RDM42's page

2,889 posts. Alias of Arssanguinus.


1 to 50 of 2,889 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

magnuskn wrote:
thflame wrote:

I think the devs have confirmed that the idea of a 50 charge cure light wounds wand isn't going to be a thing anymore.

This is probably for the better, as they trivialize most adventures.

That would be terrible, because they make somewhat expedient adventuring possible in the first place for all low-level characters and higher level parties without a dedicated healer.

Under the current system- you can’t say that there isn’t something else to enable that without seeing more of the new.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, yes. As a chaotic it doesn’t work to play the paragon of lawful good. That is true.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Warpriest is pretty cool, but a different concept. It is, literally, a priest that goes to war. Not a warrior who is holy.

Paladin is a derivation of fighter, not a derivation of cleric. It has full BAB, heavy armor, and spells are pretty minor. Warpriest is not a substitute for Paladin any more than a cleric with war domain is.


So with that being true, we can stop insisting that people who want something similar just go play a war priest. They are two different things, two different feels, and not equivalent.

A NG paladin-type person should feel different than a LG or CG. They may even have different abilities, a vastly different code, and so on. They wouldn't just get a bunch of powers and the ability to run free while the poor LG would be "restricted" by their code. Rather, they'd have their own things to deal with that could be just as -- if not more so -- complicated as the standard paladin.

And thus would be something other than a paladin. Not a paladin with the lawful good removed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Consolidated skills are majorly ugh.

Or paladin could remain paladin and a new class is generated.

Yes, other characters have to not act like evil douches. That’s it.

If you make deity specific code it should be ore like a menu. “Pick one from column a, two from b and another from ‘c’ so it could be customized.

Make it less of an on or off but something. That improves overtime and dipping for abilities will take care of itself. They will have the ability,it will just be weaker.

Why is “make a new class” not equally viable for you? Why is it ‘it MUST be the paladin!!!!z”

To turn that around, the other side seems to be designating themselves ‘the voice of the pathfinder community, which of course agrees with us.”

It looks like instead of “save or suck” there are a rang.e of options. Say nothing, bad hair day, stuck in traffic, run out of gas, car crash”

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark, I kinda think you guys REALLY need to answer this skill thing because that and ‘will there still be significant melee bonus difference between martial and say, a, wizard' seem to be the two main themes I see rocketing around.

By necessity any change is going to open some doors and shut some others.

“There can be change as long as it doesn’t change anything “?

Sounds like a good opportunity for a new class...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

You seem to get to the point where people would rather abolish th.e class entirely than allow it to exist as lg limited and it starts seeming just plain odd.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dear lord why are some people so obsessed with breaking up the lawful good paladin?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
stigand wrote:
I like the 5e Paladin Oath of Vengeance. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Yep, 5e Paladin oaths are great. No reason only LG gods should have holy champions to go forth and kick a$$ for the Lord!

They have holy champions. They just are not paladins but different holy champions.

But if that action spending is merely an additional option then it is an increase in utility not a decrease.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meanwhile I’d have to say that the easy bake oven skills are completely unappealing.

Were-wraith wrote:
To me it sounds a lot like what they are calling "proficiencies" are essentially the consolidated skills + grouped skills from Unchained.

Which would be unfortunate...

Lincoln Cross wrote:

As a huge fan of shields I have some concerns.

Current PF favors offense so much higher than defense if using your average defensive option slows your offense no one will use it unless there are significant defensive gains.

If it takes an action to get a benefit at all that makes them almost obsolete right off the bat. Now, if there is a static bonus and also an added greater bonus for spending an action I can see it.

Now to the shield actually taking damage. Realistically I see it of course. But this will make the mend spell very valuable or characters will carry around wagon of shields. This also makes magic shields even more expensive and reduces the chance of anyone using one.

Seems almost to me that the shield till does what it did before but there is additional utility for it as well; you can also choose to expend an action in order to block or something similar. Might be wrong about that ...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can #y that consolidating the skill list would be one of the least popular things they could do with me. I don’t want to lose skill granularity in a easy bake oven skill system.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you could sacrifice actions to improve the results of the one action you still take it much get have some of that ‘vital strike’ feel.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Being able to buff is great, but when the only thing a class can easily do is buff, there's an issue. Even Clerics and Oracles, some of the biggest support classes in the game, have better options for other routes than the bard, who basically has to stick to buffing unless he's an Arcane Duelist or Dervish.

