Physically Unfeasible's page

To be honest, I think this argument largely merits a mild reframe in that roleplaying is largely a) A game (therefore meant to be fun) and b) A storytelling tool.

In both lines of inquiry, I can see reasons to say a Paladin is typically banned from poisons (see the code heirarchy) but contrastingly, there are definite situations where it seems ridiculous to insist it's never OK.

Does it make for a fun game to say the player can't use substances to knock someone out instead of killing them? Maybe I run with too many paranoid murderhobos but that'd be a spark of originality. Not executing the veritable loose end. Plus, as a resolution to a situation where it looks like the only functional choice - because the notion of only doing such a thing when all other options are exhausted is nigh-explicitly in there - is (somewhat) clever. It's problem solving.

Secondarily, does it make for an interesting story/character arc that the Paladin falls and has to be redeemed because they used chloroform instead of knocking someone out (and possibly causing brain damage at that) or killing them? F#&~ no does it. That's dull. That smacks of a "good is stupid" message, and frankly makes anything moving forward vastly uncompelling. Now, falling for reckless endangerment, neglectful action, or unnecessary use related to using such a weapon? Sure. Fits the entire character trope perfectly. "You're not good because you don't actually think about honour/collateral". Heck, "You fell because you value your honour over protecting people" fits the conventional tropes.

Onto something I always find annoying in "Does the Paladin fall" threads:
The problem is that these arguments seem to view ethics as being purely from either a deontological or concequentialist perspective is a false dichotomy. It's not either the Paladin always obeys the Kantian categorical imperitive or is Machiavelli on crack. Judging choices, situation by situation, is a thing.

1. Still less than any deity, since they all act by GM fiat.

2. GM is the final arbitrator on Nature Oracle + Awaken. He can Rule 0 it out of existence.

That's a facile reply. A GM can rule 0 anything out of play.

Slim Jim wrote:

All creatures that are not immortal are less powerful (ultimately) that those who are immortal. According to Jacobs, Pharasma is the most powerful deity. Any mortal creature with a soul will eventually be judged by her.

It's a good thing wizards get "Immortality" as their level 20 discovery >:-)

Not really on topic, but because I find this funny. Immortality weirdly doesn't cause immortality:

On topic: Whichever deity JJ said last. Or whatever causes you to have a run of bad rolls.

Physically Unfeasible wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

We live in a universe where death always has consequences.

Really? Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Oh f#%@.

Meh. Don't worry too much. You can always get better.

Just watch your pronunciation. Seriously, I canNOT stress that enough.

I don't know, an old parlour game being what awaits me when I die is enough to justify Lichdom.

Because why not ignore the interesting morality thread for puns?

We live in a universe where death always has consequences.

Really? Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Oh f!$$.

For one: It's a bloody versatile system in that it can mechanically justify concepts I'd struggle to in just about another fantasy system at present.

Mild praising ramble below as well

It's one I don't normally see in these threads but:
Paizo's staunch want to be representative is laced throughout pathfinder. There is, whether we like to discuss it or not, a historic undercurrent of TRPGs holding a self-reinforcing white straight guy dominance. Art and writing that build into that did not help.
Sure, nothing stops someone sitting across from me who is outside this archetype but when they open a rulebook or adventure path and, once again, "don't fit" as it were? It's hardly a great avenue to encourage them to return.
Paizo got a platform and used it for social benefit. Even if you don't think this was necessary on their part, it helps erode the notion that a company can just avoid tackling these things. Not single-handedly but it helps. And will continue to.

The act of killing a good person causes a negative fluctuation in the Higgs field...

So...killing good people causes a short change in energy-mass relationships? To be fair, if true, that would mean killing good people probably makes other people fall over and stuff.

Good/evil isn't based on "bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number" but on following the rules, and the rules say Thou shalt not kill.

I wouldn't say it's always deontological but it's hard to think of an ethics code that justifies slaughtering good people even in a universe of objective, morally-bound afterlives.

Deontological argument? To port a bit of Kant badly, imagine if everyone did that! The mortal world would soon become endless suffering and evil would dominate forever.

Consequential? That guy might have done something helpful. Heck, you've reduced their impact on the parts of existence they operated with freedom of choice to do good. Good machines can be made easily, good people less so.

Virtue ethics? Doesn't sound courageous to me. Go kill someone who won't stop to say hello.

...Rawlsian? I'd both like a society with good people around and if I was a good person, would prefer to not be killed.

Well, clearly that's not the case. However, let's actually come up with a spell or class feature of the same name! It could even be a universal class archetype designed to be compatible with most class archetypes. You know, for double dipping in specialization. Though it would probably be easier if it were just a spell.

My personal thought is that it's the name of an extremely troll-ish mesmerist who mind controls people into having pointless arguments.

Anyway: The thing about many rules questions getting few answers is that they are either simple, and generally hold a consensus (Rogues do get multiple sneak attacks a round!) or the majority of posters (I presume here on in) don't feel knowledgeable enough to respond; How should I rule simulacrum tricks? I don't sodding know!
Then threads come up that are easy enough to understand the situation, and the event described but two separate interpretations are formed. Those get popular. Good or bad everyone holds some ideas about, and it requires no specialist knowledge to form an opinion is an act is evil - So Paladin fall threads go on until eternity.

The lattermost form of threads are fun to wind people up in. But I'm definitely not advocating trolling. Never! Except....how many hands is a bastard sword?

Physically Unfeasible wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

By taking a one level dip into something that can grant a familiar?

