Prak_Anima's page

2. The frontline support is second to none. The Paizo staff is active on the message boards and the consumers of the game have a real chance to influence what sort of game it is by being able to communicate directly with Paizo on these message boards.

Depends on who the consumer is. I think it's been perfectly well proven that anyone who talked about 3.5's real problems was ignored or smacked down, while people who debated which barely noticeable small number to give a class or how much more powerful than fighters druids should be (not whether or not they should be, how much more so), were listened to.

So is it just me or do these so-called den-izens take turns coming over here and throwing down gauntlets? If the den is so much better why go anywhere else? Especially here.

Because you like the attention and we're lemmings enough to give it to you. Silly us.

I know it's hard...but if Sebastian et.al. would stop responding they'e just go away.

honestly, this is true, the other denizens have forsaken this place. I said my peace trying to help, now I'm just checking the responses to my posts because this is fun.

Sebastian wrote:

Prak_Anima wrote:

really it's the fact that you have no clue about what you're talking about in most debates against denizens, or at least what we're talking about, and refuse to even try and figure it out. and you were after frank's nuts at every turn, and I happen to like frank. even the people at the den that don't feel any particular way about him will probably defend him out a sense of society.

I missed where that happened in this thread - can you point it out? Or should we just generally scorn and attack Lich-Loved because he disagreed with Frank at some point in the past and it got heated on both sides? Is he ever permitted to post anything here on Paizo, or does the wrongness of his actions forever taint him and require that we challenge everything he might say?

Yes. The same way you must be challenged at all turns. Your illusionary reign of lawful terror is over! ;)

Prak: ...so I don't get it, why rail against moderation on a board you have, by your own admission above, no investment in?

Can we stay away from the forum wars?

because I was trying to help by pointing out the stupidity of this new rule(silly me, trying to help paizo... I should know better by know) and because this is getting fun...

the den is the Gaming Den, a much more loose forum where we don't really need to censor ourselves too much... it's not a gulag for trolls, we denizens just have a reaction to the magical radiation of bytopia that causes us to polymorph when too much of it builds up in our systems...

Ahhh...I see. So, it's a vendetta/personal grudge. How cute! I bet he rues the day he tangled with the den.

the point of this post was? I mean, other than being a jerk... :)

Prak_Anima wrote:

what's not making sense?

Ohh, I dunno. Random personal insults against "moderators"? How is that helping you make whatever case you're trying to make?

The only way those insults make sense is if you're trying to provoke us into suspending you so you get to a) make your point about thuggish moderation, and b) get bragging rights. I don't think I want to play that game at the moment.

Oh, well what about put into the context of "I have a low opinion of most moderators, especially when I know people who have been banned because the mod had a personal vendetta?"

ok, scratch that... Roy wasn't banned by a mod, iirc, he was banned by a developer... but I don't know for certain...

but seriously, it's not me trying to get banned to become a martyr or for bragging rights, I just have a low opinion of mods, and I've become accustomed to a forum where I don't need to censor myself.

Lich*- alright, this is true, every board is a different landscape, and the den just happens to be somewhere between Acheron and Ysgard, while Paizo is, well, bytopia.

and yes, Lich, you are a Paizoan king, at least as much as Frank is a "king" at the den.

I missed where that happened in this thread - can you point it out? Or should we just generally scorn and attack Lich-Loved because he disagreed with Frank at some point in the past and it got heated on both sides? Is he ever permitted to post anything here on Paizo, or does the wrongness of his actions forever taint him?

See, there are these funny things known as reputations and memories, so it really doesn't matter that it didn't happen on this thread, it matters that it happened at all, and that I'm a denizen first, and a Paizoan a hell of a lot further down the list, just above "queen of england".

Sebastian wrote:

Lich-Loved, I am in awe of your pariah status among the den-izens. I mean, sure, I've gotten a few angry people to swear blood vengeance against me and generally curse my name, but you've got an entire fan club dedicated to singing your praises. Well played.

I just don't get it. I post, they post quoting me, and then some strange chemical reaction occurs and they spontaneously combust (Just look at Prak's post above this one). It is the oddest thing and really something I wish I could control....for the good of all, naturally.

I am starting to think I am some sort of metaphysical catalyst, providing the needed impetus for bizarre exothermic emotional (over)reactions.

I don't do it on purpose. Really. I am not that clever ;>

really it's the fact that you have no clue about what you're talking about in most debates against denizens, or at least what we're talking about, and refuse to even try and figure it out. and you were after frank's nuts at every turn, and I happen to like frank. even the people at the den that don't feel any particular way about him will probably defend him out a sense of society.

Prak_Anima, I'm willing to cut a bit more slack on the "don't be a jerk" thing here in the Website Feedback forum, mainly because I think moderation policy is a touchy topic for people. And a lot of people have had bad experiences elsewhere and think that's how we're going to be here.

But your posts aren't really making any sense, unless I put on my "ohhh, he's trying to see how much of a jerk it takes to get suspended" glasses. But they're kinda smudgy so it's hard for me to tell right now.

what's not making sense? I don't claim to always be comprehensible, so I can try and sort out what's confusing you and try to make my self make sense.