Being able to buff is hardly the only thing a bard can do. They aren’t the BEST at alot of things, but are able to meaningfully contribute in many.

CorvusMask wrote:
Diplomacy should be a scaling dc though since by raw, diplomacy check with demigod wouldn't be much harder than diplomacy check with a dragon if they don't have absurdly good charisma :P

No dc will be scaling per se, but PCs will generally be trying more difficult things. For example higher level PCs will often be trying diplomacy against stronger willed high level people. So in a sense there is scaling - but it’s scaling in what is tried. The dcs go u because you are trying to jump fifteen foot pits instead of ten, not because ten gets more difficult.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
If they become the stripped down game 5e is a lot of the appeal will vanish for many players. I seriously hope they don’t try to occupy the same design space as 5e.

I've heard this a lot.

Wizards has their space. Pathfinder has our space. Challenging them in their space would be a losing proposition... for us, for them, for gamers everywhere. Everybody loses.

Also, don't confuse "simpler" with "stripped down." If you haven't read the blog about the new action economy, please do. It describes a system that's simpler than we have now, but that is also more flexible than we have now. I can tell you from my own play experience, it allows for more varied play strategies and more interesting player decisions. But it's easier to learn and faster in play. I think it's more fun, and I think most of you will think that too, once you've tried it. THAT is what this is about.

The action economy is not where I am worried about the stripping down. I like the action economy. Leery of the hints I’ve seen on skills, for example.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If they become the stripped down game 5e is a lot of the appeal will vanish for many players. I seriously hope they don’t try to occupy the same design space as 5e.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is kinda what some of the verbiage when combined with ‘simplification’ sounds a bit like. I think there is at least a decent set worried about it becoming fifth ed 2.0. Which is a fine enough game for what it is, but not what they play this one for. Now it might not be that, but there are plenty of things that kinda sound like going that way.

Well, if they decide to occupy the same design space as fifth edition then what is the point?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Consolidated skills makes my skin crawl. Ugh.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Mark, to put it mildly the “streamlined” is what has me worried. I don’t want an over simplified game that tries to occupy the design space fifth edition is occupying.

So how familiar is the 'feel' of play going to be?

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

I was against it for the longest time. I've been warming to it.

But you are right, it is silly to say that using a wand of fireballs to take down a dragon is believable while a ray gun that shoots exploding fiery bursts to take down a dragon is just too far fetched.

For most that dislike the mix it isn’t a matter of ‘believability’ but that it doesn’t give them the ‘feel’ they look for when playing ...

Matthew Downie wrote:
Pan wrote:
How would you build spider vigilante in 5E?

By talking to the GM. "I was thinking a Monk framework. Here are the abilities I need for my concept: A climb speed. The ability to restrain enemies at range, if I can hit them - similar to a Web spell. The ability to swing a finite number of times per day, using Acrobatics rolls to give me quick movement across the battlefield, as long as there's something high up to grip on to, maybe a bonus to damage if I swing into an enemy. And I'd like Advantage on Reflex saves or something like that to represent my arachno-senses. What would I have to trade away for that? I could lose Deflect Missiles, Stunning Strike, increased walking speed, Flurry of Blows...?"

Then I'd get dice thrown at me by all the other players for trying to bring a modern superhero to a high fantasy setting.

But you could ‘get it’ in pathfinder through the same method of talking to the right GM .


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
You believe even killing in self defense is evil, therefore I find it pretty easy to view your philosophy as untenable to say the least.
the act of extinguishing another sentient beings life is evil no matter the circumstance, and if you kill some one you should live with that soul crushing weight on your shoulders for the rest of your life because that's the effect an evil act has on a genuinely good person

Have to disagree with your ‘proof by assertion’ argument.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You believe even killing in self defense is evil, therefore I find it pretty easy to view your philosophy as untenable to say the least.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

Pathfinder is a flawed game. Original Dungeons & Dragons made many simplifying assumptions, such as treating armor and dodge as adding to miss chance in the same way. Later, the game added more complexity, copying more features from reality, but kept the underlying simplified rules, so the game became more disconnected from reality rather than less. However, the disconnect allows the game designers to manipulate the rules so that the party will win against a level-appropriate challenge, so it is a feature rather than a bug.

