SeaBreeze's page

Just read through this thread and it is hilarious. I did however learn a few things after doing some research on this thread and outside sources:

1) People care an unusual amount about this. Heck! Val'bryn2 is easily the most dedicated, with it from the beginning and for some reason argued with some troll-y posts.

2) It seems pretty unanimous that, the fact that an object dropped on you deals DR reducible damage but that same object just falling on you randomly is not reduced, is weird. I mean, the leader of the DR not applying movement (Val'byrn2) even said, quote: "It's odd, no denying, but it's (my interpretation of) the rules."

3) Also, Pathfinder: falling damage is untyped; Starfinder: Falling damage is untyped, but an object falling on you specifically does bludgeoning damage to you and itself; Pathfinder Playtest: falling damage is bludgeoning. So...the devs can't seem to make up their minds?

So, all-in-all it seems that it will end up being subject to table variation (until you play PF2). Some will continue to argue their point, thinking that somehow after repeating the same argument a seventh to tenth time someone who disagreed will begin to agree. Some will hold on to 'RAW' as some sort of holy grail, regardless of if "It's odd, no denying..." They will follow the holy 'RAW', like a paladin to their code! And yet others will read through this whole thread (maybe even the previously linked thread too) and wonder why they spent all of that time looking through the sheer repetition of both threads, but finding solace in the fact that the posters in the threads wasted more time than they.

Thank you to all who participated. I feel that I have almost spent this roller coaster of time killing with you. All contributions were noticed and appreciated. (Even the deleted ones)

Good gosh. This is going nowhere, not even quickly.

Why still argue about this when you were given the reason many times over? It is different than Pathfinder.

"..but I'm asking for an in-game reason.."

Which was responded with several in-game reasons.

"..but...dieties don't dictate alignment!.." (Which by the way is a out-of-game reason)

You are arguing out of game reasoning against in game reasoning.

I think the plain of simple of it that is that it just is.

Okay? That's not a good thing. If a developer thinks there's a better rule than what's in the book, publish that rule instead.

What you are specifically referring to is how to notice traps. In Pathfinder the rogue has the ability to take the talent Trapspotter which specifically allows for an automatic check to notice the trap. So, because it is a class ability, anyone else that does not have trapspotter should never get an automatic check to notice a trap. Therefore the only way to notice a trap without trapspotter is to specifically state that you are searching for one. There is no confusion or strange ruling.

Now if a gm decides to go against these RAW to streamline the play experience that is their prerogative.

The developers have provided sufficient and concise rules. If you do not like them I encourage you to speak to your gm. The purpose of tabletop games is to provide a solid framework for gamepley which will inevitably be augmented by each unique group. Catering to minor alterations of RAW is minutia and a waste of a developer's time.

OR

pick up trap spotter

I don't like the way blasting spells are handled.

As far as I can tell, blasting has been nerfed compared to Pathfinder. Why? I just can't comprehend any reason for this. Blasting has already been the weakest style of spellcasting in Pathfinder, nerfing it further is just ridiculous.
And by nerfing I mean that blasting is now the only form of spellcasting that doesn't scale - other spells get stuff like increased duration or whatever from increased caster level, but the equivalent of Fireball simply doesn't scale on caster level at all.

2 things:

As far as I can tell, blasting has been nerfed compared to Pathfinder. Why? I just can't comprehend any reason for this.

It is obvious (to me at least) that spell casting has been limited in general in SF as the hghest level spells are 6th level.

2)

Blasting has already been the weakest style of spellcasting in Pathfinder

What!? Seriously? A focused blaster can Maximize, Empower a Fireball while the enemy is vulnerable to fire. But your right. That sounds weak to me.

SeaBreeze wrote:

You may ask, why SeaBreeze are you joining if if you seemingly care so little? The answer is that this thread has affected the groups that I play with. Too looong.

Well, following your philosophy, if the group you play with let themselves to get affected by the tread...Let them stew...I guess they want to..

I absolutely will but figured I'd point out the utter redundancy of this thread's continued existence.

I can't believe this thread is still going. Really people? 2+ weeks of saying the same things over and over again? If someone else said it maybe it is unneeded for you to repeat it. This seems like an exercise in futility.

If you are offended, then be offended. If someone else isn't please don't inflict your terrible feelings on others.

If you like it then buy it. If someone else doesn't like it, then for some reason they want to wallow in unhappiness. Let them stew...I guess they want to..

There has been nothing sent out about it changing PFS.

If it does, then they decided it was best. If you are offended then play an unchanged version in a home game. There are almost endless combinations of character options available and the discussion for one has gone on for sooo looong.

You may ask, why SeaBreeze are you joining if if you seemingly care so little? The answer is that this thread has affected the groups that I play with. Too looong.

All that being said, to those authors and creators and all in Paizo:

Thank you for all of your efforts. For all of the beautiful story, lore, and fun that you have created. You all are appreciated. Many of us that play Pathfinder have these sentiments. Keep it up. You are awesome.