Quiterjon's page

MisterSlanky wrote:

Clearly the best thing to do if your VC stinks is to walk up to him/her in the most packed game day and simply say in your outdoor voice, "god, you smell like rancid meat." This will... shame them into realizing how bad they smell.

Despite the lack of emoji I am going to assume this was meant tongue-in-cheak. It is certainly funny in a facebook, social media sort of way, but for those of you who such things are lost on, of all the recommendations in this thread, I hope this would be your very LAST choice, if at all. Being "aggressive" without the "passive" does not necessarily make things any better and could easily make them worse. Have an ounce of compassion for someone who very well may be unaware of their "problem." Confront them in private and go from there. Treat people with respect and you'll be amazed how they'll respond.

I have kept it very pc, pleasant, round about, whatever you want to call it.

However my patience on the matter runs thin when the cpt/lt continues to show up smelling like they do.

If it was 'they have a physical job' I could handle that, it's not. It's lack of personal hygiene.

It isn't confined to just odor. Clothing isn't laundered. For me that was the tipping point. I could suck up the funk by not sitting next to them. Yo0u keep showing up week after week without laundering your clothes...that's too far.

Sorry, should have been clearer. Who do you go to after talking to them in private?

Just got into PFS.

Who do you go to to talk about the cleanliness of the local Capt/Lt?

You still don't seem to grasp certain concepts. Lisa gave an opinion, and back it up with some facts that she has observed. Her post had context, and weight. Your opinion that the details were not complete dosen't change that, and I really have no further intrest in trying to explain it to you and wasting more time. You have done me a service though. Now I know how much weight to give your posts. Thank you.

It was ambiguous. Perhaps you are willing to take what someone of authority says at face value, I'm not willing to do that. Evidently from your defense I am wrong in that, but to lay my case at your feet so you can think more about it. Ponder this

2. Last I heard they were about 3 times the size of what they were in the sets 4-5 years ago (edit at least that was the rumors based on case number information:
Old sets:
Hypertime 8500 cases
Icons 3799 cases (seems low, must not include 96ct boosters)
Collateral Damage 8320 cases
Universe 96ct boosters 1500 cases
Fantastic Forces 9000 cases
Sinister 9290 cases
Indy 600 cases
Since NECCA bouth them out
31,000 cases, and they have been selling out before they are released

31,000 cases over, well without 'context'(dontcha love it), 10 releases but only 4 look like they were an actual set is around (discounting the other 6) 7,000 per set Which is lower than half of the sets Cpt kirstov posted. But it gets better, Necca's case sizes is smaller, something like 20,18(according to the internet/secondary markets) you compare that to what was done by Wizkids and Topps of 96, 48 and 20, couple that with what appears to be Necca only producing X amount of product and stopping production. (Hence why you can still buy boosters/cases/singles of old sets, but Necca produced sets are difficult[sometimes extremely] to come buy.)

Yes when someone says 'they are selling out before they are even released, so how can the industry be failing' sounds great, until you do a little research of your own and see that the production runs are limited, the amount per case is much smaller so people/collectors have to buy more cases to get the same amount, then that statement isn't as 'contextual' as it appears

Hypertime (48count/4minis per booster) [48*4*8500]1,632,000 minis
Hammer of Thor (20count/5minis per booster) to equal the same amount of product sold(minis) Neca would have to sell; 16,300 cases.

They have 31,000cases sold over 4 sets(again discounting their non-set stuff, like Jonah Hex Battle Pack, The Blackest Night Starter Set etc)

Seems there is a discrepency someplace.

But do please continue to attack me because I questioned the veracity of someone's post.

Quiterjon wrote:

Lisa Stevens wrote:

Quiterjon wrote:

When you take pot shots at one company, then turn around and sell their product in your store, your credibility with me isn't very high.

When did I take pot shots at any company? Seriously. I can't think of a single company that I have ever taken pot shots at in my lifetime. That just isn't me. So please elucidate me on when this happened.