Isaac Zephyr wrote:
1:Move Actions. Move actions as their own thing are dated. ... Without changing anything but that, letting all characters move without action, they gain choices.

I presume that Isaac Zephyr also intends partial movement followed by action followed by rest of movement, so that the archer can step out from behind a merlon of a crenellated castle, make a full attack with Rapid Shot and Manyshot through the embrasure, and step back behind the merlon, vulnerable only to a readied action. It worked for real castles, so it ought to work for Pathfinder, right? But readied attacks were much easier in reality and manyshot was much harder. And that would allow a full attack on a flyby attack, too. Real medieval life lacked man-sized and dragon-sized opponents that fly.

I don't see how that adds choices. Making one one option--move, full attack, move--much better than the other options makes the choice for the player.

And if we don't allow split moves, then non-action movement would essentially be its own special action, call it a move action, except we cannot use the move action for anything except movement. We could not even combine a move action with a standard action to create a full-round action, because all standard actions would already be promoted to full-round actions. That has fewer choices, too.

Isaac Zephyr wrote:
2: Defensive Actions, and Odd Opportunity Attacks. This is more with stacking penalties on things that don't need them.

They are ALL flawed games - they just have different flaws, and creating a flawless game would be impossible - eliminating some flaws would create others.

Davor wrote:
If you're going to try and apply moral relativity to a setting, you can justify/do whatever you want. You don't need to ask whether something is okay. Just justify it however and move on.

That isn’t moral relativity. It’s moral objectivity. Actions are good or evil based on a combination of intentions and consequences. Starting a fire is good. You are trying to warm up freezing refugees and give them a meal. Starting a fire is evil. You are burning down their homes. Moral issues are rarely x=1.1*y-z.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Razcar wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:
In the real world, it’s possible to fall off a chair and break your neck. In Golarion, a very lucky guard (22 HP) could survive a fall from orbit and walk away without so much as a limp.

Not a guard but a (very lucky indeed) flight attendant:


Talk about rolling a 1 on every falling damage die. She did get severely injured though, but that's Pathfinder's injury rules for you - you're perfectly fine (1 HP) or you are bleeding out and dying (-HP)

Come now. You can also hit exactly zero hp.

“The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.”

I would submit that getting a guard to attack his king would be one that would be at least somewhat difficult to make sound ‘reasonable’ at least unless the guard harbored some resentment toward him to begin with...

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

What's the difference between this and...

"I go all CSI on the deceased, minus time lapsed lab testing"

On th. Other hand if you specifically said you wer3 looking to see if he died of wasp stings, and he did, that might be a bonus because you are specifically looking for something which is in fact there rather than a generic ‘something’


Warped Savant wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
What I don't understand is the desire to draw some kind of bright red (even neon) line around things like social skills when player skill and knowledge affects so much of the play of the game.

Do you allow players to use OoC knowledge in regards to monsters? Let's say they're fighting a nereid but the characters don't have much knowledge Arcana. The characters don't know that the nereid's shawl is important because they didn't roll well but a player does.

Do they get a bonus to their knowledge check because it's a random fact they know?

(This is an honest question as I'm trying to better understand where you're coming from.)

If they can provide a good and creative reason that meshes with their character background why they might know more about this thing, perhaps.

J4RH34D wrote:

I believe it is possible to move at the speed of light if you can find a way to stand up from prone as a free action.

By dropping prone as a free action and standing as a free action you can do that infinitely many times during your turn. This allows you to move at the speed of light

“Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.”

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:

-- Buildings will adroitly dodge out of the way when you least expect it!

A colossal-sized object (like a house) has an AC of -3. This isn't AD&D, and even with a -4 non-proficiency penalty and no other bonuses you're still hitting on a roll of 2 or better. That's as close to "impossible to miss" as you're going to get. And if for some unfathomable reason that's not easy enough to hit for you, there's a rule that you can take a full-round action to auto-hit inanimate objects with melee attacks.

Swim rules are weird with their lack of regard for density, but climb rules are where it gets really weird. There is no penalty for being heavier, nor a bonus for being lighter, so you end up with weird cases like just about every small-or-smaller-sized creature that's supposed to be able to climb (like monkeys or spiders) needing a racial bonus to climb to compensate for the fact that there's no general rule.

