Ignatz's page

34 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


I know I didn't just imagine this. I saw it in a Pathfinder book and now I cant find anything about it for the life of me.

Anyone wanna throw me a bone?


Anyone? *tap tap*

Thanks guys!

Tobias wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

Well, to be fair, the touch attack option, variable ammunition, higher criticals do make guns viable and fun. As good as a bow? Depends on the situation, as a gun can hit more regularly since it ignores armor.

Guns aren't super broken, but neither are they garbage. They're an option that has major benefits and drawbacks. It comes down to personal taste.

Edit: Oh, and the 101 DCs are only for the Field Repair feat. Gunsmith specifies that it means you don't need to make a check to make the weapon or ammo. But again, that costs a feat.

Doh you absolutly right on the DC's on 101. with the PDF it threw me off 'cause the Gumsmith stuff seems right after that.

Tobias wrote:
Ignatz wrote:

Asides from Table 2-2

New crafting DC's

1 hand Firearm DC 20
2 hand Firearm DC 20

Skill Needed Craft Firearm

Yep nothing in there about it

Page 101

And that lack of info is why it's broken. ;)

I know, horrible isn't it.

All that pesky information...contained in books.



Edit: By the way my responce here is light hearted like I think yours was Tobias. It just makes me laugh how some people can get so worked up on the boards with out thinking reading or just generally ignoring common sense.

In the immortal words of our big tow Capt. Hulka "Lightin' up Francis."

Asides from Table 2-2

New crafting DC's

1 hand Firearm DC 20
2 hand Firearm DC 20

Skill Needed Craft Firearm

Yep nothing in there about it

Page 101

Oh I dont't know how about... Spend the Feat!

I'm jsut sayin' Its a good weapon. Should nothing be exotic? Should everyone get everything for free now. Sorry jsut see way to much of "want something for nothing" on these boards sometimes.


Sorry that build up a little...


Ravingdork wrote:

Wow. Talk about your mass overreaction. It's threads like this that will ultimately ruin roleplaying and turn Pathfinder into 4E.

The game is NOT broken by the item creation feats. The game only breaks down when nobody is having fun. Has this happened in your game? If so, it's not because of the feats, it's because of bad GMing or immature players.

If someone can't handle something as simple as the disparity between one character having 3 or 4 more items than another, than maybe they need to stop whining about it, find a new hobby, and quit ruining everyone's fun with their incessant negative attitude.

I like when someone makes sense.

Kaftorim wrote:

I don't buy any of it, just like I don't buy that the monk is under-powered. It's very tempting to pit the fighter, whose main job is fighting, against the rogue and see that the rogue comes up lacking, but the rogue is not just a combatant. He has other abilities, some of them close to unique.

It's tempting to pit magic against rogue abilities and see that the magic is equal or better every time, but spells have a finite number of uses per day and skills do not. If his skills allowed him to do things that were the equivalent of using a level 1 spell at will, people would think that was broken.

Rogues have a mixture of things; they well rounded, not pointy like fighters or wizards. They don't need a full BAB because this is not an MMO and rogues are not designed to just be DPR. There are ways of tweaking them within the rules to do that, as people have pointed out, but it seems some people just want the rogue to simply be better at combat without sacrificing other things. The reason the fighter is better at combat is that that's all he gets. Take a fighter out of combat and his 2 skills and no class abilities or feats that aren't related to combat don't allow for very much.

If you don't roleplay and you have hardly any traps, then the rogue is going to seem less powerful than he should. That's because you've eliminated the things that make a rogue good, not because it's not a balanced class, and I've had some players--even first time players-- figure out quickly how to make their rogues shine as an important party member.

So I don't see the point in changing to rules to beef them up, as long as the GM is writing quests with the rogue's abilities in mind, but a good GM should be taking into account everyone's abilities. And as for simplifying stealth, what's so hard about an opposed roll? I actually like the suggestion for circumventing the things that overcome stealth (scent, tremorsense, etc.), and I think that would make a great rogue talent, but I don't see why you would need to change the rules....

Finally someone making sense.

James Jacobs wrote:
If you drop an adamantine bullet, it punches through the earth's crust (ignores the hardness of stone) and lodges deep underground. You can recover adamantine bullets if you have a burrow speed and a lot of free time. Also, in the Darklands, caverns under bullet fighting grounds often have horrific bouts of adamantine bullet rain dropping down from above to wreak terrible havoc upon the poor defenseless drow and intellect devourers and cave Santas and all that.