Hey, I get that people can be jerks. That's why bars have bouncers. But it doesn't mean that it's impossible to have a spirited debate without getting all ugly and fighty.

We want the Paizo messageboards to be different from the other places on the internet, where it's all shouting and banning and jackbooted moderator thugs running loose smiting trolls all the time.

because a rule addition is totally going to change all of that, rather than make it the entire point of the mods... You know a better way to change things, change the mods, don't give the power to control freaks with no experience in modding(or are just poor moderators). If being a jerk is against the rules, then all the moderators are are jack-booted troll slaying thugs who are now slaying anything that even vaguely resembles a troll, including that tall, scrawny kid with the rediculously long nose who fell in some green paint...

Prak_Anima wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

One can debate politely, in a civilized manner.

"Don't be a jerk" doesn't preclude intelligent debate unless one or more of the debaters is incapable of being polite and civilized.

debate will inevitably escalate, especially on "teh intarwebs," so if you don't want people being jerks, preclude debate, it's simple and looks a hell of a lot better.

And we can head off the sterile wasteland the boards will become when debate is forbidden by simply preventing people from making accounts or posting at all. Problem solved!

Actually, people have been debating for a long time about things far more important than gaming without resorting to an escalating situation resulting in vitriolic attacks. However, participating calmly in debate takes maturity and restraint. I see no reason why those that have such traits should be precluded from carrying on intelligent debate simply because the Internet came along and gave those not worthy a microphone and a stage.

Oh hey, it's the pot! All us kettles at the den say hi and a three word farewell that begins with "go" and ends with "yourself". What I saw on these boards prior to the clusterbang that was pathfinder's open playtesting was not debate, it was a land of cookies and candy where friends got together to help each other and newbies find stuff and interpret rules. I'm saying that you need to adopt a rule that brings paizo back to that rather than trying to just say "you can't be a jerk, we will ban you for it. Fear our god-like power and massive packages! I hope no one notices my conspicuopus lack of a bulge... oh crap I said that last part out loud!"

Prak_Anima wrote:

debate will inevitably escalate, especially on "teh intarwebs," so if you don't want people being jerks, preclude debate, it's simple and looks a hell of a lot better.

I have more faith in humanity than you do.

you obviously have not met enough of it then.

One can debate politely, in a civilized manner.

"Don't be a jerk" doesn't preclude intelligent debate unless one or more of the debaters is incapable of being polite and civilized.

debate will inevitably escalate, especially on "teh intarwebs," so if you don't want people being jerks, preclude debate, it's simple and looks a hell of a lot better.

Ok, if you want this to be a "Land of cookies and candy" here's a suggestion...

Don't allow serious debate. Seriously, if you want everyone to get along, just don't allow competitions, and a debate is a form of competition. It may be civil, it may be (sometimes) enlightened, but it's inherently a competition. Competitions inherently get heated, especially when people are trying to make something the best it can be.

You don't need to say "Don't be a jerk" you just need to say "don't debate."

Really, I think that'd sound a lot less wussy than making "don't be a jerk" an actual rule. I mean, increasingly, you guys are starting to sound, to be charitable, like a knitting circle of octagenarians, and to not be acharitable, a bunch of babies. You are seriously being accused of having egos made of tissue paper.

C'mon, I don't think (though I may be wrong...) that paizo headquarters are located in Canada, so why be Canadian in your rules? I mean, "Don't be a jerk?" Is this seriously what you want to be known for? Do you seriously want to be known as the forum whose rules include "Don't be a jerk?" As far as I know, Paizo headquarters is in the USA, so be an american company, americans are jerks; and nerds, as we all are, should be mature enough to take some meanie-head vocally disagreeing with them. Hell, as nerds, I'm sure we all faced enough crap in grade school that we can take a bit of criticism and "jerkitude".

So, with that said, I'd like to say one more thing, "So long and thanks for all the fish!"

wait, no, that's not right, oh, yeah it's "So long and thanks for keeping D&D 3.5 alive like it was an incontinent, comatose, geezer in a hospital bed waiting for the sweet release of death" or somthing. I think I'll return to my old haunts, as this one ain't quite spooky enough, too bright and saccharine.

Don't worry Hasbro. As soon as Obama is anointed Pharaoh

...Pharoah Obama

4chan? Seriously? I see what you were trying to say there, but 4chan is about the worst example you could have used. Pictures of a cat, or 'epic fail', or whatever as the complete body of a post while potentially amusing are not useful or accurate models of adult conversation.

And no, I'm not in the soft crowd. I'm the type that believes a good idea is a good idea regardless of who says it and how. Hostile presentation (and I define hostile a lot more strictly than most here because I am near impossible to offend) is going to get a response like 'I do not like you, but I do respect you' or in blunter terms 'I think you're a douchebag, but that's still a good idea'.

That's all we ask.

If it is so utterly important to avoid flawed logic in these debates, then why is it okay to use abyssmaly incompetent writing?

I never said it was. When did I suggest such?

Why would you expect rational discourse at that point?

Why? Why indeed.

