Phantom of Truth's page

Canta wrote:

Now that i think of it, i wish someone had made a 4.75E

Stick around. You just might be in luck!

(kidding. kidding. But seriously, stick around and you'll probably find a lot of the things you enjoyed making a return).

Thank you for your insight - I'm glad you finally felt able to express this for the first time.

I look forward to receiving my special John Lynch 106 edition of the PF2 Rulebook, which I understand will be a 4e Player's Handbook with a Pathfinder dust jacket on it.

Doonamis: I'm rarely inclined to side with those who accuse the forum's moderators of censorship - I've heard that rhetoric countless times before, and it never ends well for people like me. You're not making a very good case for yourself with rumor-mongering and accusations, or by directing users to external sites where you can throw around whatever wild claims you please.

The constant stream of insults and abuse here is kind of impressive, in a way. It really makes me long for the welcoming friendliness of discussing politics with strangers on Facebook.

inb4 Chess Pwn

I get the desire to defend Paizo I can respect that. One can do that without personal attacks imo.

Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being motivated by blind loyalty is, of course, the height of decency, and in no way itself a personal attack.

L15 fighter: I am a master at arms with a lifetime of training!

*rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll*

GM: All right, let's see... your +5 sword bounces off your foe, rebounding into your +5 armor and causing both to shatter into tiny fragments. Don't worry, though; if you go find a member of your fighter's guild, you can go on a quest and pay a few hundred gold to repair your gear. Oh, also, you can only use clubs and hide armor until you do that.

L15 fighter: ...

Other players: ...

It's uncanny how threads like this always go up in the wee hours of the morning on a Saturday.

And still it happened in good faith :-(

Blaming people for what they understood in good faith is not fair IMO

Saying "I did this in good faith", interestingly, does not mean that the speaker did the thing in good faith. It is possible to say one thing and mean another.

The hyperbolic reaction of a few people has done far more to put some of us on edge than anything in the book.

What captain yesterday said.

Also, you're going a long way to attack certain creators' work. I mean, you had to reach for an unreleased AP to make your attack. I know why certain parts of the Internet don't like Hell's Rebels, after all... and it's easy to see the connection between that and an AP led by Ms. Frasier.

It's probably nothing. Just curious, is all. Very curious.

"I don't understand despite a half-page of explanations in varying levels of detail = I'm being trolled and none of you could possibly be sincere."

My thoughts, in full:

So... trades bravery and half its bonus feats for 4/9 spellcasting, arcane pool, spell combat, spellstrike, and spell recall.

Hm.

Good to see nobody here is bitter.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

I think it's also important to realize that Paizo's way of doing this is essentially opportunistic. They didn't set out to write the Adventurer's Guide so they could fix the LW. They were going to reprint a bunch of books about important factions that had been out of print for ages. That was a good opportunity to fix the LW.

Fixing full casters would require reprinting half a dozen hardcovers at once and changing several hundred spells and feats. It's just a much more intractable problem.

So they fix what they can, not necessarily what needed fixing most. Still better than making everything abandonware.

(And yeah, I'm not sure I like the fix, but I could see the original problem.)

The problem with such an approach is taking from something (in this case, martials) yet again while doing nothing to address the other concern. If things happen enough times to a given type of character, push-back should not only be expected, but it should be consulted FIRST before attempting such a revision.

Sure, there'd be noise, but I'm reasonably certain that the signal (don't f' with the only decent knowledge/maneuver fighter archetype) would have made it through intact.

Which Golarion-based faction are all members of the base wizard class assumed to be part of? Which factions are the source of all the problematic spells?

Lore warden's been on the radar of at least one former Pathfinder Design Team member for a while. SKR may no longer be part of the team, but we can't know how anyone else at Paizo felt about it.

So... yeah. See overpowered* archetype, reprint overpowered archetype, fix overpowered archetype. I don't get why you're all talking about this like there's a conspiracy and an agenda, when what you're describing is the repair process.

*"Overpowered" being the perception of the writers/developers/etc. involved, not an incontrovertible statement of authority. Don't @ me, I don't care.

Let's circle back to a bit closer to the intention of the thread ;)

Good luck with that.

Being able to see a problem does not mean you're suitable to fix it.

Easy example:
"Hey, that airplane's wing fell off. You need to fix that."
"What, are you volunteering?"
"...I'm a writer."

In our defense, we mistook him for an aerospace engineer after he made a long list of criticisms and suggestions about how the (very much still-attached) wing needed to be improved.

Giant bloodline would be the worst idea ever, if not for the existence of Orcs of Golarion.

Anything involving simulacrum is so deep into rules ambiguity that it requires the direct involvement of the GM. Trying to make pronouncements like that is just begging for a massive derail.

I didn't know it was PFS legal, but that indicates to me that the PFS organizers and I agree that it isn't a problem.

Except that, after being legal for several years, it was removed from PFS legality - one of only a few mechanics to suffer that fate.

It appears that, after vigorous field testing, they reached a different conclusion.

If it's a unique creature, why is it a harbinger daemon instead of the harbinger daemon?

That's just silly.

I'm guessing that this is another case of d20pfsrd stripping the product identity from the statblock, making it confusing for anyone who doesn't have the real statblock. Since the only "harbinger daemon" in print thus far is Zelishkar of the Bitter Flame, it's probably his statblock you're actually looking at.

For bonus points, carefully craft a reputation for such arguments, then react with hostility when other posters judge your arguments based on that trend.

Step 1: Assume a position that is only supported by the rules in the absence of logic and reading comprehension, in a medium notorious for people arguing nonsense positions to cause trouble.

Step 2: React aggressively to any suggestion that you might be incorrect, or that you might be arguing nonsense (again, in a medium where this is a common practice).

Step 3: Repeat until the forums are utterly useless for actual questions.

An archetype focused on channeling lacks appeal to those who hate channeling. Shocking.

Inner Sea Taverns

What

The headsman swings the axe on the command of the judge. as does the gaoler.

In the Torturer's Guild, the Torturer carries out the will of the Autarch.

It's not exceptionally different.

Ah, yes. "We were just following orders". Truly, the argument of the righteous.

Something that grants immunity to weapon damage and to all non-harmless spells would be nice too.

And of course, 'Pathfinder Player Companion: One game-breakingly good feat in 32 pages of dross'

I mean...

Do you ever see an oddly combatative or controversial post and immediately check the post count of the poster, just to see if it came out of nowhere?

Given how thoroughly you've already gone over this, I suspect that if the changes you've demanded haven't been taken into account, another round won't get you anywhere.

Phantom of Truth wrote:

Let's just hope that the Supreme Court isn't utterly poisoned by then. :/

If it's just Gorsuch, then we're sort of back to where we were with Scalia, and we got marriage equality while Scalia was on the bench. So, not as sure a thing as it would have been with Garland, but still well possible.

Indeed. I'm just indescribably bitter about that entire situation.

What worries me is the possibility of another loss, from the left this time.

Let's just hope that the Supreme Court isn't utterly poisoned by then. :/