-Lisa

4e.

Once again, when did I take pot shots at 4e? To the best of my knowledge, I have never said anything remotely disparaging towards Wizards of the Coast (a company, btw, I helped to create) or towards 4e. Please point me towards a post I made somewhere that you consider a pot shot at 4e.

-Lisa

I have my opinion. I still buy Paizo products. How about we put it in the closet again?

Wait, is Quiterjon the industry expert who was questioning the raison d'être for Pathfinder 3 years ago?

*checks post history*

Yup that's him. Uncanny market analysis powers at work, once again! :)

Wow I guess I should feel honored that out of all the people there are on this forum you remember 1 post of mine from <looks it up> Mar 22, 2008. It must've stuck with you for some reason, I mean it had 7posts in all and you didn't even post to it....wait a minute, heck I had to look it up...I bet you looked up my post history(all 51 of them, well 52 now) and found that post... you wiley rascal you. here you were making me feel all special and stuff. <wags finger at Gorbacz>

Looks who is back: Mr random-hate-I-change-the-topic-whenever-someone-prooves-me-wrong.

I remember you predicting the downfall of Paizo because of Pathfinder some time ago...

So much for your credibility.

And, no, just because Paizo seems to have betrayed 4e in your eyes doesn't make you a victim and it surely doesn't give you the right to spew your hate around here.

Please, troll off!

How about quoting me where I said such things.

I have 52 posts now on this forum I posted exactly 3 times before (March 22, 25, and 28 2008) before Dec of 2010. It shouldn't be hard to find now should it.

Quiterjon wrote:

When you take pot shots at one company, then turn around and sell their product in your store, your credibility with me isn't very high.

When did I take pot shots at any company? Seriously. I can't think of a single company that I have ever taken pot shots at in my lifetime. That just isn't me. So please elucidate me on when this happened.

-Lisa

4e.

Quiterjon wrote:

What facts?

I don't perhaps by looking at it by:
1. If it's not failing why has Wizkids been sold twice?
2. Are the runs the same number as they were 5 years ago?
3. Why have so many companies failed in the PPM market?

Again, I don't think the word means what you think it means. Lisa said several factual statements. I didn't factcheck because I believe her. She didn't say "I feel" or "My opinion is" That is a fact. Just because they were not the facts YOU were looking for does not make them opinions.

1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

"Oh, and one more note. HeroClix is doing really, really well right now for WizKids. Their new sets that have print runs that are supposed to last six months are selling out in six weeks. Or less. They have even had some sets that sold out before they were released. Doesn't sound like a failing industry to me."
What she say here? That a new owner is doing well with an established product? One would hope.
That new product are selling quickly? Perhaps, but lets also realize that Neca has smaller cases, so when Paizo would buy 100 cases of a set they aint getting as much as they did before and if the production runs are for 5000 cases, well sure sounds great but 5000 cases for Neca isn't the same as 5000 cases for Topps or Wizkids. When stores 'have to' buy more to keep the stock the same......
Because one company 'appears' to be doing well, it means the industry isn't failing?

There is no context

Quiterjon wrote:

noretoc wrote:

As for the weight of the post, its weight is relevant to the trust the reader has for the poster. I don't think you want to compare the weight of your post to that of Lisa'a

I'm not comparing her 'authority' to mine. I am saying she didn't say anything but corp speak.

I don't recall saying anything about authority, that word you have in quotes above. You just pulled that from somewhere. I talked about the weight of the post. You may feel it has little, but I know your are wrong. Maybe you have a problem believing it, but I can guarantee that it carries a lot of weight here. That by the way is a "fact" based upon observation.

(Another poster already provided some more of them for you to look over and get familiar with the concept.)

[snark]
Here this might help you out.
www.dictionary.com.
[/snark]

I would hope that her posts carry weight, it doesn't mean she is above someone questioning her.

