapons are their weapon. Their bombs are their special ability. Bombs (and other alchemicals) are their spells.


S. J. Digriz wrote:
Also, their 'enhanced resonance pool' feature at 9th says that they have to use that resonance on alchemy, which is irritating, because it makes the player track 2 pools of points for the same resource.

It could be redone as "Each day you can create a number of Quick Alchemy items equal to half your level for free each day without expending Resource Points." or something similar.

At that point it would be less confusing as two resource point pools and instead "oh, I get this many freebie quick alchemy items before I burn resource points"


S. J. Digriz wrote:
Alchemists get the alchemical crafting feat, which gives the 4 formula, and then have the formula book feature where it says their book has 4 formula. Does a 1st level alchemist have 4 or 8 formula in their book?

8. I found this confusing as well, but they give an example lvl 1 Formula Book in a sidebar and it has 8 formulas in it.


S. J. Digriz wrote:

Also, if alchemists must use resonance points for their alchemy, they should calculate RP as level + intelligence. A charismatic alchemist is an oxymoron. It might even make sense to give them bonus resonance points. If their class abilities are tied to the common resources that all classes expend to use magic items, it would make sense that they are experts at magic item utilization.

Alchemists are level + intelligence modifier.

From level 1:

Studied Resonance
Knowledge, rather than personality, fuels your interactions with alchemical and magical substances and devices. Your maximum number of Resonance Points is equal to your character level plus your Intelligence modifier (instead of your Charisma modifier).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

I can't make head or tails of the Advanced Alchemy section. What is a batch? That's explained elsewhere? Oh, the page number is missing?

It's written really obtuse. Overall, the organization of all classes reminds me of the Kineticist, which was a nightmare to understand.

Crafting Skill says that a batch is generally 4 items unless otherwise noted by the item itself. That means half a batch is generally 2 items.

So, if you pre-prep your alchemy items you get 2 items per 1 RP. If you do quick alchemy you get 1 item per 1 RP.


This question is frequently asked: But I don't want to change editions! I want to play Pathfinder First Edition forever and ever and ever!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know art, but I know what I like. I like WAR's art.


It's very much a first draft. The alchemist free daily items and formulas aren't handed well at all yet.


I'd go with the actual entry for Alchemist's fire. Who knows at what point in the testing that the example in the class part was written?


Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Has there been any update on this?

Take no offense to the following, but hahahahahahahaahahaha.

They're kind of behind on everything at the moment. Stalled on RealmWorks (which I'd use if they ever get the marketplace integration setup on it). Behind on StarFinder (which is where they're supposed to put PF2 playtest). About the only thing that's on pace I've seen is classic HeroLab, but that's their cash cow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Blog blog blog bloggity
Blog blog blog bloggity
Bloggity blog wonderful blog!
Bloggity blog wonderful blog!

bloody vikings...


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
Ugh, no blog today? And I have to wait until Friday in my time zone?!
There was a guy who got the book early, and he was asked to suspend his reddit AMA until the 31st. That makes me think they don't intend to release any specific piece of information after that point.

at that point a decent number of people should have theirs so there is no point in hiding it.


Joe M. wrote:
So do y'all think we'll get blogs this week? I'm hoping we'll at least get a thorough overview of the playtest process. I think I understand it by now, but would help to have a summary post to point folks to.

I'd imagine that will be Wednesday. Not sure what tomorrow would bring at this point. I'd like Rituals, but... who really knows?


241) Do Centaurs start with 4 feats?


Gorbacz wrote:
DFAnton wrote:
I'm curious. Is there a canon explanation for humans being the blank slate race that can breed with damn near anything?
Aboleths did it.

Oh, great. Now we have Half-Aboleths.

Err... nevermind. I see what you meant. ;)


From the group D2 Something comes the song "What about Playing an Android?"

Song:

You say that we get nothing Uncommon.
Only Common feats to start from.
And Rares? Don't even start.

You say Blood Money's on the unique list.
Tarrasque is on the unique list.
Still I just want just one rare.

Then I said, "What about playing an android?"
She said, "I think that's a little too rare,
How about Goblins, I think we both kind of like them."
And I said, "They're core now. Maybe I could play a bugbear?"

Rogue tengu? Or a wild druid grippli?
A crossbow sniper ganzi?
I guess you'll say no.
So what now? It's lame to play just Commons.
And I hate there's no Uncommons.
When so much is left unplayed...

Then I said, "What about playing an android?"
She said, "I think that's a little too rare,
How about Goblins, I think we both kind of like them."
And I said, "They're core now. Maybe I could play a bugbear?"

You say that we get nothing Uncommon.
Only Common feats to start from.
And Rares? Don't even start.