They already get a familiar. They need so many levels of a arcane spellcasting class, which makes no sense for this archetype.

So....they don't take it? It'd be a subpar option for them anyway unless a wand-monkey was that important to them.

Maybe for roleplaying? Maybe they thing a Pseudodragon would be the coolest thing ever?

Roleplaying? Pah. Aren't we all playing to make mechanically superior characters every time?

Stuff

All quite true. I had underestimated the value of disheartening display for such a build. Though if I may advocate: Eldritch Guardian 2/Bloodrager 4 with magical knack might alleviate the problem. Though you miss out on having a healthy glut of bonus combat feats, sadly.

James Risner wrote:

hiiamtom wrote:

This sounds like an animal companion problem, not a +1/2 level on revelations problem. 1/6 might as well be for a brand new revelation.

Pretty much all are busted.

OA clarified the "take a +x to blah before you get blah" to not working RAW, but I never used this cheese. Fixed the players from saying "but nothing is stopping me, there is no rule". Now there is.

I had a dark tapestry oracle with the +1/2 on the polymorph revelation and it was also pretty redonk. Without using cheese mentioned above.

Why is it that any time anything is ever effective ever you always call it cheese James?

Ignoring claims about posting histories (because (true or not) that doesn't actually attack the argument; just the poster), there is a validity in stating that boosting a revelation's level before you have/qualify for it is egregious. At minimum, it seems reasonable to doubt it's RAI. Let alone issues of RAW.

Outside of PFS, GMs can do whatever they want. It's only society play wear RAW matters more than GMs preference.

Personally, I have little issue with the errata. But frankly, ever time I hear this argument, I get a little annoyed. Primarily for the following reasons:

On topic: 1/2 was a bit broken for a number of revelations. Not just ACs, like the change or no. That said, I have yet to see anyone actually defend 1/6. Which does make me ponder if the balance was rightly struck (or if I have perception bias).
Now, the OP's plans:

aasimar oracle Lunar Mystery with a busted strong animal companion!

If your interest was primarily the AC, I'm partially tempted to recommend Nature over Lunar. I appreciate a Horse AC is weaker offensively at first glance but the ability to add your CHA to all its saves is something you will feel at later levels when a lunar AC starts dying from bad saves. The lack of charisma to reflex might seem a poor trade compared to charisma to CMD but Reflex is the weakest save in terms of what it stops. You won't miss it that much.

Bard-Sader wrote:

It's relevant in the fact that 99.9999999% of all other demons are evil, so there is reason for the paladin to be suspicious of the succubus.

Is it? I don't think so. This demon mattered here NOT the unknown number of other evil ones. Unless it is absolute that they can only be evil then it is evil to attack someone who is doing good deeds. It would be pretty obvious that the demon wasn't the normal variety just by its actions. He didn't even ask anything... Just attack on sight.

It's almost like Bard-Sader is suggesting that people commonly make inductive leaps based upon experiences despite that not being a rational, or in social contexts, fair thing to do.

So looking at the situation, in a setting where the 99.9999999% isn't too far off the mark:
A demon (usually explicitly* chaotic and evil) is among a group of people who can't defend themselves. Now this demon is LG, but experience suggests they are CE, and an immediate threat to those around them.
Disabling this threat is paramount from that perspective.
Really: A big delination from your real world analogies that would put me probably a lot more into your camp, were it not present, is the following: Pathfinder does not operate on a "death-is-the-end premise. In the case in question: A murder occurs. It occurs due to a misunderstanding but is reversible. If expensive. At that point, assuming that some resurrection is undertaken (no one is arguing no-fall if not reversing the crime in some way. It's generally agreed definitely evil, do not pass go), it's not really on any such scale as an offence.

*This is a key point, humans aren't wandering around as embodiments of chaos and evil.

The thing is, technological advancement never really stopped. There was no time the world went backwards. Bits of information and certain techniques were lost, but technology as a whole only ever progressed.

Actually: I'd have to disagree with this. Say our output per person as a species increased at an average rate of around 0.1% each year. That still means that our output as a species has increase on scales of 10^15 to ourselves 35000 years ago. Heck, considering our evident increase in the output of each person in the last century, and millenium beyond that - it becomes extremely questionable as to how advancement was not 0, or less at points of history.

I'm badly abstracting gdp per capita growing during history in the above.

Let's take Cayden Cailean for example. He ascended to godhood just under 2000 years ago. Close enough so that a good chronological comparison to us is Antiquity. Yet, when Cayden is depicted in art, he looks basically like he's from modern Golarion. Iomedae is the same. She looks like a modern Golarionite in her depictions but ascended 1000 years ago. The equivalent to us of the Dark Ages.

A possible reason is that deities in Golarion continue to have a presence and update fashions with the times. Considering this makes talking to worshippers not frequently involve discussions about the history of fashion, it seems plausible.

WillFULLy =/= WillINGLy

Did the paladin intend to do evil?

Huh...one mis-thought checking my definitions and it spawns a lot of unnecessary talk.

The above may or may not have been extremely "convenient."

If the table is flipped by an Oath against Furniture Paladin, does it complain about martial-caster disparity?

Firstly: I'd have to ask what you think overpowered is. From your description of the situation - you are managing to be significantly stronger than the rest of your party. Which, in a co-operative game, would be the closest you can get conceptually to being overpowered, the fact that the options you have are as present to your fellow players as they are to you, does not mean that the disparity in power is non-existent.
A second line that I feel a need to follow with, however: This doesn't make you either a terrible person, or mean you should leave the table. But you should (from my perspective) use what appears to be an evidently greater strength with the rules and mechanics to help your players. Or ask your GM to - since their options to deal with the disparity are larger (and contain more subtle options).