Quiterjon wrote:

Take this concept further, we have now what the 'iconic' characters or some such. So let's just limit the offering to PCs

That will be
154
miniatures just with the corebook alone add in APG and Ultimates and your looking at
308

How long is it going to take them to do all of that? And we haven't even gotten to creatures yet, you know that whole other part that has been what so many on this thread has been talking about.

I really don't know what you are talking about here. Maybe you should add some context. Are you still talking about credibility? If so, this makes no sense. If you are talking about the figures, maybe you should explain better, what point you are trying to get across?

(This is a guess, not a fact). Are you trying to say making all the iconics will take a long time? If you are, then you are right, if you try to make every class/race combo. I don't know what that has to do with the conversation though. I don't recall any of the context or facts above to include anything about this as being the direction Paizo is going in.

Isn't thing whole thread speculation?

We've got one miniature and some vagaries' on what may or may not happen.

Hence why I said let's take this 'concept' further. You know the 'concept' of PPM for Pathfinder by Wizkids, since we are in a thread about this subject and all.

The context was the number of miniatures and how long it would take to have them produced.

Marc Radle wrote:

Quiterjon wrote:

Lisa Stevens wrote:

Oh, and one more note. HeroClix is doing really, really well right now for WizKids. Their new sets that have print runs that are supposed to last six months are selling out in six weeks. Or less. They have even had some sets that sold out before they were released. Doesn't sound like a failing industry to me.

-Lisa

Without any context to this statement, it holds about as much weight as the pixels of this post.

If it comes from the CEO of the company, not to mention a very smart and dialed-in person like Lisa. I would say it hold quite a bit of weight!

I tend to trust what Lisa says.

I should just point out here that Lisa also owns a fairly substantial onlineretail operation. I expect she has accurate sales numbers.

Of her sales, I would hope so. Sales figures for a company other than her own, some may give it up, but since she is also in the game producing trade..wouldn't be the smartest thing for a competing company to do.

1. the first sale was because it was so popular. Topps bought wizkids because of their patents, and how they could expand the clix patent to sports properties. Once the trial of this failed, they lost interest in the property and tried to change the rules. NECCA alrady had deals with plastic companies for their action figures, where topps didn't so their cosh was most likly less when they bought Wizkids from Topps

2. Last I heard they were about 3 times the size of what they were in the sets 4-5 years ago (edit at least that was the rumors based on case number information:
Old sets:
Hypertime 8500 cases
Icons 3799 cases (seems low, must not include 96ct boosters)
Collateral Damage 8320 cases
Universe 96ct boosters 1500 cases
Fantastic Forces 9000 cases
Sinister 9290 cases
Indy 600 cases
Since NECCA bouth them out
31,000 cases, and they have been selling out before they are released

Booster count has changed

Without any context? What context are you looking for. The meaning is pretty clear, and the facts are pretty self explanatory. I do not think this word means what you think it means.

What facts?

As for the weight of the post, its weight is relevant to the trust the reader has for the poster. I don't think you want to compare the weight of your post to that of Lisa'a

I'm not comparing her 'authority' to mine. I am saying she didn't say anything but corp speak. Personally, no she doesn't have much weight in my book. When you take pot shots at one company, then turn around and sell their product in your store, your credibility with me isn't very high.

Take this concept further, we have now what the 'iconic' characters or some such. So let's just limit the offering to PCs
That will be
154
miniatures just with the corebook alone add in APG and Ultimates and your looking at
308

How long is it going to take them to do all of that? And we haven't even gotten to creatures yet, you know that whole other part that has been what so many on this thread has been talking about.

Oh, and one more note. HeroClix is doing really, really well right now for WizKids. Their new sets that have print runs that are supposed to last six months are selling out in six weeks. Or less. They have even had some sets that sold out before they were released. Doesn't sound like a failing industry to me.

-Lisa

Without any context to this statement, it holds about as much weight as the pixels of this post.

