Golden Goblin Statue

Loopy's page

1,178 posts (1,183 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Please cancel my Pathfinder RPG subscription. Don't get me wrong, though, I still love Pathfinder.


I guess this isn't part of the PFRPG subscription. Will I still be able to get a print/pdf package or will I have to purchase them separately?


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.


Or give them two Senators.


houstonderek wrote:
Loopy wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
HEY! I'm living in BROOKLYN here!!!
Upstate. As in you aren't Upstate until Albany is south of you Upstate. Specifically the Adirondack Park area.

My friend lives in Binghamton and one of my friends went to school in Rochester. Just shouting at you from down south. And I know upstate has different issues facing it than down here does, both should be given equal consideration regardless of where people who get voted into office come from.

I grew up Upstate. We pretty much figured we were the forgotten people who had to live with whatever crumbs NYC and Long Island left over after we were taxed to death to support y'all.
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.
DADT is a serious boil on the ass of America. It needs to go away big time. Just ensure sexual harassment rules are evenly applied to all possible combos, let everyone serve, and tell Bosephus from Asscrack Missouri to get over it, and everything should work out nicely.

Exactly. Tyranny can come from a lot of places, the minority included. Getting rid of the filibuster would be a great start.


houstonderek wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
HEY! I'm living in BROOKLYN here!!!
Upstate. As in you aren't Upstate until Albany is south of you Upstate. Specifically the Adirondack Park area.

My friend lives in Binghamton and one of my friends went to school in Rochester. Just shouting at you from down south. And I know upstate has different issues facing it than down here does, both should be given equal consideration regardless of where people who get voted into office come from.

I grew up Upstate. We pretty much figured we were the forgotten people who had to live with whatever crumbs NYC and Long Island left over after we were taxed to death to support y'all.

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.


People from states with a lower population than mine do NOT deserve to have a stronger legislative voice than I do.

Agreement? Disagreement?


Uncoerced killing of sleeping creatures for no reason other than to gain the initiative was ruled as a violation of the Paladin code?????????? Get out!

Saaaaaaaaarcasmmmmm!


Madcap Storm King wrote:
Loopy wrote:
I certainly feel it is a player's right to play a character who believes that the ends justify the means, but if , for example, a Paladin in my campaign tortures someone for ANY REASON, no matter how many lives it saves, they will be losing their Paladin abilities.
What if they're under the effects of a domination spell?

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 certainly feel it is a player's right to play a character who believes that the ends justify the means, but if , for example, a Paladin in my campaign tortures someone for ANY REASON, no matter how many lives it saves, they will be losing their Paladin abilities.


Yeah, that's the best I've heard yet.


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.


Merlin_47 wrote:

Meh....Psionics in 3.5 just weren't psionics anymore to me. They were more like "wizards with spell points". Too much flashbang and not enough subtlety. I prefer Psionics as they were handled back in 2nd Ed, where they were "true psionics"; where telepaths and clairvoyants were the REAL psions and knieticists were all about movement.

If I wanted to play a damage dealer that didn't rely on melee prowess, I would have played a wizard, which I did. When I wanted to play something cool and different, that relied on a lot of powers that required you to think about how to use them in combat, I played a Psion.

If they bring back Psionics, I PRAY they look towards 2nd Ed AD&D to see how it was done. That was the right way to do it. 1st was a mess, and 3rd was just as bad, if not worse. I don't play 4th, so I can't give an opinion on how they're handled in 4th.

Agreed.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Richard Leonhart wrote:

there is mainly one thing I like about psionics, the power point system.

It seems more "realistic" to me than "spells per day", the "once cast & forgot" never really got to me, but it is easier to handle.
Pretty much this applies to me, too.
applies to me three

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.


Oh, he doesn't get it til level 10. The question still stands.


Phasics wrote:

its not a problem in fact if you don't allow the DC to scale it will become worthless before too many levels pass. and you player will wonder why he even bothered

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.


We call our actual Pathfinder game Pathfinder or Kingmaker. We call my campaign by its name. We call both campaigns "D&D".


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.


The Vicar of Vomit wrote:
The Vicar of Vomit

You're a puke priest?


I used to love playing this game when I was a kid.

I'm sure I could, but I'd have to knock my dresser over.


The art for the Cacophonous Call spell. Page 209. God, I love this game.


Or you could do it. LOL


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.


stringburka wrote:
Looks nice, but I suggest an acrobatics roll to avoid falling damage like you get when you fall from a great height.

Good suggestion.


Dorje Sylas wrote:

Combat combo manuvers would be very welcome. One good extension would expand into those odd place where skills and combat manuvers combine.