You say Blood Money's on the unique list.
Tarrasque is on the unique list.
Still I just want just one rare.

Then I said, "What about playing an android?"
She said, "I think that's a little too rare,
How about Goblins, I think we both kind of like them."
And I said, "They're core now. Maybe I could play a bugbear?"

Ooh, then I said, "What about playing an android?"
She said, "I think that's a little too rare,
How about Goblins, I think we both kind of like them."
And I said, "They're core now. Maybe I could play a bugbear?"

Then I said, "What about playing an android?"
She said, "I think that's a little too rare,
How about Goblins, I think we both kind of like them."
And I said, "They're core now. Maybe I could play a bugbear?"


Cuup wrote:

Hurray, bear love!

One thing that's been bothering me from the beginning, and I'm gonna voice it now, is the way the levels of success are ordered. This is just the way my brain works, I guess, but it seems the most intuitive way to look at them is Critical Success = +2, Success = +1, Failure = -1, and Critical Failure = -2. And yet, in an ability's entry, the different effects of different levels of success are ordered

+1
+2
-1
-2

When it should be ordered

+2
+1
-1
-2

Thank you in advance for changing this; I love you.

Or like this:

+1
As +1, but +1 more.
-1
As -1, but -1 more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
237) Do elves poo like everybody else?
Sure, whenever I devour an elf it shows up in my poo like anything else... oh I seem to have misread your question, I am so sorry! Can I offer you a roasted elf haunch to make up for it?
Depends what kind of elf - drow meat contains too many toxins and wood elf is a bit gamey

You can't eat high elves in my state, but you can in Colorado.


As I look toward a possible druid blog, I have started to get quotes from Spaceballs stuck in my head about planet Druidia.


Alchemical items and 10th level spells.


I know we're unlikely to get it, but I'd like a blog on some of the new alchemical items.

13 days left.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Crayon wrote:

Yeah, it's not really a cooldown per se as the wait period is only a factor if your Shield is destroyed as a result of using it to block an enemy attack.

That said, it does suggest that the same Shield manifests each time the spell is cast which has some very strange implications for the setting...

It's sort of fun to imagine it in different ways, like being a little spark of your magic power you bud off as a defensive ward, it breaking hurts and you need to gather your wits again before it can work.
The "same shield every time" conversation makes me think about the ethics of using summoned monsters to fight for you. I don't remember if you normally summon the same monster every time, but that spell has weird moral implications either way.

That's the general concept I've heard. However, some of them are odd.

Like in the Varian and Radovan novels you'll see Radovan use a scroll to summon a horse (as per the mount spell). It is the same every time (an infernal-looking steed) until something happens to him which changes him at his core. At that point the spell summons a different horse (very non-infernal, I'll leave it at that).

So, summoning spells like that appear to be related to your alignment and certain other characteristics of your persona. Radovan is a tiefling and thus summons creatures that appear a bit more infernal-looking.


Crayon wrote:

Yeah, it's not really a cooldown per se as the wait period is only a factor if your Shield is destroyed as a result of using it to block an enemy attack.

That said, it does suggest that the same Shield manifests each time the spell is cast which has some very strange implications for the setting...

An arcane outer plane that contains nothing but floating shields. While in that plane they automatically mend themselves over time, but don't have that luxury while here in the material plane.


See, this is pretty much the same as a spell being listed as lasting a minute or two. It's a spell that is designed to last the length of the encounter and not be available for the next encounter.

This is the same thing. You cast shield during combat and you have a single-dent shield available during that combat. It is balanced around the fact does a single block. The difference is they just don't want it recast again during the fight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VanCucci wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


It's eventually a lot more than 2 damage. It's 2 per die, and very possibly more than that in some ways (like if you use Power Attack). So it's +6 damage by 3rd or 4th level when Power Attacking.

By 20th level, it's +12 damage. +16 if Power Attacking. Possibly more if there are other enhancements.

Wait, is Power Attack even in PF2?

Yes, just not in the format you're used to. You spend two actions to make a single attack at double the damage dice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

234) Is there a Bard composition named Inspire Snark where you can play the world's tiniest violin to make someone realize that their problem isn't so bad?


Unicore wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I'm not sure what the fundamental difference between:

Weapons with multiple damage types seperated by an "or" allow a player to choose either damage type before making an attack roll. If no choice is made, the default damage type is the first listed.

And

Versatile: A versatile weapon can choose any of the listed damage types before making an attack roll. If no choice is made, the default damage type is the first listed.

Why are we getting upset about that? The only mechanical difference between the two is that Versatile can be referenced by other rules without having to write out the lengthy description again.