Ideally, I think what I'd like to see happen with PPMs is to have encounter packs released rather than boosters or anything like that. Ral Partha and Grenadier used to make sets waaaaaay back in the day where you could buy a small box with around 10 minis that would be good for an encounter (and occasionally even included stats for an encounter within). For example, maybe something like:

Encounter At Goblin's Pass
GameMastery Encounter Set • $39.99
While traveling on the road, the adventurers stumbled across a goblin raiding party. Included in this set are: 8 Goblins, 1 Goblin Dog, 1 Goblin Sorcerer, 1 Elite Goblin and a GameMastery map tile unique to this set, as well as a brief encounter that could be used in any PFRPG Campaign.

Mind you, I always enjoyed the GameMastery Encounter sets that were made before and would like to see them continue ;)

Sorry, had to fix it for you.

Slaunyeh wrote:

but think it's weird that horribly scaring someone has no in-game effect whatsoever.

It most obviously does have in-game effects. Look at SKR's post for reasons why it isn't detailed out in the Hex itself. Quite simply the specifics could and should vary significantly.

At its best an RPG assumes that a skilled GM is running the game. You can write rules assuming the DM needs everything spoon fed to them or you can write rules assuming they can handle it. And, honestly, I think PF errs on the side of spoon feeding too often. A hint of confidence in the GM is refreshing.

It's a lack of trust.

Quiterjon wrote:

How can it be useless by RAW? Oh you mean actual people have to make a judgement on what happens instead of relying upon a numerical modifier or 'rule'.

Sad, sad days we roleplayers live in now.

The game begins with numbers, plays by numbers and ends with numbers. If it didn't I wouldn't have to buy rulebooks, dice or character sheets. Roleplay is good, but Pathfinder is not a LARP.

No it begins by saying Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Even utility has definite uses. It does not matter if it is combat or not really. I just made the combat reference because the rude poster tried to pretend like the game was not heavy on combat.

It is useless by RAW, assuming RD's description was correct. "The GM can fix it" can be applied to any situation.

No the game is heavy on spells.

From the d20pfsrd
Scar (Su): This hex curses a single target with horrible scars of the witch’s choosing, whether something as simple as a single letter on the target’s forehead or blotchy, burnlike scars on his body. The target may make a Will save to resist this hex. These scars do not hinder the target’s actions or abilities in any way. The witch can withdraw this hex from a target as a move action at any range. The number of supernatural scars the witch can maintain at once is equal to her Intelligence bonus; once she reaches this limit, she must remove the scar from a current victim in order to mark another. Effects that remove curses can remove the scar.

How can it be useless by RAW? Oh you mean actual people have to make a judgement on what happens instead of relying upon a numerical modifier or 'rule'.

Sad, sad days we roleplayers live in now.

So from reading through this my Oracle of Lore sounds like it is still top dog for a knowledge divine caster.

kewl beans.

I'm trying to find where it says you don't get retroactive skill points when you get an increase to intelligence.

I just can't find it for some reason and my searching of this forums has turned up nothing as well.

Would someone point me to where it does say that. Pwease.

Quiterjon wrote:

I see. You fall back to the smarmy response when a bit of logic comes into play.

Not at all smarmy. Indeed, you have won the Internet. You have thoroughly refuted the opinions of others with your bits of logic. The way you kept trotting out the word "invalid" was especially devastating. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before a plethora of skill synergy bonuses are added to Pathfinder. I, for one, applaud your tireless ability to belabor the point.

Why do they need to put skill synergies in the game when they gave a blanket increase to every class's skill numbers?

Yes it makes no sense and is an invalid point to complain about high skill numbers when the game produced has now made it even easier for all classes to have high skill numbers.

Yes it makes no sense and is an invalid point to complain about situational modifiers as being too difficult when they didn't exclude the situational modifier. Half-Orc and Human are the only core races that don't have a situational modifier and they even have them if you use the alternative racial traits.

The third reason is tied directly to the first reason.

Quiterjon wrote:

Exactly.

Which means the "made skill checks to high" line a wee bit invalid.