Last note: Mythic is a bit of a mess anyway in that it can break very easily. Unsurprising to see you have. Also, while you made those rolls fairly - they are very high.

Assuming it's about Lovecraftian horror, there better be an opportunity to ram a colossal creature with a ship, or the entire AP is terrible. Regardless of writing, encounter design, and anything else that could be excellent. :P

That is the whole point. Who in their right mind would actually want to be "saved" from that?

Given the amount of ways that are discussed to avoid fatigue and exhaustion: Barbarians.

The problem is avoiding the shaken condition for knowing your career peaked right there and then.

My husband's gaming group had this problem. Their current solution? They are running a home-based PFS campaign using modules and a rotating GM roster.

Trying this out is highly recommendable. Partially because it might help toss ideas into the fold that weren't there before, and promote a bit of empathy when you ask your players "please don't do X". Your group's X being fight each other. Partially because it might tell you, after they've sat behind the screen, if someone in particular is a problem. And lastly, because it's a soft excuse to take a break from a GM'ing style you don't like without the burden of GM'ing regularly.

I think a more productive solution would be to bring down the optimization ceiling a bit, but to also raise the optimization floor of the game so that GMs of even moderately optimized players don't need to do so much work to make resources like the Bestiary and NPC codex usable.

A problem that has sought solution in d20 since around 2000, let alone 2003 and 2009. Though a reduced ceiling would actually do much of the latter job described there. The floor is easier to launch from, than the ceiling to launch to. Though I am loathe to recommend methods as HWalsh gave above.

I think a trap option is more akin to someone thinking a vanilla str/dex fighter who fights with a bastard sword in each hand is going to be awesome because 2d10 damage!1!1!

The rules exist to make that fighter, but because he has to split his pb between strength and dex, burn an extra feat on proficiency, and eat -4 penalties on all his attacks I'd say the odds are not in his favor. That probably won't be apparent to someone starting out though.

This is one of those points at which I'd have to say GM'ing is annoying work. Partially in trying to find ways to help that fighter get good without having to curb their idea. Even if you know the system well (and thus don't have rules legwork), you have legwork to show that player better ways to execute their concept. Sometimes tackling some very simple assumptions that just aren't true (like that flavour text matters). That doesn't refute what a trap option is, but it's why as I put above, dropping the ceiling is an easier first step. Because tackling the player who figured out a terrifying power build means telling someone they're being a dick if they run it. And few like hearing that or saying that.

Problem still exists that you have a lot of legwork to deal on either end. And both ends are the Martial/Caster disparity, in a more generalized term.

I get it that there are people that really take some alignment to become a character impossible to play in a group. But that is what a bad player does, not what a bad alignment does.

This is rather why some (or many) people limit available alignments. Because the problem isn't by necessity the alignment but that a player who fits into the concept of that guy might decide to play it to the disruptive extreme.

- Does having more accessible and visible introductions to our new design/development staff sound like something you want? (Either through our blog via tags or maybe our contact page?) Is there something we can do to the forums themselves to make employees more visible?

As someone threw upthread - a simple bio, or (and this is arguably two birds with one stone for following their posts) even a prominent collection of links to their forum profiles, would massively increase visibility.

- How would you prefer to see new FAQs communicated to the community? Is that in the form of a blog series, or is it a series of threads?

FAQs as they are, are probably fine. I know it has been advocated that the pattern of a trickle is maintained; rather than large dumps (like the errata have been) but I am personally an advocate of giving FAQs in lumps. If only because this then means they can be announced in some form. Heck, pre-announced if reflecting the above. Appreciably, devs can't weigh in on threads to say "I'd run it X" because X is then taken as a final ruling but provided there is both a treatment of such posts as not-an-FAQ-or-rule-change*, this would be a useful mechanism for floating FAQs/errata before making them official FAQs/errata.

*Although, this is a community thing - but promotable to make any volunteered input on contentious rules discussions useful/plausible.

- Knowing how we've handled errata up until now, what would you change? If it's a blog, what general information would you like to see us include?

Errata as mistake correction has never been contentious, so no need to discuss that. Still, I personally don't mind rules changes happening in future. But an input of intent, even briefly, before the fact - would go a long way to: a) Building in time for the player base to accept a change b) Prompting a discussion on what would be a good fix to something

*Was Unchained a sneaky overhaul of the d20 system to alleviate that, without killing backwards compatibility, by making it optional? :P

- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

Just a link or mouseover text, to indicate previous text would be fine. Nothing too obvious when reading.

- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

Personally not fussed. But can't deny the demand given above.

- Polls have been mentioned here, and in the past we've done a *couple* playtest surveys. If we did have polls, what do you invision them being used for? What kind of content justifies a poll versus a feedback thread in your mind?

Mostly contentious issues. Those who have neutral, or status-quo opinions, or simply those not willing to weigh into topics that can, if we admit it, get acidic - are given a voice. The debate then hinges less on those who are ready/willing to defend and make strong opinions heard.

Guys. Is game. Doesn't matter that much.

I'll have you know that a gentleman is threatening my execution if Pathfinder isn't a perfect RPG by Monday. Well actually, he said it was over some crippling debt, but I know what he really means.

He also says to tell you no one is actually threatening me.

CrimsonVixen wrote:

The Random Gamemaster wrote:

Lathiira wrote:

CrimsonVixen wrote:

I am in the process of redecorating my house, do not make me have the Halfling construction crew install lead sheeting in the drywall. You are welcome to provide a suitable combat arena to practice this, but some things are just private.