This. This is why you Paizo people will continue to get my money.

Good form James Good form.


Thoughts on the Arquebusier of Alkenstar?


I see the Cavilier as being buffed by the mount. Call me crazy but the Damage they can dish out while mounted gets nice. Also do forget you can always Make oths to your Mount if I am not mistaken.


I actually like the Challange ability. Where as a Fighter can fight a number of opponents and keep chugging along I like the idea of a party leader that can call out that big boss.

I don't think the idea of a Cavilier is suppose to mimic a Marshall or a Warlord from 4th Edition. They are a combat machine with a offence verses what I see the fighter being a defense guy.

Banners are, to me, a repersentation to what they believe in and becasue of individual belief it can be anything. A silver holy Symbol can last a cleric thier whole life. I would say the banner is the same.

More Oaths and Banners good. Challange seems fine so far

Enchanter Tom wrote:

Take the Burning Magic revelation: your fire spells do an additional 1 point of fire damage per spell level. That's just not very strong; a second-level spell negates it entirely. If anything, it should be twice the spell's level; perhaps even three times the spell's level.

Likewise, the Bleeding Wounds revelation causes a maximum of 5 bleed per round at level 20. Five damage just isn't worth it to keep track of. Perhaps the bleed should be equal to half the oracle's level plus his Charisma modifier. (You'd have to tone it down at lower levels, but the bleed needs to be way higher to keep track of. Most encounters don't last more than a few rounds, anyway.)

On top of this, the various touch abilities--analogous to the sorcerer and wizard abilities--do 1d6 + 1/2 level damage. These are, unfortunately, far too weak to be worth considering. 1d6 + 10 damage at level 20 is barely enough to kill a commoner. There's no way that anyone would waste the time to use this against an opponent except at level one or two. I would suggest increasing the damage or allowing the oracle to use these as a swift/free action later on in his career.

I think 5 points of damage is totally worth keeping up with as a Player and a DM.


James Jacobs wrote:
Ignatz wrote:
Uuh Hopefully not to much optional stuff. When things started getting in to the skills and powers stuff is when things stared loosing cohesion for me. new classes great! How people build characters drasticly different not so much.
There'll be a fair amount of new stuff... but the point we're hoping to achieve here is to get it all done in this one single volume. We don't really have an interest in continually churning out APG after APG over and over. We're hoping to cover most of what we need and want to do with rules expansions for base classes in this one book, and then going forward have different themed rulebooks. (There might be an Asian book, for example, that talks about new options you can apply to existing classes to give them an Asian feel, but that's different in my opinion than a bunch of new options not tied to a specific type of campaign.)

One word ..Awesome


Dies Irae wrote:

Privateer Press:

Iron Kingdoms Character Guide:
- Firearms
- Gun Mage Base Class

- Adventuring Scholar Prestige Class

Good stuff wasnt to much of a fan of healing death in that system but love there stuff.

Not sure if Ghostwalk is open or not but I like that book alot.


Wolfthulhu wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Goblin Kings Codpiece wrote:
Anyone know what (if any) optional character creation/advancement rules may be included?


As in, this section of the book has yet to be started. And may or may not be in the book anyway.

How about a heads up on what sections have been started?

Besides Classes, of course... :-P

Uuh Hopefully not to much optional stuff. When things started getting in to the skills and powers stuff is when things stared loosing cohesion for me. new classes great! How people build characters drasticly different not so much.

Loving the Pathfinder way I just dont post much.


Andrew Turner wrote:
kessukoofah wrote:
...well, I could just as easily flip that and ask why the words cow, how, now, etc are the way they are. or even better, why are there words like sow, row and bow that change meanings if they're pronounced differantly? it's just the way the languages evolved is all. and way back when, someone decided that drow rhymies with cow. that's all. it could ahve easily gone the other way. in fact it had a 50% chance of going the other way. but the world works in mysterious ways..

The big difference is the construction of those words.

are missing a key infrastructure--the preceding 'r'--that should, if present, naturally result in a linguistic syllogism.

Throw and grow, for example, have a preceding letter or letter set followed by letter 'r' and concluded with letters 'ow.' They are always pronounced with an /O/ sound. Therefore, 'drow' must be pronounced /drO/...



Always? :P


((Dang it some one did Brow! Curses!))

Balance overated

I like penalties to play

To bad Cleric's Evil

Yes I Hiku'd it damn tooten...might not be good Hiku though.


Bagpuss wrote:
Ignatz wrote:

I don;t think that the SLA or Wish or the such should be changed.