Sort of, although the argument "Pathfinder should keep lousy idea X because Y is also a lousy idea" is a non-starter.

They did keep the "lousy idea X because Y is also a lousy idea".

If making skill checks to high is a lousy idea, why did they give a blanket increase to all skill checks?

Quiterjon wrote:

Which means the "the situational bonuses were too complicated" line is a wee bit invalid as well.

Huh? How did you get to this conclusion from the previous line which didn't have any situational bonuses at all in it, as far as I can tell? (And personally, I wouldn't say "complicated" rather than "hardly ever used and easily forgotten".)

It's the 3 main reasons given.

Quiterjon wrote:

...a wee bit invalid.

...a wee bit invalid as well.

...a wee bit invalid.

Congrats! You won the Internet!

I see. You fall back to the smarmy response when a bit of logic comes into play.

Exactly.

Which means the "made skill checks to high" line a wee bit invalid.

Which means the "the situational bonuses were too complicated" line is a wee bit invalid as well.

Which means the "the creature statblocks were incorrect and going through and correcting them would have been too difficult even though we had to go and change all of the statblocks" line a wee bit invalid.

Quiterjon wrote:

LazarX wrote:

As someone who munchkined skill synergies until the books screamed in agony in 3.x, I'm hardly surprised that they're gone. One thing to keep in mind is that in general we're a lot better in our cross-class skills than we were before and alot of skills that were separate Hide/Move Silently for instance have been combined, thus saving even more skill points.

Mind explaining how you 'munchkined' the skills until they screamed? I'm looking at it right now and lets just see how much you can 'make it scream' compared to PF.

There's 23 skills that will give a synergy bonus to 29 other skills
Top dog of getting a bonus from another skill is Survival with 5

I forget exactly what combination did it... but I got a 2nd level character with a +17 Diplomacy thanks to synergy skills.

Someone already posted a PF character that can do the same thing, without the synergy bonus. So what's the problem? Unless keeping the synergies would have made the blanket upgrades to skills in PF even worse. I could understand that, but that isn't what you said.

Further, it's not like Paizo took out the situational bonuses to skills like most skill synergies do.
"Add +1/2 on Bluff checks to pass secret messages, +1/2 on Diplomacy checks to gather information, and +1/2 on Disguise checks to appear as an elven, half-elven, or human child."
Using this line of argument doesn't hold much water really.

As someone who munchkined skill synergies until the books screamed in agony in 3.x, I'm hardly surprised that they're gone. One thing to keep in mind is that in general we're a lot better in our cross-class skills than we were before and alot of skills that were separate Hide/Move Silently for instance have been combined, thus saving even more skill points.

Mind explaining how you 'munchkined' the skills until they screamed? I'm looking at it right now and lets just see how much you can 'make it scream' compared to PF.

There's 23 skills that will give a synergy bonus to 29 other skills
Top dog of getting a bonus from another skill is Survival with 5

I believe that James Jacobs was pretty clear as to why synergies are dead.

I never remembered them, most of my players never bothered about them. And seems like it was like that all over the place.

You mean

Because skill synergy bonuses were the Number One error we saw pop up over and over and over in stat blocks.

Not only that, but in cases like Diplomacy, they were a great way to have unnaturally huge skill bonuses. You could make a 2nd-level character with a Diplomacy +17 or so quite easily by abusing the synergy bonuses.

Those two reasons alone were great reasons to drop skill synergies—even BEFORE the fact that we wanted to simplify skills across the board as much as we could while retaining backwards compatibility. Skill synergies were just too complex and too easy to abuse to live.

Sure it's a great corp response, but lets be realistic here. They had to tweak all the creatures stat blocks yet somehow it became too much of a chore to add in the synergies as well?

No I don't buy into the "I never remembered them" line either. This whole system is designed around stacking modifiers. Everyone seems quite proficient at remembering these stacking modifiers, but it becomes 'to difficult' when it comes to synergies?

Quiterjon wrote:

A system based and designed around stacking modifiers and people thought the skill synergies was too hard?