I'll happily help you redecorate, and I appreciate the privacy too. Outside observation might interfere with the experiment.

Praise Inanna for incorporeal form

Our Lady in Shadow would probably be displeased if you try to witness her rituals without an appropriate offering.

Could I bring a second succubus for an offering?

Depends - will she grapple the audience? I would be most excit-Disrupted from my valuable research if that occurred!

If you cast haste on a succubus, would that allow speed dating, or at least a quickie? What if she has rapid grappler?

Well I know it makes the evening very disappointing cast on an Incubus. So I suppose it would speed things up.

Plot twist: If a redeemed succubus paladin grappled a non-redeemed succubus, does she fall?

EDIT: Should I go poke Kobold Cleaver with a stick?

Don't tell him! I want to see how long it takes!

Trawling through the list because I am thoroughly enjoying this thread's ideas/points.

Here are my ideas for smoothing out the classes...

• 1) When making characters, no starting ability scores above 16, or below 10 after racial adjustment.

On an opposite end of responses: Use higher point-buy/roll systems. Sure, casters will still sit on maybe a 20 post racials for their casting stat but the martial character now actually has every ability score they wanted to a decent amount.

• 2) Remove hold person and dominate person from the game.

Hold person actually isn't nearly as bad as many spells. What with a will save every round. Dominate is tactically strong, but not massively egregious. I'd personally flirt with hours duration, longer casting, and a level higher spell slot. The former two are definite. The latter, not sure.

• 3) 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells take at least a full round action to cast.

A cool idea. Especially interesting if put in conjunction with up-thread metamagic only to these slots.

• 4) Spells with a duration of days/level get changed to hours/level. Some permanent spells might have their duration reduced.

Agreeable. Nothing to add.

• 5) Remove quicken spell from the game, or make it apply only to spells with a range of personal.

On this - remove swift action spells (some exist). There are also some immediate action ones but they are actually fine, in my opinion.

• 6) Remove or rewrite stupid s&*& like dazing spell meta-magic, witches slumber hex, and other obviously broken stuff.

Same as 4). Personally not too upset about these. But that may be just me.

• 7) I would sit down with the players and explain that I don't like to play with a lot of action denial techniques. RPG-Tag is not a fun way to play. This applies on both sides of the screen. I don't want to consistently take a player out of action with save-or-suck and for similar reasons, I don't want players using those tactics on my named NPC/monsters.

It depends really. A boss enemy should probably receive some arbitrary buffs to make sure they won't suffer it, and have minions. Indeed, the best way to just stop the silliness of these things is don't make encounters 1 or 2 enemies.

• 8)Consider crafted items the same as purchased when determining Wealth By Level. I would also make master craftsman into a more useful feat.

Alternatively: Stop having crafting (excluding temporary items) altogether. Again, Unchained helps is offering the Automatic Bonus Progression system. So you aren't fretting over the right number of +1s and +3s on your players but instead throw out loot based on "this is cool and helps them do X thing".

Thanks for trying to answer what you can, Chris.

Seconded. Even without design specific feedback, the information provides a valuable level of context.

I'd think (giving benefit of the doubt) it was already going to be so, but I stress a desire that the explanation is comprehensive. Even at the risk of waiting longer. Mostly to create useful grounds for the inevitable responding (good/bad).

I actually wouldn't contend that for a sizable chunk of content. Indeed, it's seemingly impossible to counter-argue it. However, I will contend that a majority of released content has been balanced, and usable. Part of the problem I would say however, is that there are plenty of sacred cows right at the baseline of the system (Wizards.) who significantly sit above the deemed optimization level. So to put it, were it not for there being some significantly powerful options in the Core, some under-powered content would get a look-over.

Poe's law strikes again.

Yes, my post was sarcasm. I was agreeing with you.

Well that's egg on my face.

Reading Sacred Geometry makes me want to kick puppies.....

...I'd recommend not being that invested.

Cheapy wrote:

If anything, the increase the availability of options at the tables I play at, as the options were banned previously.

If the feats are so bad that no one will ever take them then are they really worth calling options?

Does the set(trap options) belong to the set(options)?

The thing that drives me absolutely bonkers is that they keep nerfing the few interesting and good options martial characters get. It is starting to feel like they are actively trying to force players into certain tired old playstyles.

...
I haven't felt that way in a while. Its getting to the point that I'm considering jumping ship and moving on to 5th edition. I don't want to do that because I don't actually enjoy learning new systems all that much, but at this point I have lost a lot of confidence in Paizo's ability to put out balanced and interesting content.

Personally, while I've heard it called "everyone's 2nd favourite game" (which is a claim you don't have to exist on one ship), I would counter that Pathfinder remains a fun system. The presence of Occult Adventures would at least say that new options are coming in. And I haven't heard massive complaints about its balance...yet.

But I don't want a game where you 'have to' take some choices. Hence nerfs can be in favor of the players.

I know! It's truly awful that there are must-have options in the system! I keep seeing melee characters take power attack, wizards take spell focus, archers take precise shot...

Don't be silly. Paizo just prefers factual playtest evidence over fictional "armchair theorycrafting".

Are you suggesting that theorycrafting is not a valid form of analysis? Because I'd have to say that sitting down and performing mathematics is our most concrete method of determining why, say sacred geometry, is terribly problematic.

Because playing fallacy man is always a giggle:

The onslaught of complaints shows that too many powergamers have no concept of actual roleplay.