Honestly, we're trying to help. Dragon was a great magazine, and I'd like to know that the rpg spawned by the last company to have control of Dragon was as good. So far, it's not, it has just as many, if not more, hard as that is to believe, flaws as 3.5. I'd truely like for Pathfinder to be worth the money, but we've spent more time arguing about tone in this thread than discussing whether or not certain "arguements" were valid. Granted, this is in part because we've said what needs to be said on the original topic. Another part of it is that PR has not posted a sweetened version of his critique. I for one would like to stop beating a damned dead horse, possibly since I think I am the dead horse in this discussion... A lot of people actually respond well to acerbic tones, and a lot of people use acerbic tones when talkign about deep flaws in something they care about. If you can't handle such tones, you probably lead a very sheltered life...

Psychic_Robot wrote:

...

There is much work to be done here, and that is the only reason that I have decided to gild my posts with niceties, cheer, and other such inefficient dressings that cloud communication. If I must speak with silvered tongue to have my words evaluated as being of some worth, then so be it--I will bear this heavy load for a time.

...

PR, you seem to want to help, so I am going to offer a bit of advice as someone who has studied methods of communication. Niceties and cheer are not 'inefficient'. They have a specific purpose in communication. They allow the intended recipients to open themselves to receiving your message. They don't cloud communication, they facilitate it.

It's still rediculous... has no one here spent time on 4chan, or the like, or a place where people talk like modern people and not damned victorians?

Anger, insults and epithets are the language cues that 'cloud' the message. They make your intended audience defensive and hostile. This is very observable in the way the discussion in your original posts disintegrated into a debate of your intentions and character rather than one of your opinions. Perhaps in other boards you are used to posting with that tone. Absolutely fine if the posters on that board have mutually agreed that that is a normal way of communicating. That is not the way we communicate here. We do not always live up to these ideals, but I personally think we do pretty well.

I've seen evidence to the contrary, but believe what you wish. I can provide cases if requested.

Now I don't know anything about you, or your life. If you are a young person I will say this: Nowhere in the professional world is speech like this tolerated. I see kids walking out of job interviews at my office all the time wondering why they didn't do well and get hired. Afterwards the HR lady will say 'they had a bad tone' or 'they swore' or 'they couldn't talk intelligibly'. People will judge both you as a person and your ideas through the filter of your communication style.

Sorry, we aren't here to get hired. We're here to try and salvage the game that will supposedly salvage 3.5. I seriously doubt that I, as a young person, have been passed over in interviews because of the way I present myself. I present myself very differently in person and online. This is to say nothing of how I present myself to authority figures vrs. equals. Sorry, I don't care who you are, online, with no identities, you're my equal.

It would be a shame if your ideas were discarded simply because you felt civility was a 'heavy load to bear'.

Sorry, but due to how we're used to speaking, it is a heavy load to bear, it's f!*+ing pointless. You people won't listen to perfectly valid critiques just because of how we talk? We're trying to help! What if Patton's soldiers refused to fight because he was "verbally abusive"? (Yes, I know, there was a complaint, but it was one, the other soldiers, presumably, sucked it up and took it like men.)

Biggus wrote:

Also, on boards where polite and friendly communication are mostly the norm (such as these ones) one of the best ways to make someone look a damn-fool is to remain friendly and reasonable in your posts while they degenerate into abusiveness... ;)

*nods sagely in agreement*

Y'know, you're right, Lich-loved and the other people that attacked Frank did look like god damned fools.

I don't think so. The good Doctor would probably realize that dross is a noun, not a verb. Perhaps a Dr. Doom android with a malfunctioning vocabulary program.....

He'd also probably feel perfectly fine with using words in "new and novel ways"

Prak_Anima wrote:

No one's trying to tell people they can't say anything. PR was merely trying to ask people to not use invalid arguements in a serious debate, and I backed him up in my own way.

Yet you told anyone who had an opinion that you or PR did no consider valid could "gtfo". That was pretty rude and uncalled for.

Yes, it was. PR has decided that it's worth it for him to play by the assumptions of this forum. I have yet to do so.

Also, you're still misinterpreting. I told one person who thought that a proposed moratorium on faulty logic was an attempt at telling him what to do (if he could not get over it) to gtfo.

But these are cheap shots. We all make grammar and spelling mistakes. The problem here is a failure to communicate.

We all want this playtesting period to be successful. Let's get off each others' backs and not tell each other what we can and can't say, eh?

No one's trying to tell people they can't say anything. PR was merely trying to ask people to not use invalid arguements in a serious debate, and I backed him up in my own way.

Well, despite having been an ESL teacher (among other things) for 13 or 14 years, I don't correct peoples' grammar unless they ask for it. Prak_Anima was asking for it.

Was I now? How, exactly, was I asking for a correction of my grammer?

Heathansson wrote:

Prak_Anima wrote:

You're welcome to your opinion, but if you're not going to debate and critique with the skills of someone above the age of two, gtfo, we don't need your opinion in this thread, where PR is trying to actually help Paizo make a good and profitable product.

Okay, but runon sentences that barely qualify as readable are hunky dory?

of course they are. if they extend 70 pages, and you're a drunk irish guy living in paris in the '20s, they call you a "genius" and revere you in lit classes forever...

There's also the fact that there is a difference between "run-on" and "long." I'll admit I occasionally tow the line, but... a certain level of literacy is required of all forums, and if you cannot read a long sentence without difficulty... I suggest some classes.