Sounds a bit too 'Paizo can do no wrong with pathfinder' to me.

It's not that they were complicated. It's that they were needlessly complicated. The gain doesn't really justify the effort. It just adds another, unnecessary step to character generation/advancement: Figure out synergy bonuses. Not to mention those cases where you didn't get a bonus to all skill checks, but just certain kinds of checks. Now you're going to add that information to the skill section of your sheet, which isn't really built for prose.

How is it any more complicated than any of the other situational DCs that this game is based upon?

Quiterjon wrote:

The chart is in the main book, there were numerous character sheets and builders that that gave you the info or even auto included them, yet people still had issues?

Not everyone uses character builders, and most sheets I've seen didn't include them (I can't think of a decent way to even do that).

And it's something that is not just easy to abuse, but easy to forget, too. It didn't come up at character generation (if you created a fresh 1st-level...

Perhaps you should go look on WoTC's website for class sheets, you may be surprised at what you see.

What about all of the other situational modifiers that don't come up at level one? What about these? Why are these still able to be in the game, but not synergies?

All I am seeing are some very lame excuses as to why it is gone.

Quiterjon wrote:

A system based and designed around stacking modifiers and people thought the skill synergies was too hard?

Sounds a bit too 'Paizo can do no wrong with pathfinder' to me.

I played in dozens of 3.5 games. I saw 1 use skill synergies mostly correct. Various players remembered them to different degrees. They are very easy to forget about or ignore. They are even easier to cheese. They were not hard, but they were a pain.

They are much easier to impliment as misc. bonuses as they would come up in game.

You infer that you know exactly how they work.

My question would then be what happened in those dozens minus one games then?

The chart is in the main book, there were numerous character sheets and builders that that gave you the info or even auto included them, yet people still had issues?

Makes me wonder about all of the other stacking modifiers that is the game.

A system based and designed around stacking modifiers and people thought the skill synergies was too hard?
Sounds a bit too 'Paizo can do no wrong with pathfinder' to me.

Hmm. Are you suggesting this character can't pull his own weight? I personally thought that as a battlefield controller he's a bit over-the-top!

Sorry I do not see much battlefield control, but I have no idea how your group plays.

Depending on how your group worked it out with you being so small even for a gnome, you will have a very hard time even standing up.

My GM doesn't mind the low stats. They're as much for RP as they are for anything. The 4 str comes from Gnome + Age, so yes it isn't ordinarily possible. We wanted this character to be Yoda-like.

How does a low stat make you RP? I understand it some I guess, my first character in this AP was a fighter with no ranks in climb, when it became an issue, I after a slight pause said he was afraid of heights.

I will be keeping neurotic track of my weight, actually. I have a medium load at ten pounds. Presently I'm carrying 9 pounds of stuff and I have a hired porter hauling the rest of my gear. Hope he survives!

What if he doesn't?

Sounds alright to me. :)

I plan on dominating a dinosaur at some point, and hiding behind that.

But yeah, I'm certainly not planning on fighting anything. My word no.

Then why are you adventuring for?

Just to make it clear, if your group is used to characters in this vein more power to yas.

If a character like that works for your group, you would know better than us.
I would as your DM:
first I wouldn't allow a character with 2 stats in the negatives, let alone have a character with a 4 in a stat.
I would make sure you are keeping precise accounting of weight.

As a player I wouldn't want to go anywheres with a person that can't pull his own weight.

It's not about the teleport spell so much as what is the AP to the general player playing through the AP.

The 'set dressing' means zilch to some in my group and I'm trying to figure out a way to explain that the set dressing is also an important part of the experience as the next modifier is.

Here's part of what one player said
"And frankly, being stuck in the Amazon is not the main story we are trying to play through; it's nothing more than a minor element of the big story. We've been stuck in the Amazon for weeks, if not months for those that have been playing from the beginning, how long does one have to be stuck in the Amazon in order to tell a story about being stuck in the Amazon (which is not what the story/theme/atmosphere is even about in the first place)?"