Stormwind fallacy.

I also find it interesting that a glance through the forum archives reveals the endless complaints that Paizo doesn't care about game balance.

Now low and behold - they care "too much" about balance.

What a world. What a world. Goldilocks can't find a bed to sleep in.

Hasty generalization.

More seriously - people can hold legitimate complaints (I personally actually have few real dogs in recent fights and mostly just enjoy the discussion) about X and still care for Y. Particularly when X and Y can be co-dependent factors in a system.
Secondarily, the idea that: a) The people complaining are one homogeneous whole or that b) If they are, they must hold opinions on one extreme or another, rather than perhaps maintaining a more moderated position; Strikes me as so patently stupid that I have to confess, I am wondering if I've been baited! That is probably overly harsh, but I say it to ask for a clarification of some provocative statements.

Joe Hex wrote:

By the time errata is up, my group and I usually already have homebrew fixes for the stuff that bothers us. We're pretty warded against unwanted nerfs.

How does it work for people who do Pathfinder Society organized play? Does everything change each time they update errata?

In a home game sure, you can ignore unwanted nerfs.

I know I harp on about this a bit but:

Power at the expense of uniqueness seems less like a "buff", less like a "nerf", and more like a "smooth". Let's smooth out that pesky archetype into a nice, flat, featureless plain. ;P

Now now, you totally have features! You still get a natural armor boost...that you probably won't actually utilize because d6 with CON secondary at best does not scream "melee!"

I kinda hope they go through and nerfstomp everything from every book released so far just to see the inevitable conclusion of this philosophy (People abandon ship en maasse).

Whether those of us who enjoy CharOP engage in a mass exodus or not; a large number of groups probably just don't care. Heck, some of the stuff we've seen go (Divine Prot., now SWD) I've known a majority of GMs near me ban (GMs that bother with errata at FAQs at that). Assuming that sample is at all valid, such fixes do amount to increasing options for many people.

Actually...I suspect many would still seek to ban Scarred Witch Doctor (or cry that half-elves and half-orcs should lose the other races effects stuff - which is actually a very s%~!ty prospect (it neatly reflects an idea of these being versatile)) since being a pseudo-two higher in your casting stat for very little trade-off otherwise is pretty obvious. I mean, half-orc is not a bad race - so why not play one? You'll be a better Witch at negligible cost!

Endoralis wrote:

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are trying to be funny.. instead of wholly ignorant.

I'll cop to any amount of ignorance, but I'd be happy for you to inform me if you can do so without hyperbole.

To be fair - tarring a swath of concerns with an insulting brush does invite hyperbolic response.

I mean, the post amused me, but I can see it being taken in poor taste.

And an alignment restriction and a code of conduct which makes a lot of people unhappy to be in the same group as your character. Paladin is balanced out by the roleplaying aspect, which is much more restrictive than with any other class.

I really must wholly disagree here. Partially because I'd say JJ is right when he complains about the grand-fathering in of Paladins. When you balance something on roleplaying against mechanical balance, you really are hitting something that strikes as awful design.

I don't actually promote that you should but the reference was in my head

Edit: Eh, the more I think about the changes, the less invested I am anyway. The book had some options many people thought was too strong. Some weak. The fact that options are now "in the ground useless" to many eyes just means they'll be ignored.
Or, to try an explain my premise: An over-powered option will effect gameplay by being desirable, or meaning GMs intervene to ban things. An under-powered option gets ignored, and gameplay is totally uneffected because everyone ignores it.
Was Pathfinder fun pre-ACG? Yes. Does the ACG still contain non-zero changes to options when playing? Yes.

We're still better than before its release. Content from the book is still enjoyable. To wit: People still enjoy core rulebook feats, even if combat expertise remains terrible design.

Sissyl wrote:

Lathiira wrote:

Maybe we should redesign the succubus using the rules for monsters in Unchained in order to fix a few of these problems....

Ravish, grope, fondle, involve in an act of passion, chain up, grapple... But REDESIGN??? That is like a violation of an entirely different order of magnitude.

Oh, but maybe in the redesign, we can actually define 'act of passion'? Or figure out what VMC is best for the succubus to pursue? I mean, that's a whole question right there.

Two pages, and this remains unconsidered. I mean, order of the penitent (narrowly dodged that) cavalier seems obvious to me. Sadly that code just doesn't seem right. I mean, why would a domina - Succubus be merciful?

Does she dole out her kisses as a free action? That seems rather gauche.

When a Succubus is dealing with a group, the optimal strategy is to get the everyone to go down, and to get her o- No, sorry - Get off her, as quickly as possible. In such a sticky situation, I'd think that for acts of passion, anything goes. And she means anything.

We are using Dex instead of Str in these cases.

We have rules for 1.5 STR to damage.

Can someone show me rules for 1.5 DEX to damage, because we are no longer doing STR on our attacks and the rules on 1.5 STR to damage no longer matter.

To be slightly less hyperbolic than my previous two posts (though I still personally find the concept, rules-wise, just plain silly):

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon

Whenever she[the Rogue] makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll. If any effect would prevent the rogue from adding her Strength modifier to the damage roll, she does not add her Dexterity modifier.

Excluding quibbles over bonus =/= modifier, I fail to follow the claim at which simply replacing strength with dexterity in the first quote due to the second doesn't lend to 1.5 dex.

<snip>

That is a fair point. And further egg on my face for gross mis-readings.

Now stop bringing up UA; it had so many good ideas people now ignore. Which is saddening.