There's also something to be said for the fact that few if any people send their posts off to an editor before posting.

Psychic_Robot wrote:

Herald wrote:

To be as polite as possible I will answer as simply as possible.

No on all accounts.

Why do you say such a thing? I feel that it is unlikely that you took the necessary time to examine my post and understand what I am trying to say.

What parts do you disagree with and why?

I disagree with any attempt to curtail my opinions. Paizo sets the rules for this forum and until I see something from them CoC that says that sort posting is forbidden, I will pick and choose how I will respond to any post.

I read your post and while you don't like what some have posted, those opinions are just as valid as yours. If you disagree with someone, then just disagree. I suggest you would be more successful with your point of view if you stop picking a part others view points on logic and simple make a case of how you can make the game better with actual fixes.

Ok, yes, such opinions are just as valid as others, the conclusions drawn are the problem. There's also the problem that some are not stated as opinions, but rather facts. "I haven't seen imbalance, so it doesn't exist" is an opinion stated as a fact and the drawn conclusion is that there is no imbalance because people don't run into it. This is wrong. You're welcome to your opinion, but if you're not going to debate and critique with the skills of someone above the age of two, gtfo, we don't need your opinion in this thread, where PR is trying to actually help Paizo make a good and profitable product.

KujakuDM wrote:

Once insults get thrown, it becomes SERIOUS BUSINESS for some.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha2/general/lvl8FighterNotSupposedToWin50AgainstCR8Foe

As for the others, there are some in the myriad of sorcerer threads that show up and whatnot.

I was mostly just asking for people to check themselves before they throw out an insult.

Okay. The Fighter 8 thread starts out perfectly reasonably, makes its case with evidence, and takes care to impact why this debate matters. Good form, Lich-loved! Still, this thread is unusual in that its stated purpose is to directly refute another member of the community, rather than a general discussion. It's hardly representative of these forums.

I think that Aubrey the Malformed is a bad person on the basis of quoting a private correspondence in a public forum. Poor show, old man.

I think Frank jumped the gun on his condemnation of THIS PARTICULAR THREAD, although I can understand getting a little hot under the collar. In general, I read the substance and discount the tone.

But ultimately, I think that who's wrong and who's right doesn't really matter here. I'd rather belong to an intellectual community that regulates itself and errs on the side of a free exchange of ideas. If that takes some growing pains, fine. The harm of the ban hammer outweighs the tiny benefit of making you feel more comfortable.

Give me both Frank and Lich-loved. It leads to a better understanding of the issues in the long-term.

thing is, that the mod hammer falling on frank over lich loved creating threads purely for the purpose of attacking him left frank, and many of his friends and supporters with a bad taste in their mouths from this board, even if Frank's account was reinstated, and even if Lichloved was banned himself, Frank would not come back, he has, unfortunately, forsaken these boards, if not this product. Relations may be patched, he may be persuaded to come back, but pursuading would have to be from his friends, and consequences would have to be laid on Lich Loved, because he truely did create threads for the sole purpose of attacking Frank and his ideas.

Okay, I've become fed up with all the posts about limited weapon proficiencies for certain classes. Perhaps there should be rules for swapping out, or choose X of the following weapons options?

Caught Off Guard works wonders.

Prak_Anima wrote:

Or the fact that every book gives all druids, everywhere, new spell choices, whether it makes sense or not.

Pathfinder cannot fix the fact that spells appear in every new splat book... and is not being balanced against every splatbook out there. There is no way Paizo can salvage the splatbook issue because it's all WotC proprietary content. The best they can do is take the core SRD content and balance it and the let the DMs make their own judgement about including supplemental content.

-- Dennis

actually, it can, by saying that druids get to pick a small number of logical spells when they pick from splat books, not with examples, but with numbers, ie, "Druids can pick one non-core spell at each level which is logical for their background, area, experience, etc."

Twowlves wrote:

The best suggestion for me and my game was to break out the Ban-Hammer on it. It's the only core feat I won't allow into my game.

I spent quite a bit of time on the ENWorld's Rules Forum, and 99% of the complaints about druids being overpowered could be solved by removing this one feat.

I certainly hope Natural Spell doesn't defile the Pathfinder RPG, and if it does, it certainly won't darken the door of any game I run.

This is why I wanted to bring it up. I've heard a lot of DMs say this was a game-breaker. I posted what I thought was the best suggestion above. Keep in mind the druid has already been toned down a bit by the reduction of max spells/ level. As I said I'm a fan of turning Natural Spell into Meta Magic...

Yes, because it's the spell-slinging ape that breaks the druid... and not the, you know, spells they cast. Or the fact that every book gives all druids, everywhere, new spell choices, whether it makes sense or not.

Personally. I have never had a problem with my animal companion. I'm a brb/Drd mix, and took the natural Bond feat from Complete Adventurer, so basically I have a loyal mount i can ride into battle. :-D

I have played a beast master before, (also complete Adventurer) and i have to say having more than one animal companion can get really daunting and bog down game play, even if you have them all go at the same time, it gets boring after a while to have the rest of the team sit and wait while your six wolves all attack the goblin at once.