Our group is currently going through this AP(almost done with the third module) and I mentioned that we have lost some of the theme/atmosphere/story when the wizard got teleport.

What is this AP to the characters? I mentioned that Exploration through a hot humid climate, far away from civilization, having a lack of resources are all major 'story elements' of the AP. And was shot down quite quickly by the other players.

What say you?

"Goodbye to martial characters with daily powers."

Hate to inform you but PF has martial characters with daily powers as well.

This has most likely been asked already, but I didn't find it. I apologize if it has.

Casting a touch spell allows a character to 'hold' it until it is released, is there any negative side effect for taking damage while holding.

Example; Cleric casts cure serious wounds and then moves towards the fighter in melee with a creature that has a 15' reach provoking an AoO does the cleric have to make a concentration check to hold the spell?

I haven't seen anything to say 'yes' you have to make a concentration check, but I wanted to check here as well.

Apologies for the necromancy.

Just so I am fully understanding.

If I charge a creature with reach I provoke an AoO?

Many of the options from the APG are not "more powerful" then the core rule book. And that is as it should be. If every book that comes out has "more powerful" options that are better then the original books you get power creep too fast and no one will ever play a normal version of the class. And normal SHOULD be the best option overall.

The advantage of the alternate classes is not "more power" but more flavor and options based upon your character concept. They can do things that normal fighter or other characters cannot.

-1

Yep that didn't help me at all.

The Dm read from a list someplace, from where I don't know, that was a list of other races, besides the core 7, that was available to play. Aasimar, Tielfing etc. I just don't know the full list. Those two are the only ones that jump out from my memory.

We had a bad encounter in the 3rd module(first encounter even :( ) and we are rerolling characters, but I am a little stale on the 7 cores races. The Dm when we first started the AP read a list of playable races from the AP somewhere, but I don't have the list.

Can anyone help me with this?

This is not a game about math. It's a role playing game. Yes, you figured out the average hit points for level 5 creatures correctly. No, the game is not about math.

Um, yes it is all about math.

Quiterjon wrote:

Not every scroll I come across will be made by sorc or oracles. The 'old school' classes scrolls are cheaper to buy, better safe than sorry, activating devises in game(so far in Serpent Skull AP there have been two)

Name three that you really want to be able to cast via scroll.

-James

Any divine spell higher than level 1?

Like I said.

The rules state "The user must have the requisite ability score." "To cast a spell from a scroll, you need a high score in the appropriate ability (Intelligence for wizard spells, Wisdom for divine spells, or Charisma for sorcerer or bard spells)." How the Dm interprets that is up to him. Personally why have scrolls made by sorcs and bards cost more? Why have a distinction between wizard and sorc spell? I see no reason for it. Kinda hard for a Sorc to stay in business when the wizard two stores down sells the exact same scroll for less.

So again better safe than sorry

Not every scroll I come across will be made by sorc or oracles. The 'old school' classes scrolls are cheaper to buy, better safe than sorry, activating devises in game(so far in Serpent Skull AP there have been two)

CoDzilla wrote:

Anything other than a flat, featureless plain against mindless attackers hinders martials.

So they aren't allowed to use the terrain to their advantage to increase their AC, gain concealment, improve Reflex saves, bull rush, ki throw, prevent opponents from charging, fight from higher ground, etc? I can see why your martials have problems. I love using the terrain to my advantage.

Think of it strategically and you will understand why he said that.

Increase their AC: If you are they can as well

Gain concealment: If you are they can as well

Improve Reflex Saves: If you are they can as well

Bull Rush: Negatives outweighs the positives to make this a good tactical decision the lion's share of the time.

ki throw: one class has it

Prevent opponents from charging: If you are they can as well

All of these things the melee player tries to do the casters can virtually ignore. That is completely discounting the fact that the DM is most likely trying to do the same exact thing with the 'bad guys'

Quiterjon wrote:

Shouldn't you be looking at "only" what the game allows, not what happens/how you play it at you table?

