Sigil87's page

Hey there folks,

I think this is an interesting discussion and one that we are having internally as well to ensure that this book is more than just a few numbers tossed around. I personally have the feeling that too much of the playtest ended up being a simple mechanical bonus without the added "oomph" to make it mythic. There is a difference between auto confirming crits.. which is certainly useful, and jumping up in the air, grabbing a dragon and slamming it into the ground. The first is probably more mechanically valuable, but the second is much more "mythic".

Suffice to say, we are working to add more of the later to the rules. Much of the rest that is described here as an issue deals with tone and setting. The text dealing with that was not included in the playtest for a number of reasons, but primarily because it just was not ready yet. There is going to be a significant section of the book talking about how to build mythic games and how to make it more of a impactful change in your game than just some numbers. We are getting there.. but for now, the playtest needed to focus on the mechanical. Its hard to playtest background info.

At any rate, thanks for all the feedback folks.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

This is an interesting response but i think you may of missed some of bulk of the complaints of the forum. The mechanics also need to feel mythic or special/unique not just the fluff and game story (which you mention is left out of the playtest). So if the rules in this play test don't feel like this i would hope that paizo would relook at them and revise them based on feedback rather than just relying on fluff to fill the gap. I would advocate a second revised play test. I suggest because i love :)

1000 times this. I'd rather have unique cool abilities that aren't any more powerful than just the same recycled stuff with more power. The same old stuff of increasing saves and ab ect and giving skill bonuses and such is just boring. I can't get my group interested in even play testing this because there is nothing new and original.

is it just me or does the rogue class (or at least what exemplifies it best, the trickster) once again get left in the dust by developers. They got terrible mythic progression/abilities and are far worse than the other ones (especially archmage). Why does paizo always make me feel like everyone who works there hates rogues and will NEVER bring them up to par with every single other class. This is such a good book to balance them with to.

i would suggest more unique abilities that no other class can use rather than just an extra swift attack that uses points ect.(snore)

also the mythic abilities that give +2 to 2 skills and then like one 20 a day are horrible. My vote is to replace them with something unique and newly designed, not the same old slightly more powerful rip off of feats that no one takes from the original books!

what kind of swift action would provoke and AoO? nothing comes to my mind

The question came up with my Ninja. My DM wanted to have the swift action vanish cause an attack of opportunity. I found that due to it being a Su ability it still didn't attracted a AoO but i could swear i saw the same rule for swifts in general.

Seems kind of weird that they only made spells that use a swift as AoO free.

Just a quick question for the masses.

Does a swift action that is NOT a quickened spell cause a AOO against you if the specific action says nothing on the matter.

I have always played that a swift action does not cause an AOO but for the life of me i cannot find the exact rule?

Quicken Spell using a Swift Action obviously prevents a AOO. (it says so in the description) but i can find no information on other swift actions.

Anyone able to find the line of text i am looking for or did i get it wrong?

Thanks

Of course they don't. Wraithstrike's last post explains why. Effects and feats/abilities are different things and as such the HD description that mentions effects do not apply. This is logic.

*sneaks in*

Rewrite the rogue class so it isn't useless without resorting to ninjas.

*sneaks out*

lets be honest, humans as written in the rules are better than the other races. It is as simple as that. Frankly before i played pathfinder i hated human races in my fantasy game, but now due to their sheer mechanics power to keep up with people who make powerful builds its almost essential to use them.

I would LOVE to play a halfling in a lot of my games but halflings are probable the worst race ever. There small stature gives them horrible run speed and they gain far to little and have to many negatives compared to humans.

It would be nice to give the other races some much needed love, especially halflings.

funnily enough your DM was wrong on 2 accounts.

1st one is obvious. The spell says "Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell."

Throwing aside your only weapon when there is no escape, no chance to reason with the evil aligned outsider or escape is obviously harmful to your character. Therefor the spell fails.

2nd is "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable."

Your DMs wording of the spell did not do this. Therefor the spell fails.

If you want your DM to realize how wrong he was just send him to this thread. I am sure he will get the picture.

For reference: Suggestion

Lawful Neutral.

The lawful part really depends how strictly you stick to your code of conduct but from what i have read i would say Lawful for now.

Neutral because although you are trying to punish evil and do the right thing your actions are away from the conventional ideal of good. That being said you aren't doing this with malice so probably not evil.

Sounds very much like an inquisitor to me. Using evil/neutral ways to punish the evil.

personally i enjoy buffs and what they offer both when i am DMing and as a player.

They are a limited resource from a few classes that need to be used wisely (or should be anyway)to help a party out. I agree some buffs might last a bit to long but if that's the case just house rule a lesser duration on them.

Because they are a limited resource i like the strategy element they can provide. If you think they have access to them to much as a DM you could add more encounters to bleed out their spells. Make them really think before casting them.

either let the oracle have the weapon (its not always about optimization and it sounds like you have had plenty) or trade/pay her for it. It sounds like it might be more the fact that you seem to be getting all the good stuff and she is getting a little peeved about it. Which is totally understandable.

If a person is bleeding, and you cast a "cure" spell, does the cure remove the bleeding and restore x hit points, or just stop the bleeding?

stops both the bleeding and cures HP :)

Even feedback about the books editing or lack thereof is welcome.