I have heard of this mauler familiar, but I have yet to see a build for one.

RD had one a while back, under the *ahem* amusing thread title "Behold my might battle cock". While not mass optimization (I mean, a chicken familiar?), it's a starting ground.

Standard action summons are a pretty large part of why the summoner is busted, IMO. The action economy benefits are too great and allow the summoner to play the full caster and full martial roles with equal aplomb.

I don't allow Sacred Summons either, for the record.

That...doesn't really add a massive change in the rate of power for playing a conjuration character, however. At least, no more than having an extremely high initiative (which that playstyle already demands). On the round you summon, you still aren't going to be attacking anything. Thusly, whether summoning is a full round or a standard action for you makes little difference to fulfilling roles.

But it's not a change anymore than unearth arcana changed the rules.

I also don't get if your points are supposed to support mine or go against it since the "new" summoner is really the houserule version. It is just a houserule presented by Paizo, just like called shots in Ultimate Combat.

It was against. I personally appreciate its houserules (and houserules that for my complaint, I'll probably snap up) but my problem mostly arises in people seeing it as an update, errata and revision. Since I'd have to posit that, assuming less things are available concepts subsequently, there's a problem in the approach.

Then again, from what I'm reading in this thread, there's not a massive trade-off in numbers of options between the two.

The problem is that it's not as strong as it used to be.

Which is why there is all the whining.

Yes. All complaints that exist are due to a weaker iteration of summoner existing. No one, anywhere, could have a legitimate issue with it.

A general note I do have on the reduction in evolution points: I do fear that approach, rather than making things cost more, does bring a bit of a rich-get-richer scenario to the factor that Half-Elves already made good summoners.
In a paradigm where a primary complaint to the SLA ruling was about certain races being significantly better for a class, it does strike as a weird move.

Am I the only one who thinks that this is likely to lead to a LOT of power creep?

As has been said, you're probably not the only one.

Sure, beefing up the ftr is no huge deal. But do druids really need to be able to rage? Do wizards and clerics need more options?

He doesn't need it; but I personally wouldn't lose sleep over it. A Druid is far worse when wildshape is just a survivability boost rather than a combat style.

Ventnor wrote:

Joe M. wrote:

Cthulhudrew wrote:

Devilkiller wrote:

I find the continued complaints about the Fighter class before we've even seen the book kind of tiring.

Slight modification, but otherwise, I nominate this quote for the new forum motto! :D

Fixed that. :-P

Double-fixed.

m-m-m-mega fixed.

No longer sticking words in people mode! Because, you know, saying "I have an emotional distaste for criticism of as yet unread material" is hardly buying a platform of blind faith.

Quote:

The problem with low skill ranks has clearly been addressed.

Errr...has it? Those two skill ranks you're not allowed to spend on anything useful fix the "Fighters don't have enough ranks to fill in their useful skills" problem? How?

Seconded. We don't actually necessarily have anything to tell us if the problem has been addressed. Really, the fix varies wildly in use by the way we fold down to 12. That, and the multi-classing concept.

"No. And you know what? &#*@ you, Jim, for even trying that. Get the &#*@ out of my table."

I'm glad this thread was slightly necro'ed, if only so I can make the following query:

Not an extremely strong use (or massive shenanigans), but since people mentioned catfolk, may I direct them to their favored class bonus for Bards? Because, you know, the Rogue doesn't get eclipsed enough as a skill monkey.

Concerning stuff like Tail Slap and other things...

If the character doesn't have the physical qualities need to effect the use of the feat/ability, you can't use it. (If you don't have a Tail, you can't Tail Slap.)

And to offer a citation.

Druid, + Racial Heritage(Ogre) + Corrupted Flesh + Pungent Stench + Improved Stench + Toxic Stench + Ability Focus + Amplify Stench = Stinkor!

Make it a Half-Orc with squalid and/or scavenger alternate racial traits, and you could simply call yourself a murder hobo. With stereotypical stench.

I appreciate all the serious advise that should be engaged in (though I seriously cannot think of a way to top (half?) Orc Scarred Witch Doctor.
But why am I the only one thinking of this?

Anyway, would recommend getting a bite whichever you go with. Fill out attack options when not just polymorphing into a different creature.

We've been dealing with this succubus grappling a female druid for a few years now.

To be honest, it's the sheer stamina I'm baffled by.

When you say Core, do you mean the core rulebook specifically, or a set of books considered core?
In the former case, must say archetypes.

CRB

Thanks for the quick reply - definitely keeping my answer then. :)

There are DMs who - yes, they do exist - claim that the MONK is overpowered and ban those.

I can't help but feel this line alone invalidates claims that GMs banning stuff in home games is any indicator towards balance as an argument.

Amusement aside;

The vast bulk of [threads about summoners] never use the word audit, but that's what it comes out to when you look at people who brought up eidolon questions, we'd find out that they added their points wrong, or they used abilities without paying for pre-reqs. There were tons of building threads and many of them had audinting problems even if the word wasn't used.

Maybe I'm being over-cautious, but having seen no seconding of this claim after the first couple of pages makes me skeptical as to the truth of that statement.

Actual arguing;

It IS a complex class, perhaps the most complex class in the game.

Not really sure that could be stipulated when the wizard exists. Anecdotes aren't data but I've found it took a lot more legwork to explain the wizard to new players in the past few years than the summoner.

.