Not only what Kolokotroni typed, but also this: The game allows what happens and how it is played at my table.

The error isn't a poster talking about what happens at his table the way he plays the game, but rather consists in him stating that his way is the only way the game plays when played by people who are playing the game correctly.

No it's not an error though. He is discounting a group's hatred for x race/class/feat/spell and going purely by what the rules/mechanics state.

The error is saying he is wrong because 'we don't play like that' Look to the rules and see if he is correct "by the rules". IF he made an error point it out, if he didn't then yes he is correct

Quiterjon wrote:

Shouldn't you be looking at "only" what the game allows, not what happens/how you play it at you table?

You know, just read what the rules/mechanics say.

I don't agree with everything CoDzilla says, but I see the lion's share of posters who disagree with him using what happens at the their own tables as "proof" that he is wrong.

The problem is the game only happens at someone's table. There is no sterile environment to play in to examine and isolate elements of the mechanics. Particularly when it comes to a game with a human being known as a GM (who presumably can think and adapt) running the entire world.

The 'martial characters suck' crowd also have assumed scenarios and settings that are very much based on the table they play at. The game isn't just played with the rules, it's played in a world set up by a dm, and the encounters have terrain, strategy, and various other limitations and variables created by the DM.

The theory crafting is important, but the reality is also important. That is why paizo asks for actual play in the playtests more then theory crafting. Because actual play represents the actual end result of the rules and not just the rules themselves. At my table which is loaded with optimizers, i dont have a party full of full casters, I usually have a healthy mix of magic and martial. And the vast majority of the time the characters are competative with eachother. Are some characters stronger then others? Sure, but it doesnt appear to correlate to which ones are full casters. So for me at my actual table, this is not the 'caster edition'. All the theory crafting in the world wont change that.

This idea is why there is so many problems with a system as heavily 'ruled' as 3e.

My personal philosophy on things that make my head hurt in 3e.
Melee types as they gain levels have diminishing returns on their power(# of attacks). X to hit then x-5, then x-10. To gain in power they have to specialize and keep narrowing that specialization. To specialize like that they need to be MAD
Casters are the complete opposite of that. As they gain in levels they receive exponential returns on their power(spells gain power either through time or damage) They gain more spells to use and those spells are more powerful Their feats on only tied to spell level(for the most part) not to stats.

Shouldn't you be looking at "only" what the game allows, not what happens/how you play it at you table?

You know, just read what the rules/mechanics say.

I don't agree with everything CoDzilla says, but I see the lion's share of posters who disagree with him using what happens at the their own tables as "proof" that he is wrong.

Because my int and wis are not high enough to cast anything but low level spells(0,1,2 for int and o for wis)or better known as a 12int and 10wis

I don't want 45 opinions on how 45 others would make my character. Which is why I posted a specific question about the character.

So
full ranks in UMD, Circlet of Persuasion, 20Cha(Headband of Charisma), Gloves of UMD

7(10)UMD
3 CoP
5 Cha
3 Skill Focus
2 Magical Aptitude
5 "Gloves" of UMD

That would be a 28?

Wait CoP and Gloves of UMD are both competence bonuses so they wouldn't stack? I could still have both but the bonus would only be 25? I'm trying to get it higher because our divine caster is a bit, no, very stingy with his spells. My Int and Wis aren't the greatest so I have to emulate ability scores, well I want to I should say.

Yeah, I'm liking 'Webby' as well, I really don't want to make a whirling death machine that Yuanty can become. We already have a barbarian in the party that does that.

Sorry I would never play a character with such low stats in str and wis.

The question was how can I increase my UMD skill.

I am making a Summoner character at level 7 and need to get my UMD at a reasonably high level to use wands and the like.
He's a guy that has been adventuring solo for a while and in the game system to do that effectively needs some clerical abilities and wizard abilities a summoner doesn't have.

We are playing through the Serpent Skull AP