I proudly wear the upstate label being from the troy/albany/saratoga region. I consider any town you can reasonably commute to NYC from on a daily basis or where people have that NYC air of self-importance to be "downstate". That includes Poughkeepsie. Anything west of the greater Finger Lakes region is Western NY.
See, its that "You either live in NYC or you don't" attitude that kind of pisses people off.
Exactly. Tyranny can come from a lot of places, the minority included. Getting rid of the filibuster would be a great start.
I also live in upstate New York - Mechanicville. I hear what you're saying about New York City and I do get it. I guess I'm wishing that the FINANCIAL side of governance would be separated by the MORAL side of things. I want my cake, and I want to EAT the sucker. I want areas that would be prone to being financially ruined by an urban majority to be protected from that. I also don't want some podunk d-bag out in the midwest somewhere basically to have 2 or 3 votes to my 1 vote as to whether or not we should HONOR the people who serve in our military regardless of sexual orientation.
Madcap Storm King wrote:
Then they didn't torture anyone. Their dominator did. A dominated character is a tool or a weapon. Neutral in regards to all of your actions.
Though if I were playing a paladin who was dominated into torturing and killing someone close to me him, even if the GM didn't do it, I would ask for them to declare it an evil act as any Paladin I would play would likely feel he had let his friends, his deity, and himself down.
I know that sometimes, for the sake of balance, we must limit some abilities to uses per day. This is understandable, however when extended to extraordinary abilities not tied to some kind of resource resivoir, it bugs the heck out of me. What could the in-game reasons for the limitation possibly be? An example of this is the Cavalier's Tactician ability. I can't figure out an excuse for the per day limitation that doesn't involve a suspension of disbelief.
What do you guys do? Just chalk it up to luck? Like, the situation only presents itself so many times per day? I personally hate the concept of luck, karma, fate, and any other similar construct. I dunno, the whole thing bugs me.
Don't get me wrong; I do think some make sense. Spiders only have so much poison in their glands, after all, but stuff like Tactician boggle my brain.
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
I liked it too but I think it should be just that.... an alternate magic system, not Psionics. IMHO, 3.5 never had a Psionics system.
If paizo preserved the basic 3.5 "Psionics" system but applied it to current classes as an alternate way to do magic, I'd like it. If they actually call something like this "psionics", I'll be disappointed.
Well, I wouldn't ever think it would be a SET DC. That would be dumb. I was thinking it might use the players stats and hit dice to set the DC as off he were a creature of that type. For example, poison uses the monster's con score, so then it'd use the PC's instead. However, I think my original post regarding the guidelines set in the general rules for transmutation are the correct adjudication. Since I had to arrive at this conclusion by referencing 4 or 5 different citations, I thought it was necessary to get a thumbs up or two.
At level 6, the Desert Druid gets to shapeshift into a vermin (in my player's case, he chose spider as his default go-to shape) as if he were a 4th level Druid with the exception that, when determining special abilities, he gets to use it as if it were Beast Shape IV. This gets him the Web and Poison abilities.
Reading up on Transmutation, I find that any special abilities gained from this sort of shapeshifting have a DC equal to if the transmutation spell itself had a DC to avoid. As it stands, this makes the poison and web saves equal to 19 (10 + 6 spell level + 3 wisdom modifier). Is this right? Neither of the two entries in the core rulebook regarding Supernatural Abilities say to alter this DC to base it on caster level or anything like that.
I don't really have much of a problem with the DC, I don't see it as an issue considering the caster is giving up Large Size and, with it, buckets of damage to get them. I just want to make sure I'm not screwing something up here.
Note... if my player took spell focus: transmutation, would the DCs of his shifting abilities increase by +1? Again, I don't really see much of a problem with that... just wanted to check.
Two more interesting comments. I'm going to let this stew a bit more in this thread before I do the first revision. I'm leaning towards making sphen's suggestion the "Greater Climb the Giant" feat. Expect a better-worded description, a few feats, and a couple of traits for goblins and gnome later today when I get home from work.