This is why I have the animals acting, usually, on their own initiative, hell, they could even be put, mostly, at the very end of the party's actions, maybe give the leader one or two to control on their turn, but then everyone else gets a go before the horde rips the enemy apart.

also, example with 12? I used two different examples, one with 4 and the other with 6, so I don't know where the 12 comes from.

I've noticed a definate problem in the Horde of Things concept, it frequently devolves into a single character taking a half hour or more to roll for his entire baggage train of attendants and no one else in the party getting to do anything because the enemies are dead by the time the Hoarder is done. So I propose the following way for any Horde of Things concept(from leadership to animal companions) to work:

You have a small number of "elite" troops that follow you arround and act at your initiative roll but with their own modifier(itself modified by a penalty equal to the disparity between your level and theirs, min. 2, as the cohort level min.), only acting before you if they have standing orders. This allows other characters(ie, you roll a 14, your mod is +1 and your cohort's mod is +4(+2 after the leadership mod.), your cohort goes a turn before you IF he has standing orders, such as "attack things with obviously hostile intentions towards us", if he doesn't, he acts at your initiative, just after you, but not actually on your turn, and you have to give him orders before he can act) this way other characters have more of a chance to act, but your concept isn't worthless. You can also use your Horde of Things ability to muster a standing armour when the occasion calls for it which will include peon troops, generals, seargents, etc. which will accomplish lesser goals that are still important while you, your bodyguard, and your party go on to confront/tackle the larger, more important, and more glorious challenge.

For example, the Necromancer has "Undead Horde" as his HoT ability, he is usually followed by a number of elite units no greater than his cha, with a CR no greater than his level minus 2, so let's say he's fifth level and has an 18 cha. He is usually followed by four Ghasts, which act with a +1 cha bonus, compared to his +3(X), so he acts, then there's Init X-1, then his ghouls act at Init X-2, then combat goes on from Init X-3. Later in the campaign, when the BBEG rises up with his little peon army which attacks a kingdom, but remains safely ensconced in his tower. The Necromancer musters up an army of skeletons, zombies, ghouls, and maybe some low level vamps as generals. The army and three of his ghasts go out to aid the kingdom's army in fighting off the nameless hordes of King Daxall, while the Necromancer, his Ghast bodyguard named Fred, and his party infiltrate King Daxall's Tower and seek him out for a personal confrontation.

Example 2: The Druid and her Horde of Nature. She is level 10 and has Cha 22 before items because she's a human who chose to make her bonus to cha and invested her stat boosts into it to have a better personal guard. So this Druid is followed around by 6 CR8 or less "natural" creatures, let's say it's a Gargantuan Monstrous Spider(Init Mod +1 after HoT mod) with a Howdah on it's back, and a family of 5 Dire Tigers(Init Mod +0 after HoT mod). So she runs around with a +5 Init mod(maybe she took Imp. Init.), and acts at Init (Roll)+5(Y), her Tigers act at Init Y-5, a turn after her spider at Init Y-4. When King Daxall sends his standing army of goblins or whatever at the Good Kingdom she muster her little Nature Army full of CR7 and lower natural critters, plus 5 of her personal guard(probably the tigers) to help out the Good Army, while she takes her 6th personal guard(likely her spider, as it has no Int. score and can't really act under standing orders) and she and her party bust into King Daxall's tower to kick Big Bad Evil Ass.

4d6 drop the lowest die arrange to taste,5d6 drop the lowest 2 arrange to taste

I usually use 5d6 drop two lowest, it tends to give pretty decent stats.

I think the leadership feat(and any other "horde of things" concepts, such as the nature general, or the necromancer) should be handled as such: You have a small number of "elite" troops that follow you arround and act at your initiative roll but with their own modifier(itself modified by a penalty equal to the disparity between your level and theirs, min. 2, as the cohort level min.), only acting before you if they have standing orders. This allows other characters(ie, you roll a 14, your mod is +1 and your cohort's mod is +4(+2 after the leadership mod.), your cohort goes a turn before you IF he has standing orders, such as "attack things with obviously hostile intentions towards us", if he doesn't, he acts at your initiative, just after you, but not actually on your turn, and you have to give him orders before he can act) this way other characters have more of a chance to act, but your concept isn't worthless. You can also use your Horde of Things ability to muster a standing armour when the occasion calls for it which will include peon troops, generals, seargents, etc. which will accomplish lesser goals that are still important while you, your bodyguard, and your party go on to confront/tackle the larger, more important, and more glorious challenge.

For example, the Necromancer has "Undead Horde" as his HoT ability, he is usually followed by a number of elite units no greater than his cha, with a CR no greater than his level minus 2, so let's say he's fifth level and has an 18 cha. He is usually followed by four Ghasts, which act with a +1 cha bonus, compared to his +3(X), so he acts, then there's Init X-1, then his ghouls act at Init X-2, then combat goes on from Init X-3. Later in the campaign, when the BBEG rises up with his little peon army which attacks a kingdom, but remains safely ensconced in his tower. The Necromancer musters up an army of skeletons, zombies, ghouls, and maybe some low level vamps as generals. The army and three of his ghasts go out to aid the kingdom's army in fighting off the nameless hordes of King Daxall, while the Necromancer, his Ghast bodyguard named Fred, and his party infiltrate King Daxall's Tower and seek him out for a personal confrontation.