In general, however - a point does persist that whilst we are stipulating somewhat in the dark until we have the book, the reality exists that the posting of an updated concept (particularly if adopted in PFS) will be seen as a more legitimate baseline for running the rules at tables, home games or otherwise. Changing the design formula, or offering a revised one, does have an impact in the general perception of what is balanced.
An absurdist example, but were power attack to be reworded as 3.5 had it, it would be guaranteed that within a couple of months or so, people would insist pathfinder's current iteration was overpowered and broken and mad, that one should run nothing but the new one because the designers know what they're doing. Anyone complaining about the nerf is a filthy power gamer, so forth.
In the same sense, the summoner has options which can be called broken. So do plenty of other classes. This doesn't by necessity mean that they are entirely always bad.
Hence, one can't help but see a view, that the OP's expectation, is that is needs reigning in with some streamlined (see: Less options) design as taking the feedback of some bad examples to create a nerf.

But oh well, we all know choice is a terrible thing to offer people. I mean, can you imagine? Ugh.
Yes, I am joking

Vis-a-vis "classic" vs "trope" and in general:
The classic concept isn't massively different to the trope when playing an RPG. Mostly on the ideas of a game world vs a novel. In a novel, you have the evident factor that the person is reading for a story. Conversely, gaming (video and tabletop) has a huge world-interaction element. Pictures painting 1,000 words, so to speak. When your medium is the written word alone, you don't need to mention the pans, workspace, stove, etc - in a picture, it would look strange without, and a gameworld would be accusably unfleshed/incomplete without. The idea of irrelevant details is a bit fuzzy.
That isn't to say you have to give the precise interaction of every bit of dust (Victor Hugo's 500 pages-of-Paris-porn is insufferable enough, a game doesn't need it) but that a detail you don't expect to be made use of still has a place in a scene. Primarily on a distinction given above; is it interact-able? This is where you meet the classic idea, while simultaneously giving the tools for the trope anyway. Not a single detail is irrelevant because the details given have use.

But oftentimes the players will latch on to something and then drive the plot in that direction, and I would have to stumble to keep up. So if I adhere to Chekhov's gun in the first place, I won't have that issue, but I feel my game will suffer from a lack of detail. I think there is a line somewhere and I was hoping it was more well defined. However, it seems there is a number of different approaches, which have given me cause for thought. So, thank you! And continue, please :)

Conversely, this problem exists. A great possibility exists here with many details which slightly breaks the above but provides that wondrous tool of a red herring; the cigar is just a cigar. Let players invest time in researching the wrong detail; then let the actual plot catch up on them; well done for taking down a smuggler's ring, you know there is a cult you were investigating, right?

"Wahla"

I'm sorry what

One assumes he meant "Voilà". And thus, voilà! I elucidate.

In general, while this trick is amusing, and arguably works - that is a huge investment for some cover.
That said, yes, tower shields aren't useless if you have a desperate need for cover. Should probably drop them the moment you're up close to (presumably) the people shooting you though.

But, later on in levels when you have gold to spare, it's certainly worth looking at.

At later levels, surely one wants to use their familiar as some UMD abuser? At least, I thought that was the general consensus (Even if this image is amusing, and I'm doing it instead anyway).

THIS is precisely the source of my reticence. The above code of "honor" sounds like a recipe for disaster, chaos at the table, PVP action and a rapid descent into evil. No way would that mesh with the lawful good paladin in the party, not to mention any sort of normal party cohesion, or such routine acts as dividing the loot or negociating delicate diplomatic or investigative situations.

Still, I'm ready to give the Inquisitor of Calistria a shot, if the player decides to go for it.

Being brutally honest against the posters above; an antipaladin code of a deity as an interpretation is a poor example with said class is well, a paragon of CE. In the same vein, a Paladin of Irori would veer wildly from normal expectation.

• I take what I desire, by trick or by force. If others resent my actions, they may attempt to take vengeance against me.
  
• All slights against me will be repaid tenfold.

Both seem very much chaotic evil specific.

As to fitting someone of a chaotic good, "let people do what they want, it's not hurting" into a Paladin led campaign, assuming players who won't throw punches over the slightest disagreement, it can work very well as a small inter-party conflict.
Say, dealing with a sadistic noble (for an old trope); the Paladin tries to take them to court, tries to reform a system that was put in said person's favour. The inquisitor, meanwhile, just straight up kills them because the Paladin method means suffering in the meantime.
Or, for your words "save-the-widows-and-orphans". Paladin tries to find a building to serve as a shelter when the previous orphanage is burnt down; the CG inquisitor seeks out the arsonist. Basically; different priorities - same ends.
I reiterate personally held opinion that these conflicts can be fun. :P

Given that the interpretations all seem to come off "concentration". I think I should look more like;

"Ask yourself a question, does the ability require concentration checks under any conditions? There's your answer."

Not joining in with some slight ire here; I maintain the point is valid. After all, nothing in the rules dictates such that it would be impossible. More pertinently; show me where either interpretation of rage is part of the rules (and hence a baseline assumption) for how the rage ability functions.
Both sides are valid in how they assume rage works, the problem is that this makes neither invalid. I could play a Barbarian who undergoes TF2's Pyro's hallucinations as my rage, fluff wise. Nothing pertains that is right or wrong.
Thus, to the original point, the only arguing premise for this is that which the rules explicitly state. The rules do not state that sneak attack requires concentration (i.e. The mechanics term) when raging (again, a mechanics term) thus they can act mutually. One can argue since sneak attack only requires you to be able to see a vital spot - it's entirely intuitive a maneuver.

I know some gms who dont like seeing CN on your character sheet because their previous experience would make the alignment seem like the player had 'moral/ethical tourettes'

Kinda gettin off topic though.