Dorje Sylas wrote:
I like Silas's suggestion of a maneuver for climbing creatures 2 sizes larger than you. It's something that players do all the time and I have to wing it. Suggestions and refinements are more than welcome.
CLIMB THE GIANT
A successful Climb the Giant maneuver results in the climbing character entering their opponent's space and holding onto them. Neither the attacker nor the defender are grappled, but the attacker gains the Bucking condition. To perform a Climb the Giant check, the attacker rolls a standard maneuver check, though their opponent does not get any bonuses for size. If the check is successful, the attacker must make a climb check as if their opponent were a surface. Consult the climbing table on page 91 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook to set the DC and apply the -4 modifier for Bucking.
The Climb the Giant defender may, during their turn, either use a simple grapple check (without their size bonus) to grab the creature. A creature grabbed in this way is no longer Climbing the Giant, but grappled as normal. If they wish to truly rid themselves of their attacker, the defender may Roll and Shake. This is a full-round action which increases their opponent's Bucking modifier from +4 to +14.
On any round the attacker makes a successful Bucking check, the defender loses any dex bonus to AC versus the attacker.
Each round the attacker is Bucking, they must make a climb check DC equal to the defender's CMD without size modifiers. If you fail, you begin falling off. If the attacker succeeds in the roll, they may perform a single standard action and any free actions that are relevant to the situation.
While falling off, the attacker moves one square towards the nearest edge of the defender. If the attacker is adjacent to that edge, they instead fall off and take lethal damage equal to 1d6+1 per size category the defender is above medium). The attacker may take no actions during a round they are falling off from Bucking.
While Bucking, the attacker receives a flat -4 to all rolls and may only use climbing movement. The attacker may move freely within the space of the defender. Using the climbing table on page 91 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, the attacker can even climb underneath the defender.
The attacker may choose to throw themselves off as a free action if they succeed the Bucking roll, but you still suffer the effects (in essence, they may perform an action, then throw themselves off or just throw themselves off and perform no actions. The attacker may let go as an immediate action, but if the defender moves during that turn, the attacker will fall off at a random point in that movement (GM's discretion).
Justin Franklin wrote:
Your support can make all the difference on the world to a game designer like l"little" Jason here. Please call and have your credit card ready. You won't regret it.
That is, until your wife finds the receipt.
The Killer Nacho wrote:
Think of the game designers, man! For the price of a daily cup of coffee you can keep them working 80 hour weeks to produce content for the best damn RPG out there. ;)
Yeah. I think the words "maneuver" and "stance" went largely un-uttered at the seminar for a very good reason.
I feel the opposite is true, Al. The baseline ought to be close to what the Archetype OS named after. To do otherwise would not only be confusing but borderline deceptive. If you want to build a more mystical version of a Ninja or Samurai, it should be a separate set of choices or just plain called something different.
Ashanderai, well said indeed. You've made the point quite well.
You can do that with the rogue. Calling a Rogue Archetype "just a rogue" speaks to a misunderstanding regarding the idea of using Archetypes and the Paizo approach to making the core classes so general in the first place.
In that same vein, the person who posted that the Rogue isn't a good fit for the swashbuckler... I think you're really confused about how truly varied the rogue class can manifest itself from character to character.
The system I posted is as close to point-buy as you can get without actually being point buy. The way it's set up does solve some of the stacking issues that you can get with point buy but not all of them. That's the problem with that kind of character creation system; you need to find a way to make some of the non-munchtastic offerings compelling to take. This is the reason I gave out 4 different kinds of abilities, Traits for flavor stuff, Enhancements which were improvements to other abilities or were stand-alone abilities about as powerful as feats, Prestige abilities which were the high-powered stuff like Sneak Attack and such, and Defining abilities which were abilities that improved every level such as Spellcasting.
Even this still led to people stacking up on things like Sneak Attack. You need to be sure to set hard caps on each ability based on level such as "You may only take this ability at level one and once every third level" or something like that. That WAS going to be my next step in the system (that and getting rid of the point trade-ins for most abilities), but Pathfinder came out and I abandoned the system entirely.