Example 2: The Druid and her Horde of Nature. She is level 10 and has Cha 22 before items because she's a human who chose to make her bonus to cha and invested her stat boosts into it to have a better personal guard. So this Druid is followed around by 6 CR8 or less "natural" creatures, let's say it's a Gargantuan Monstrous Spider(Init Mod +1 after HoT mod) with a Howdah on it's back, and a family of 5 Dire Tigers(Init Mod +0 after HoT mod). So she runs around with a +5 Init mod(maybe she took Imp. Init.), and acts at Init (Roll)+5(Y), her Tigers act at Init Y-5, a turn after her spider at Init Y-4. When King Daxall sends his standing army of goblins or whatever at the Good Kingdom she muster her little Nature Army full of CR7 and lower natural critters, plus 5 of her personal guard(probably the tigers) to help out the Good Army, while she takes her 6th personal guard(likely her spider, as it has no Int. score and can't really act under standing orders) and she and her party bust into King Daxall's tower to kick Big Bad Evil Ass.

Does no one care about the association clause in the pally code? I can't believe I'm the only one to have party's that mixed...

The problem with XP costs isn't just that they don't really cost anything "in the long run" (which they don't), the problem is that they are bad for the game. Like Age increases before them, an XP cost is essentially running up a credit card bill. You get whatever it is that you were buying with the XP cost now, and you pay later (by death from old age or not going up in level when you otherwise would). That's never balanced, because there's no guaranty that the character in question will still be being played when that credit card comes due.

just adding something from some else.

Are there seriously alot of people who like the 3.5 way of doing animal companions? I, personally, think that making animal companions the same as familiars(more or less) was a great flaw in the 3.5 rules and had hoped that paizo would have revised them. I think it was much better when druids could be followed by a little army of animals(although I know from other commander concepts that this isn't exactly a good way to do things... the more participants controlled by a single character, the less likely it is that other characters will get to act). Maybe an either/or option for the second form of nature bond? maybe a understanding that the one or two animals that follow the druid around are merely the "generals" of his furry army?

I think the code of conduct should be modified so as to allow more mixed alignment parties, namely parties where the evil character doesn't have to have a caster hireling with the sole purpose of casting undetectable alignment each day.

Other than that, at a skim, it looks good.

yes, because nothing uses magic /and/ wings to fly in D&D... except dragons... and manticores... and gryphons... and harpies... and celestials... and demons... holy crap... that's a lot of stuff that uses magic /and/ wings to fly. Ok, not a whole alot, and not mechanically, but I think it makes perfect sense for magic granted flight to stop functioning in a null-magic area, even if the magic gave you wings.

That something should not be the rogue's shtick though. If that is what you want from your fighter, then here's what you do, you xerox the rogue class and then glue it into your book right over the fighter class.

No, the fighter should definately get some special stuff, and I like the idea of him being able to set up an antimagic field, but he should infringe upon anyone else's shtik.

If they make a new class, they should try, IMO, to make something completely new. We've got psionics, we've got divine, we've got arcane(with some innate arcanists), we've got two gishs, we've got three sneaky attackers, we've got all of that. A new class should be a new concept, maybe a class that can mix arcane and divine magic(there isn't a base class that does this, and there's few PrCs that do it well), or a class that opens a new path for magic, or maybe a beast-trainer class, something that, at the very least, hasn't been seen as a base class yet, preferably something that hasn't been seen in a class at all yet. Maybe a necromantically flavoured non-caster or something, that'd be interesting.

It's a very cool idea that adds flavor to the game without an increase in power. If you think about it most power sources and abilities are the same bottom line. IT is the description about how it looks and works that makes it cool or dumb or whatever you think about it.

So, this is a cool idea. Now its just flavor so you do not even need it in the rules just add it to your game.

no, but it'd be nice if it were in the rules, otherwise not many people(that I know of, at least) are going to do it.

I am all for guns. My DM used Freeport Firearms rules in his Savage Tide Campaign and swapped all the NPC crossbow users for pistols and muskets.

Having said that, were guns to be included in the Pathfinder RPG, it needs to be done in such a way that firearms suit the campaign that the DM is running. To put that into practice: Curse of the Crimson Throne with all its urbane Scarlet Pimpernel/The Fencing Master/Gentlemen of the Road swashbucklery...yes, but not a a level that is Iron Kingdoms. Rise of the Runelords on the other hand, hmmm...can't see it working (maybe Hook Mountain Massacre is an exception). Guns need to fit the campaign that is being run. Swashbuckling adventures such as pirates, highwaymen or rogue-y styles of games stand out in my mind.

In any case, if guns did make it in, I would love to see how they have been introduced into Golarion (Duergar weaponsmiths or some sort of Eastern Empire technology, for example), instead of being a set of optional rules.

I would imagine a supplement about guns would discuss their integration into the standard campaign setting, as wel as possibly a few other estalished settings.

I don't want ToB stuff, just because of the theme of it (I don't want Wuxia in my game UNLESS I'm running Oriental Adventures).