True. Though to be on topic (which, as someone made demonstrable above - is a brick wall vs brick wall situation):

Like many a poor poster before me, I feel we should probably make a demonstration through satire (and/or tweaking the argument to a new application).

So what do I think is wrong with the wizard?

Chanting and waving arms around.

I can't get behind the idea of a guy who flaps their arms around in battle. There's not much of an argument to be made here, this is just my gut reaction. Whether it's throwing a fireball, making the room foggy, you name it. When the Ogre comes crashing through the gate, you better be swinging an axe, shouting your war cry or doing something cool.

1) But it's magic!
This represents a flavour I object to. While I get that worshipping some being of immense power is no more irrational than reading books. One strikes me as normative, the other as very nerdy.

OK...My heart's not in it. But I must take ire with this:

What I will say is that I find the cries of bigotry to be a load of b.s. In my circle of friends, weather I DM or play, we play hypermasculine characters in a gritty, dark setting. There is nothing wrong with being effeminate but it has no place at our table or in our games. In a world based off prejudiced medieval Europe homosexuality or flamboyant behavior is NOT okay, nor is worshiping the wrong god or badmouthing the king. These reflect the attitudes of the setting and our desire to emulate the cruelty of certain historical settings.

So, you use an escapist medium to play big burly muscular men in a gritty world. And whilst you say you have no issue with people who act effeminate, it has no place in the medium to which you apply your escapism. Particularly since you want to emulate those grimdark medieval times.

I hate hate hate this attitude. Don't limit your players because you lack the imagination to make it fit. I'm running a game set in Victorian London - when one of my players wanted to play a Chinese monk I didn't say, "Oh nope, it's racist in that time period so whites only."

Wouldn't be an accurate reason to refuse. Empire, and all that.

I (and many men) have unknowingly internalized a double standard

The problem with your argument is that it relies on the premise this internalization in our culture isn't inherently bias against LGBT groups.

As much as it would aid my inquisitor, I'm inclined to say no. No real reason why. I just am. Not a wording thing, it's just that it's not a Slayer class ability. Maybe if the Sanctified Slayer picked up other Slayer class abilities too, that would be okay, but they'd have to be ones shared by Slayers. It just seems RAI.

So...It seems to be a thing based on reading and interpretation. Which itself is (ideally) based on reason, but you have no reason for it?

More on thread:

Okay, so I gain the slayer's studied target class feature and I use my inquisitor level as my effective slayer level to determine the effects of studied target.

A perhaps semantic point, but if your inquisitor level is sitting in place of a slayer level, would that not make for a whole-hearted replacement of referencing slayer with inquisitor? Since, as given above by Deadkitten:

A slayer can study an opponent he can see as a move action. The slayer then gains a +1 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks attempted against that opponent, and a +1 bonus on weapon attack and damage rolls against it.

If we strictly demand levels must be referenced for the equivalence to function, the entire thing fails to function. After all, the slayer can... - OK, great - what slayer? This guy is an inquisitor. The slayer over there? Here? The enemy slayer?

First, let me clear up what kinda game me and my friends play. For us, RPG is a mathematical dispute to see who can defeat the other using all the rules available, so we don't really care from where Monk's Ki comes from, if it's from his soul, his mind, his body, the spirit of his grampa or midichlorians, what we do care is that it does 2d10 base damage at lvl 20 (I said I personaly don't like this base damage gets bigger when they increase in size, but that's just my opinion).

That's perfectly fine; but the problem with your questioning it comparatively is that your approach is absolutely at odds with the game's design philosophy. So questioning this on the back of "why do fists ever do as much damage as a sword?" whilst saying you don't care for the background flavour make the discussion impossible. Because the flavour is entirely why it happens. Balance is just a happy accident that does (or doesn't) happen.

With that in mind, I still belive the monk has the potential to be one of the strongest melee warriors. It has claw like base damage, no off-hand (all attacks do full STR damange, like a monster) and full BAB when Flurry. It's like, at lvl 20, he's a naked Ranger with 2 right arms, each holding a Fullblade.

Consider the following; does the Monk get any means to boost his chance to hit an enemy beyond BAB? Because a Ranger does. So does a Fighter. Same for Paladin, Barbarian and well, every other full-BAB class.

He has access to some unique bonuses that other classes will have a hard time to get while it's easier for him to acquire other static bonuses to compensate for the other classes have that he doesn't. With a good combination of prestige class, archtype, Feats and magic items, he'll have all the other static bonuses the other classes have and more.

Personally, I'd like to lay down a gauntlet on this part (which argues against the above); post such a Monk.

For the record, a well build Monk, with at least one base unarmed damage improvement while still at medium size, be it from something like Powerfullbuild, Improved Natural Attack or wtv, with an easy increase to Huge size, would have:

I have kind of laid it on thick already but I feel a need to make it explicit anyway;

Physically Unfeasible wrote:

Gnomezrule wrote:

I would suggest some variant of arcanist. I mean you want your hose to be prepared for specific things but you also want it to be spontaneous not so stodgy. You know not to formal but could still whip up an impromptu heroes feast.

You know what? If we're referencing actual classes;

Rogue.
Bonus points if you focus on stealth.

I think this one has been done before...

Not sure which is more threatening...

I would suggest some variant of arcanist. I mean you want your hose to be prepared for specific things but you also want it to be spontaneous not so stodgy. You know not to formal but could still whip up an impromptu heroes feast.

You know what? If we're referencing actual classes;