Two I think of, actually 3.

1) Climb the Giant. Talk about our classic fantasy move that has never gotten good treatment in any official writeup that I know of. CM + Climb.

2) Combined with the above, Unwelcome Rider. For when PCs end up hanging form some bigger flying creature or even ground based one.

3) Combat Toss, to pass a companion a handheld item in the middle of a fight or in other situations.

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
(Combat Maneuver)

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.

BUCKING
(Condition)
This condition constitutes Violent Motion which is aimed at throwing you from a mount, a perch of some kind, or an opponent you have targeted with a Climb the Giant maneuver. This condition assumes you are trying to hold onto the creature or object doing the bucking. From here out, we shall refer to the creature being Bucked as the "attacker" and the creature or object doing the Bucking as the "defender"

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:
Loopy wrote:
The Killer Nacho wrote:

Damn it!!

Just when I was just getting used to the idea of another $80 used on Paizo products (The Bestiary 2 and Ultimate Magic) they go ahead and do this..!

Sigh, there goes $120 now...

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. ;)
Is Sally Struthers doing anything Paizo could use her in their new advertising campaign.:)

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:

Damn it!!

Just when I was just getting used to the idea of another $80 used on Paizo products (The Bestiary 2 and Ultimate Magic) they go ahead and do this..!

Sigh, there goes $120 now...

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. ;)


Dannym wrote:
A GAME WITHOUT DM'S

You shut your ********* mouth! ;)


Ender_rpm wrote:
DragonBelow wrote:
Personally what I expect from this book, besides a bunch of feats and prestige classes, etc. are combat maneuvers. tons of them. Let's expand the combat options for all characters!
yes and no. I think there needs to be some wiggle room left undefined, to allow for creative play, but some more applications of current maneuvers (Imp Grap-> Throw for example) could be fleshed out.

Yeah. I think the words "maneuver" and "stance" went largely un-uttered at the seminar for a very good reason.


Balance-wise, you aren't going to get a lot of skill points out of not getting medium or heavy armor. Not 1 per level and certainly not 2.


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.


I think the Ninja fans are just cringing at the thought of being the same class as Pirates (swashbucklers). LOL.


What a great response, Jeremy.


Amen, my brotha!


Ashanderai, well said indeed. You've made the point quite well.

Razz wrote:
Loopy wrote:
I don't think Paizo should concern themselves with trying to copy the old WotC Ninja but to emulate the real ninja or ninja myth. That can be done with an Archetype.

But the game is a FANTASY game and my players want to play FANTASY Ninja and be as badass as the Ninja in japanese anime and Ninja Assassin. Not crazy DBZ stuff like in Naruto, but it can't work with JUST a rogue. It'd have to be a Rogue/Monk combo, but without multiclassing, since you can't entirely emulate a core ninja with a Rogue/Monk mix due to the lack of abilities from multiclassing.

As for a Fantasy Samurai, that one is simple. Fantasy Samurai should not just be a Fighter with a different cultural outfit and title. They should have access to ki powers, enhancing their strength and sword techniques. Using WotC's model, I'd say the best Samurai would be a mixture between Rokugan's Samurai class (for the daisho, bonus feats, skill set and points, and saving throws) and the Swordsage from Tome of Battle. If you want more ideas from a video game standpoint, please refer to the Samurai Job in both Final Fantasy Tactics and Final Fantasy XI.

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...

Start here then click the classes link and abilities links.


I feel if could probably be accomplished with an altered list of talents including some of the rogue ones and some new Ninja-only ones, but that's just one man's opinion.


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.


Dabbler wrote:
Loopy wrote:

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:

http://harvestmooncampaign.com/classes.php?id=738

Needless to say, I feel Psionics should be treated EXTREMELY traditionally (with the concept of pyrokinesis being explained away with the Sorcerery).

Wouldn't that mess up backward compatibility with the 3.5 model? I mean, if backward compatibility is important to Paizo that's what they'll try and do. It's certainly important to a lot of the Psionics-lovers ...

It would. My opinion and what Paizo is actually likely to do are two completely different things.


I don't think Paizo should concern themselves with trying to copy the old WotC Ninja but to emulate the real ninja or ninja myth. That can be done with an Archetype.


Honestly, I can't think of a single classic Ninja from history that can't be accomplished with the current classes and options.


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:

http://harvestmooncampaign.com/classes.php?id=738

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?


And Jason did say that the mass combat, in his opinion, should be versatile enough to handle both skirmish and regimental scale battles.

1 to 50 of 1,178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>