Besides what happened to harsh twists on people asking for Wishes and then having them turned around on them.

"I want to be stronger" Poof they are strnger but slower, or even better a Statue heck a statue can hold up a lot of weight!

That has been discussed (albeit with little agreement) somewhat extensively earlier on in the thread.

Damn! I knew it probably had, welp I suppose chuck up another one for that option. Sorry if my stuff repeats. Just got back in to looking through stuff again!

Thanks Bagpuss I'll rescan again!


I don;t think that the SLA or Wish or the such should be changed.

Besides what happened to harsh twists on people asking for Wishes and then having them turned around on them.

"I want to be stronger" Poof they are strnger but slower, or even better a Statue heck a statue can hold up a lot of weight!

If people want to draft a 4 page document that details thier Wish then respond in kind with a trick. Or better yet have them make a Profession: Lawyer roll.

Bah! DMs take back your games!! :)

Becuase this is a long thread I keep finding other things. A few people ave said that srewing players isn't cool and that it would come off as a dick move. Players rules lawyering to min/max Wish comes right in line with that and is worse. Hell DMs are the ones running for the players.


((yes take this with the smile it was written with.))

hogarth wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

If a rules isn't fulfilling its purpose, it should be fixed; we're agreed on that. If a set of rules can be abused outside of its purpose, then that's not so much a problem with the rules.

The problem is that one person's "use" is another person's "abuse". For instance, a player might think it's reasonable to summon an efreet once for some cheap Wishes if it's an emergency, but the DM might think that it's never reasonable, even if he's indicated that "anything Core is fine".

I had this happen in a game once. Our party was infiltrating a fire giant fortress (and doing a fairly poor job at being sneaky) when we were attacked by half-fiend fire giant swordsages. We were routed pretty badly and suffered a few casualties, so we took the opportunity to prepare for a second assault. One of the things my character bought was a scroll of Gate; the DM didn't have any problem with that at the time. But when we returned to the fortress and I tried to use it to summon a solar to help us, he basically said "uh-uh, no way, that's not possible".

I don't have any problem with that, of course, but it sort of throws the idea of "everything Core is balanced and acceptable" out the window.

And that is why the word "no" works so well. Yes its in the rules but as a DM I can certianly say no, thats no fun for me otr the other people in the group. Good for the people that say no!


Tensor wrote:


If any Paizonites are going this weekend, let's meet up !!!

I'll be there with out doubt.

Is Pazio going ot have a presence?


underling wrote:
JahellTheBard wrote:

After all there are more degrees of evil, not everyone goes around killing orphans, like a mad chaotic demon lover, maybe someone just belives that law is most important than everything and is ready to support law and order agains chaos even if this means help a tyrranical king against poor hungry peasant rebels ... or just greedy for power or money, ... )

Many people have blinders on and can't see beyond this single sterotype of evil. I can't count the number of times that someone has argued that you can't have an evil character or party since they will always quickly betray or kill each other. That is simply ridiculous. You can't have these huge evil organizations like the Red Wizards of thay, The Zhents, the Scarlet Brotehrhood, or even Iuz's empire without some (I would say many) LE and NE archetypes that cooperate when it is in their best interest. To say otherwise is foolish, and contrary to decades of D&D fluff.

As to the turning problem, the lack of healing is bad, but can be worked around. the fact that an evil priest will kill his own minions and allies when he uses his channel power is a much, much bigger problem. Its a 30' burst - which means it goes in a circle around the caster. An evil priest cannot even use his channel power unless he has no living allies or is only using undead. That is a big problem from where I stand. Why even have the power, if you have so little ability to use it?

Good lord, they are evil. Yes they can heal if they take the spells, they are EVIL there has to be some down side to it. Everything doesn't have to be equal. Just take the spells to heal. its the down side to being evil. :)


Lisa Stevens wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:
Simplifying higher level play is one of the goals of PFRPG, and I recall Lisa Stevens posting her displeasure over high level mechanics somewhere which by itself tells me that Jason is certainly taking this seriously.

Absolutely! I really hate high-level play in 3.5 and will push Jason and the rest of the team to try to fix this problem. Since it isn't an easy problem, I am guessing it is going to take the combined might of all the Beta playtesters and lots of caffeine and brainstorming in the coming months, but I feel confident that we will make high-level play much more palatable.


Am I the only person in the world that didnt mind high level play?



Krome wrote:

So you never would give levels to creatures to boost them?