It may not catch all cases, but tiny or smaller uses dex instead of strength for climb and swim.

A roleplaying encounter, for me as a GM, has several ‘components’. Content, tone/approach, and ‘zing’.

Content would be where, for an intimidate for example, you might bring an. Bonus up the guys sister and that you know where she lives. Now you can inform me that you are doing this by shakespear, or my just telling me. But it could be worth a bonus.

Tone/approach is the place for ‘in a low, hissing voice. Or I whisper into his ear, or ‘I start out conversational then move into more and more pointed questions. Or anything else having to do with mannerisms, body language and delivery. Again you can inform by doing or inform by telling. Either might be a bonus.

The third, zing, is something like ‘the perfect line’, the perfect stagecraft, wordplay - and while it’s possible to get this by description it’s really not as easy. It could still be a bonus. And the shy players are generally ok with that. They still have ways to ‘get theirs’ and still appreciate the zing as much as anyone else.

Just a thought, but fox’s cunning might be worth it or owls wisdom, if equivalent magic items are not available @being able to temporarily be smarter when you have a problem?

What caster level - it matters for durations.

Isonaroc wrote:
Omnius wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

In a world where everyone has access to a dozen magic items, and you can fall two hundred feet onto pointy rocks and still punch out an elephant, it's basically anime.

(Whether the anime martial who can cut through walls and defeat dozens of foes in a few seconds can keep up with a flying teleporting mind-controlling angel-summoning wizard is another question...)

Western fantasy is deeply rooted in mythology.

Like, say, The Tain. Where Cuchulain goes friggin' super Saiyan and does all manner of ridiculous over-the-top nonsense.

Oh, but they'll say that Cú Chulainn (or Heracles or Gilgamesh or whoever) was a demigod and isn't comparable to "mundane martials." No nevermind to the fact that a 17th level martial should be anything but mundane.


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
The King In Yellow wrote:
Sixth, this isn't an anime. Martials shouldn't be doing anime stuff, unless they have access to magic. The game world should be (mostly) internally consistent. Guy with sword may know all kinds of tricks with that sword, but in the end, he's STILL just a guy with a sword. Not an anime character. (Note, I watch a lot of anime, but if I want to play with anime characters, I'll play in an anime-themed RPG. - That's what BESM and TFOS are for.)

My problem with this is that there's no point to a level system if that's the case.

A level 20 fighter is hundreds of thousands of EXP higher than a level 17 wizard. If the level 20 PC wealth fighter is a CR 20 encounter, he is worth more EXP than TWO fully equipped level 17 wizards.

Nobody in their right mind would ever choose to fight 2 level 17 wizards instead of the level 20 fighter unless the fight takes place in a dead magic zone because fighting something with a really dangerous full attack is not particularly hard for competent adventurers but fighting two enemies with 9th-level spells is a nightmare even if you know what you're doing. Most people wouldn't prefer to


Yes you mean they’ll say the truth? Since he was one? As was, say, Hercules? And Gilgamesh. Quite explicitly.

Grandlounge wrote:
*Have a longer adventuring day forcing them to ration resources (this can be accomplished with a ticking clock, or situations where rest isn't easy.)

A wizard at 6th level has 14 spells. Two per fight should be sufficient to swing fights, so you're looking at 7 combats per day. Other 9th level casters can have more spells. I think to achieve the goal you are describing it would be valuable be to get casters to use a lot of spells out of combat to solve other problems.

Most other class get tripped up by long days. Your 6th level casters are going to be toast, barbarian and brawlers lose potent class features. Character with really limited use abilities like paladins, cavaliers and inquisitors are also going to take a pretty big hit. The goal in balancing a game against wizards is has to have solutions that don't hinder other players to an equal or greater extent.

Fighter and slayers are top go all day classes but even they will have to spend much more gold on healing with more combats per day.

My high level spontaneous casters are using quicken spell and casting 30+ spells a day it's a big resource. I'm a bit more conservative on my prepared casters.

This is not to say your idea is incorrect but GMs should be cautious about how they go about it to ensure they balance the game and don't make it worse.

But part of the issue is the spell matching the scenario.

1 to 50 of 2,889 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>