I wouldn't say I am getting upset about it, but I do think that there has been a trend towards legalistic codification of terms in this game and some of them are real head scratchers.

The issue with this one specifically is that

Damage: 1d8 slashing or piercing.
Shortened in tables to S/P

is a lot less cumbersome in play than

Damage: 1d8 slashing (Versatile: Piercing).
Possibly shortened in tables to a footnote explaining that (symbol = versatile) and then having the same letters represented in the table.

And if they both require a sentence or two explanation, then the number of times that this appears in the text is going to add up very quickly.

How many feats could possibly reference this rule and not be satisfied by specifying weapons with more than one possible damage type?

One or two per rule book, maybe. Character count-wise, this feels like an unnecessary possibility to reinvent the wheel over.

Again, I am not upset about this, but when we look at the number of codified words that are being added to the game, some of which seem to have huge implications and others almost none, it is starting to look cumbersome, and this is one that feels like it could easily be removed.

"When wielding a weapon with more than one damage type of which one of those types is piercing..."

versus

"When wielding a versatile weapon which can do piercing damage..."

One of these is much clearer when reading. I have no idea if there will even be something that interacts with it this way. However, the fact there is a term for a weapon of this category that can be easily referenced in sentences that don't require an actual lawyer is rather handy.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
The ideal version, mechanically, would probably get their choice of Dex-to-damage as is shown, and Str-to-Ac, but only in light armor. Because light armor is sort of a core Rogue aspect, and enforces Dex Rogues far more than adding it to damage ever could.

Replying to you again, because I like the Str-to-AC idea.

So, choose Finesse Striker or Strong Parry when you take your first level in Rogue. That informs how you'll build your character.

Strong Parry
When you defend against a strike while wielding a melee weapon without the finesse property, you may add your Strength modifier to your AC instead your Dexterity modifier.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
The ideal version, mechanically, would probably get their choice of Dex-to-damage as is shown, and Str-to-Ac, but only in light armor. Because light armor is sort of a core Rogue aspect, and enforces Dex Rogues far more than adding it to damage ever could.

Almost in a Darwinistic fashion with survival of the fittest builds.


Secret Wizard wrote:


Succinctly, why is the optimization window, for Rogue, drawn around, say, Garrett from Thief or the Grey Mouser, but leaves out:

- Wesley from the Princess Bride, who choked a giant and crack-climbs like a master,
- Indiana Jones fist-fighting nazis,
- Not to mention the most celebrated Rogue of all times, Conan the Barbarian.

- Bullet-Tooth Tony who has focused on high hit-points, athletics (for grapple), lore(underworld), society(to know people) and intimidate. Likely strength-based with some intellect and charisma.


Alchemist. I think the new alchemy mechanics will end up being really interesting to mess with.


The Raven Black wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Bard it is!

BURN THE BARD (aka Occult caster)

Comes equipped with highly-flammable paper rolls full of symphonies and nice wooden instruments for your burning convenience

That does sound handy!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Gregg Reece wrote:
Shouldn't the dagger on that sheet have +4 added to its damage?
Maybe. The bonus might well not apply when thrown, and those are its thrown stats.

Re-reading it I'd agree with that assumption. Not having the daggers also listed as melee bugs me, though. They're agile and would possibly benefit from being used as your second melee attack.


Shouldn't the dagger on that sheet have +4 added to its damage?


1of1 wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Heresy
HERETIC! BURN THEM!
Toasty!

Burn the witc-- err... uhm... burn the occult sorcerer!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Unicore wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


I feel like Background skill feats are going to be largely tangential to an overall build. Pickpocket is a flavor option for Seelah, not a power option. She's hardly ever going to have a chance to use it, much less in combat.
I wasn't trying to suggest that it needed to be the focus of her character, but it just seems like this background combo might see more actual play, and hence be more fun, on a two-handed weapon build than a sword and board paladin.

Curb your enthusiasm for this option, there have been past vague developer comments in this forum that taking a hand off (and especially putting one on) a two handed weapon might take an action all by itself. Starfinder, for example requires a swift action to change grips if you're freeing up a hand or switching to a two hand grip.

If that's the case in PF2, only the empty handed build with a long sword would do what you want.

I think they said freeing up a hand is a free action. Putting it back on takes an action, though. It's always a free action to let go of something.


Cantriped wrote:
Assurance means never Critically Failing while cooking breakfast and poisoning the entire party (my last GM was evil).

"I have assurance, so I can just succeed at anything DC 10 and lower."

"Ooooh, I'm so sorry. It's a DC 11 today. Um... the fire is a little too hot... and... the bacon has started to go a bit off."

1 to 50 of 423 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>