Exactly. Jason said yesterday that he'd like to avoid wasting space re-printing rules. He'd rather give us real substance. How many times can you junk up a supplement with classes that have the same basic architecture and many of the same or similar abilities? If all the Archetypes in the APG were mixed in favor of a small handful of new base classes, that would have been an enormous waste of resources and the book would have had far less true substance.
I did something similar after support for 3.5 started to wane but before the final Pathfinder came out. It's not complete. It's not pretty. But here it is...
I don't see how you couldn't play a fighter, paladin, or cavalier and, with skill, feat, ability, and RP choices, call yourself a samurai. I don't see how a rogue with some of the new abilities from the APG can't perfectly suit the realist Ninja or a myriad of multiples combos can't replicate a more mythical Ninja.
Again, the question isn't whether it DESERVES to have a base class, but whether it needs it. Creating a base class simply to serve some ridiculous sense of fairness is a waste of resources. You can completely change the flavor of the rogue with just few tweaks. The only thing that would keep you from feeling unique would be a completely misplaced sense of unfairness regarding the word count given in the book to one of the thousands of cultures our world has seen rise and fall over the millennia.
I think that these very fundamental differences in opinion as to what Psionics ought to be are the main reasons it's not on the menu at the moment. The opinions on how it ought to be handled are so incredibly disparate that releasing them in any form whether it be with mechanical or philosophical changes (or NOT) would url a large portion of the community. It has to be handled very carefully.
For example, for me it wasn't the mechanics of the systrm; I thought they were fine. It was the wide variety of powers themselves. Psionics shooting rays of energy irked the **** out of me.
It would. My opinion and what Paizo is actually likely to do are two completely different things.
I think you have a good point about the compatibility with existing Psionics rulebooks. They have made it very clear that they want to keep that a high priority. For me personally, I couldn't care less but its very important to Paizo.
To give you an idea of my personal opinion on Psionics I'll tell you I have struggled with coming up with a new system for years. I must say that a few months ago, I gave up completely and am currently using this:
Needless to say, I feel Psionics should be treated EXTREMELY traditionally (with the concept of pyrokinesis being explained away with the Sorcerery).
I don't think paizo will make their decision based on whether the classes DESERVE a full class or not, but by whether one is needed and I think it's quite reasonable to have the opinion that it does not. Unless, of course, you want to disguise a block of wood as yourself or whatever.
Then again, just play a sneaky Bard IMO.
They did say they wanted to do a bunch of cool martial arts styles but they'd need a lot of good consultation from real martial artists first. Jason did mention something about the style you learn determining your bonus feats and whatnot, though that seemed slightly noncommittal which isn't surprising considering how far away the book is.
I guess what's most important to note is there was ZERO talk of maneuvers and stances.
They said that there WILL be rules for playing Ninja and Samurai. They also said the Magus is likely to be the last base class for a while. I think we can surmise that they will be Archetypes.
As far as the Shaman goes, I guess it depends on what you mean by that. Clerics and Druids, especially with the APG options can make amazing Shaman. Heck, the Alchemist, Oracle, and Witch could also be built with a Shamanistic feel. Right now if I were to make a Shaman, it'd probably be a Cleric with the Plant domain and Ancestors subdomain.
Having said that, I have no doubt that the faithful of that setting will get the full treatment, we just don't know what shape it will take.
I wanted to share what I learned regarding Psionics from the Rules Q&A at GenCon with Sean, Jason, and James. Thanks go to them for your openness and the time they took for us.
Psionics, while kind of inevitable, is not in the cards any time soon mainly because Jason would be removing some of the sacred cows of 3.5 Picnics such as the ability to just nova all your PP with your most potent powers in one encounter.
------- my thoughts:
I think with the new Words of Power non-vanecian system, less people will be clamoring for 3.5 style Psionics and the designers will be able to broach the general concept of Psionics objectively and with a clean slate.
Needless to say, that is MY hope for the system-to-be. Certainly, I am not saying that 2e Psionics was great, but at least it felt different; not like 3.5 which, to me, felt like just an alternate magic system for people who didn't like spell slots and liked spell customization. It seems that Words of Power will satisfy that preference.
What do y'all think?