What I do want is if the Wizard alters reality and the Cleric has gods doing him favor, when they meet the fighter on the battlefield, he kills them.

I want the fighter to be the undisputed taker of lives. If the Wizard/Cleric throws demons and creatures at him, I want to see the fighter mow them down, motioning what he's gonna do to the caster next. If the wizard/cleric tries to blast the fighter with spells, I want to see the fighter sucks it up and survive it, or manage to sidestep, in both cases moving in to make the wizard's life miserable. If the wizard/cleric tries to push him off with spells, the fighter just keeps coming at him. If the wizard/cleric tries to Tenser Transformation/Divine Power to match the fighter, the fighter just laughs and cuts him down.

This sounds about right, but I also like the Dynasty Warrior's thing from Frank.

And he can do it in a loincloth with a borrowed sword.

This is the province of the Barbarian, not the fighter.

Given that Wail of the Banshee requires a Fortitude save, he likely will be.

...I'm not sure about this... I've actually seldom had a character make a save, and seldom seen a monster fail a save...

Psychic-Robot: Drop it, don't turn this into a flamewar.

I am unclear as to how much permission Paizo has to publish Book of Vile Darkness materials, they've certainly done it a lot. Having to do a total overhaul on BoED material is all to the good in my opinion.

-Frank

That's true, they have published plenty of vile feats, spells, whatever and some exalted material, I think, so maybe they can, I don't know, though... maybe the basic concept of vile and exalted material (must be evil, vile damage is vaguely difficult to heal, unless you've got a cleric and some time, which, yeah, most parties do, etc) is OGC, but the actual material in the books isn't... though they've reprinted a few vile feats, I think, notably for the demonomicon stuff.

Meh, I just would like to see the idea get carried over, even/especially if it has to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Prak_Anima wrote:

Is there any plan, as far as anyone knows, to do some vile and exalted stuff for Pathfinder? I really like the idea of it, as well as some of the options that BoVD gave, but a lot of it needs to be better thought out (deformity feats, vow feats, "Good" bio-warfare, etc.) This is an area I'd truely like to help develop because I seriously hurt myself over WotC's latest "Vile" material (Elder Evils, the deformity feats are still iffy on concept, and the dark speech stuff needs some work... there's seriously a feat called "Filthy Outburst." It's like the paladin's going to wash your mouth out with soap or something...)(Oh, and by hurt myself, I mean gave myself a headache banging my head against the bookshelf behind me...)

Well, BoVD and BoED aren't OGL, and following that neither are the "exalted" or "vile" type feats or powers. This would probably require a total re-write on Paizo's end,

Not that that'd be a bad thing...

Viktor_Von_Doom wrote:

Really though what Out of Combat stuff needs balance (Other than Diplomacy ?)

I don't know about diplomacy, it, like other spells/abilities, is just fine as long as the DM applies some common sense (the application of situational modifiers comes to mind here).

I am against this whole PC race/class 1 must be balanced relative to PC/class race 2. This is what led 4e to the dark side. People didn't like the wizard's dependence on resting and felt they were overpowered and then baddabing we get mechanics where everyone is effectively a wizard with per day abilities (now everyone is a wizard, so the need to rest is across the board and everyone can do something flashy and "cool" every round.) and no one liked the awesome power of clerics (aka CODzilla) and yet they were so maligned that people claimed to never play them because being the party's battery was un-fun. Once again we get "everyone is now a cleric, problem solved". Is 4e balanced? It sounds like it might be, sure. Is this really where we want to take the enhancements to 3.5 though? Let the classes wax and wane depending on the situation, allow the evoker his blasting glory; the iron golem he didn't expect will still need to be dealt with by someone. And in the absence of anything else, their is still the DM (once rightly called the Judge) to put matters aright and keep all players engaged.

Sorry Lich-Loved, your fallacy doesn't apply to diplomacy either. you apparently have never seen "diplomancer" builds or what they can do(like get entire villiages up to the "Fanatical" attitude, at least.)

"Must all balance be combat balance?"

Yes. Next question?

Seriously, K? Aren't you and Frank usually trying for some kind of out of combat balance also? or do you guys just try and create out of com bat options for everyone?

Is there any plan, as far as anyone knows, to do some vile and exalted stuff for Pathfinder? I really like the idea of it, as well as some of the options that BoVD gave, but a lot of it needs to be better thought out (deformity feats, vow feats, "Good" bio-warfare, etc.) This is an area I'd truely like to help develop because I seriously hurt myself over WotC's latest "Vile" material (Elder Evils, the deformity feats are still iffy on concept, and the dark speech stuff needs some work... there's seriously a feat called "Filthy Outburst." It's like the paladin's going to wash your mouth out with soap or something...)(Oh, and by hurt myself, I mean gave myself a headache banging my head against the bookshelf behind me...)

I think guns would be better if left out of the main book and possibly having a small sourcebook devoted to them and the various ways of treating them. The book could be a very small supplement devoted entirely to the idea of injecting a bit of technology into D&D's veins. One chapter could be flintlock era, another could address an "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" treatment, were guns only exist because some plane jumping spaceship from a more advanced society crashlanded and gave a small group of adventurers limited access to them, another could be about spellguns and the mass production(or lack thereof) of them, and another chapter could be a psuedo-western setting in which the adventurers carry Six-spellshooters and wear dusters rather than swords and armour. This would probably go a good way towards making everyone happy because the "No guns in my game" crowd could spend their money on other supplements, and the "gimme guns" crowd can pick this up for relatively cheap and pick which option they liked best.