Well one of two things with your lich example. Either I need to go through every module and start planning to add in extras... or as a player I look at you funny, close my book get up and go home and let you play by yourself as I find another group.

Not a big fan of GMs doing the Deus ex Machina thing just to save their sorry butts. If it was part of the plan, part of the story, sure thing, but for a GM to just pull stuff out his butt cause he feels like it is a sure fire way to loose players.

And to be brutally honest, that is a lousy way to GM. If you are unable to create a meaningful encounter to begin with, maybe you should stick with playing a PC instead and leave GMing to someone else.

Sure, I like a leveled Kobold Ninja as much as the next guy but just saying a majoity of creatures of X type fall ina certain range, I don't wanna see 25 kobbolds when I'm 17th level but I like having the leveled on plaugeing the party.

I don;t remember if you were one of the "I like to wing it" DMs from up the thread but thats the same thing to me as far as throwing some fodder in. I could say "Well why would you ever put the BBEG in that spot to begin with. Not to get far off the minons topic but thats what I really dislike about 4e it makes for lazy DMs and Players. I can't count how many times I have seen comments saying the Simple is Better mantra.

A smart DM with a lich at his call can be prepared for almost any situation.

Im not offended, just saying thats one way to handle it and not nessesarly *my* way or the only way to. Its all good.


I have played withthe Minons in a game I was suckered into trying of 4e.

I hate Minon rules

There is a pecking order in the world if you want small and mushy, Goblins or Kobolds.

The Lich example...uh the DM controls what happens, hehe, watc *poof* he has attendants now! He is saved!

Be seriously Minon rules *Big NO stamp*

Chris Manos wrote:
Coridan wrote:

Ok, this is the ONE thing I liked from 4E that I can name off hand. They made halflings and gnomes taller. Not much taller (from what I understand like 10-12 yr olds or jockeys). But at least they aren't 5 year olds anymore.

I've always thought that the span for Medium (4'-8') was waaay too large and should be more like 5'-8' if not 5'-7'.

This would be a welcome change for the Pathfinder world imho.

Easy enough chance to make in your own world, just adjust the base height. Elves in my world are taller...MUCH taller. And humans are fatter...Oh wait...thats based on real life...

Uugh this is one of those things I hate most about 4th. Its all about scale and realitive size. It is a fantasy world, that to me definatly adds to it. Now I will say that I like Halflings more of the old school pudgy little guys.

But like its been said its no problem to change it in your specific campaign.

Pfft 5 year olds.....with swords! :P

Edit I have no idea how to just link this so heres the link :



Yeah but if they called them Sad Meals no kids would eat them.

Seldriss wrote:

The 4th edition came on the market with the 3 core books, the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master Guide and the Monster Manual.

As such, the game should be considered as complete. These are the CORE books.
All the core races and classes should be there.
All the skills too. Whatever people argue, it is difficult to estimate what part of the players were using the crafting and profession skills. Then leave them in the PH where they belong.
We shouldn't wait for months or years to get the missing classes, such as the Bard or Druid or to use some skills which, ultimately will probably come back.
My intent is not to bash D&D4. I have an opinion about it, but that's not the topic here.
All i want to say is that i consider omitting such things from the core rules is a mistake from WotC.
A mistake which might cost them a lot, as roleplayers are attached to such things.

Very well said. I don't want to hear "Well if you really want X {skill,class,ability, campaign flavor} it go check out JoeBob3s homebrewed one on EnWorld".


Azigen wrote:
Steerpike7 wrote:
vance wrote:

Now that it's been more blatantly stated by the lead designer, is this really a debate point? Shouldn't it be taken as wrote?

I don't think that particular point is debatable. What is debatable is whether it was a bad idea or whether it was just a cheap attempt to copy MMOs. I think it was an attempt to make a good game and look around for good ideas.

It's more like Wotc is the Borq/Zerq and you will be assimilated and your ideas taken to improve the whole. That, or incest.

D&D begets MMO's. D&D and MMO's swap "ideas". 4th edition is born. Does that make 4th edition Half-elf or Half-orc ?

Clearly Half orc as its ugly and no one realy wants to play with it but it smashes things good for you? :P


Sadly then I guess it cant be used for anything with Pathfinder...that is as in OGL stuff. The reason I asked was because Monte and Seans connection to Paizo now.

Yeah always though the Ghosts as PCs was a neat swing on things.

Wasnt sure where but this looks good.

So the question: I don't have it in front of me but this was 3rd party right?

Hate it or like it there is with out any doubt in my mind this will come to pass.


Rituals I like.