I'd definately like to see this, especially since it was featured in an old "The Play's the Thing" in Dragon.

Wicht wrote:

My players have always looked forward to getting their iterative attacks and the math has never seemed that difficult.

It isn't the math for me so much as that it requires a full attack and therefore that means a very immobile action scene. Making the game mobile is very important to me. But why move when I can stand still and do twice or three times as much damage?

SWSE and 4e have made the right move in kaing the game more mobile. That is one thing I do like. I hope that Paizo also encourages this style of game.

If making the game more mobile is important to you, I hear that's something they're trying to do with 4e, have fun.

I personally rather like iterative attacks, the problem is the progressive -5 penalty. After 10th level, you're missing 1/3-3/5 of the time. It should be a flat -5 to each iterative attack, rather than +20/+15/+10/+5 crap...(ie, it should be +20/+15/+15/+15)

Doyle Tavener wrote:

There are thousands of these discussions on message boards, each proclaiming that thier particular opinion, after dealing with the system, is the most logical and reasoned. But you may come to conclusions that the designers would never accept, so that unless you gain a lot of joy from running these solo fights, you are probably just better off running a campaign using the rules, and enjoying yourself.

You are wrong.

Having worked both as a professional game designer (Shadowrun 4th edition) and as a professional playtester (Heroes of Might and Magic, Army Men, etc.) in the past, I can tell you without reservation that there are right and wrong ways to playtest games. You can find bugs in a system by one of two methods: prediction and exploration. The first involves looking at how the game works and making informed guesses as to where the game will fail. The second involves grinding through the game and hoping to run into parts of the game which will fail. You need to do both, but in either case you should do so systematically if you hope to get any real answers out of the deal.

Once you have found something that you think is a bug, you need to regress that bug. Find out how often it comes up, find out the limits of where in the game it comes up and how big a problem it is when it does. That last part is tricky for a pen & paper game because the DM can seriously handwave problems out of existence in an individual game. This means that while in a computer game your top priority are "Crash Bugs" that stop play altogether, in a role playing game your top priority is actually subtle bugs which can gradually become large problems for the game as DMs are less likely to notice that sort of thing.

In any case, reporting of a bug needs to say exactly how the problem was uncovered, as well as a numerical estimation of what the problem actually does. Coming in and saying that you "don't like" something means very little to a developer...

You designed SR4? I might have to check that out... no wonder you're a wiz at this stuff...

Anyway... I've seen what Frank's playtest strategy turns out, and while some of it might get wonky flavour or concept wise, I've seen it work out mechanics wise pretty well, barring my own stupidity(I'm never letting a player play a shadow ever again, for example...)

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I see two questions being asked here:

1. Is it possible to have airtight rules, or will some amount of logic, interpretation, and common sense always be needed?

2. Should a game world founded on magic have any logical cause-and-effect in its ongoing development?

Lich-loved obviously answers no and yes, respectively. Agreement is obviously not unanimous.

1. Frank looks for rules loopholes with the tenacity of a terrier after rats. That's an excellent thing to do; we've seen it catch some major bugs, the ones that are just begging to be abused. But in the history of the world there has never been a legal document that was 100% clear and without loopholes; that's why after 200+ years the U.S. still haven't been able to disband the Supreme Court. So I have to agree with Lich-Loved on this one. But that's not the real issue.

2. This is the main point of contention here. But what's easy to overlook is that this is purely a matter of personal taste. Lich-Loved and I, as futile as it may be, like to add an element of versimilitude and development. Others might just want to play the game. There's no "right" answer here because we're talking about imaginary worlds that are fundamentally impossible. Some are more internally-consistent than others, is all. It all depends on the taste of the players.

I think people agree that game worlds should be internally consistent and that the rules as written aren't perfect.

I personally am up in arms over the "I have a super argument where I prove to all the idiots that the rules that are broken aren't broken either because I won't allow it or because I can come up with an additional houserule to fix it." Passing off this opinion as a logical argument in an poor attempt to give it weight is disingenuous.

Thats silly. Seriously.

And we've never accepted the "but I can house rule this away" as a viable answer to any of the problems in DnD. Even trying to argue this is a disservice to people who are candidly attempting to...

Yeah, isn't that a rather old fallacy in D&D, oberoni or such?

There's a whole fallacy in your premise, especially present in the halfling thrower example that hasn't been touched upon. What real people would do. So this halfling is running around owning things with alchemical fire and such, that's great, I somehow doubt that the entire world would be exposed to him, only those that directly confront him will actually know about him, while his story may spread amongst adventurers and monsters, but he's going to largely be the province of myth. Second, men at arms are not going to abandon the sword, they're going to train harder and think more before going up against such an opponent. Mages already do this better than the halfling ever will, it's called Meteor Swarm and the Energy Substitution feat. Then there's the fact that the halfling is very unlikely to want to take over the world or crap like that, he'll probably just adventure until he can live fat and happy.