As i mentioned in the first post the book hasn't been through even the first editing stage yet due to time and/or money constraints so i beg your forgiveness. I will endeavor to see that it does before the next beta release and you all have my apologies.

thank you all very much for the feedback! its great! so feel free to keep it coming.

A version 2 of the beta with fixes and changes based on the feedback will most likely be out next week so i can see your revised opinions :)

Once again thank you all for taking the time to read/try the beta out

Great product planning on having it playtested this week. One question could the final version come in a printer friendly format possibly?

I will try my hardest to make the final version printer friendly or at the least release a second printer friendly copy :)

and thank you for the feedback dark_mistress.

I know some of the book needs rewording/polishing and those 2 errors you picked up are most appreciated and will be fixed :)

Thank you for your time and trouble :)

Sigil87 wrote:

Hell i would LOVE a revision of traps. If they changed traps around to make them actually useful/deadly/decent then there would be less of a argument i think :)

Nope, because you'd still have other classes with trapfinding that otherwise outshine the rogue. A rising trap-based tide would lift all those ships and you'd still (mechanically) prefer a ranger or bard as your trapfinder.

when i said revision of traps i just assumed that would also include the rogues ability to find/disable/recover them. Traps need more than a CR and damage change, the whole system needs a rework and to me that would include trap finding.

I don't think that anyone is saying that DPR is the only way to help in combat, but since DPR is pretty much the rogues only tool at the rogues disposal it should be higher.

This :) could not of said it better my self :)

Personally i would love the rogues to have something else.. something UNIQUE but as paizo seems happy to ignore the rogue and shove out a super natural ninja band aid i doubt that will happen.

And please don't say the rogue has skills cause the bard DESTROYS a rogue in a skill comparison due to his bard abilities.

Hell i would LOVE a revision of traps. If they changed traps around to make them actually useful/deadly/decent then there would be less of a argument i think :)

Maybe a trap rework paizo *nudge nudge wink wink* :P
something like the stealth revision? :P

I refer you to this thread, where we're discussing the topic of design.

the thread didnt start out with that intention, but its basically turned into a dos and donts list for page design.

thanks for the link mate :)

and i look forward to hearing your opinions dark_mistress

sozin wrote:

2) The US Government and regulatory agencies made it sickeningly easy for the vampire squids to do what they did. The are equally culpable.

Just gonna say, a police officer who lets a murderer escape through incompetence is not as bad as the murderer. But I think you're talking more about corruption, right?

that depends if the police officer let the murder go because the murderer bribed him. Which is the case with the US government.

You guys really need to look where your money is coming from. Cause your federal reserve is a private company that is not held accountable by ANYONE including your government all because your government signed it off for bribes a long time ago.

When someone tried to change that (kenedy) he got assassinated... funny isn't it :P

Consider buying some books by LPJr or Rite Publishing. I've enjoyed their layout quite a bit. A nice border and offwhite background can do a lot!

yer, i will have to take a look at others. I am a content/mechanics designer, not into any kind of art really but at the same time i don't want to rip off other peoples work. It will go on the list... the very long list :P

Maybe one day i will win some kind of lottery and then i can write content without having to worry about that stuff personally. Never know one day some other bigger 3pps might actually like my work heh.

First thought:

The watermarks are too dark.

I skimmed it, but I found the text hard to read. And that never helps.

If you're going to keep the page that dark, use white text.

Second thought: While you're including more options for the rogue, it doesn't look like its getting the power boost it needs.

interesting, on my screen the words could be read easily but i guess not everyone's PC is the same. I will have to fade the background a bit to fix the problem. Thanks for mentioning it.

On your second thought, i think that many of the talents do increase the power of the rogue. Maybe not right up to fighter level but more than they are right now. If you are able to read it and have the time i would love to hear your thoughts on the books power balance once you have looked through it better :)

Cheapy wrote:

That's because all the classes are the same :)

That's where the ultimate search for balance gets you...

i would agree with Cheapy here, in 4th ed all the classes ARE the same. They do damage...or they do damage. Little variation.

Its always going to be hard to balance thing that aren't all the same like in 4th ed but i think with a few exception pathfinder hasn't done to bad a job considering it tried to be compatible with 3.5.

Unfortunately one of those exceptions is the rogue. I still reckon a dev at paizo hates them though lol.

My initial impression is that I like most of the new talents very much, as well as some of the feats. I can definitely see myself using them. Not so much the alternative sneak attack rules, but that's because I dream fondly of seeing a sneak attack free rogue. If one happened to be added to this book as an alternative rogue class, I would be much pleased. As for the archetypes, I have to say I like the ideas of the Ruffian and Divine Assassin, but not so much the other ones.

As for actual playtesting, that'll have to wait until I have time.

Thanks for the feedback :)

There is plans to add a sneak attack free rogue archetype but i left it out of beta 1 because i wasn't sure how people would react to it and i wanted to see if people would prefer the Talented Thief archetype, which basically severely limits the sneak attack in favor of extra rogue talents.

I'm not looking so much for people to play test it (i admit that's unlikely and will be done by us before full release) but mainly looking for what people like and dislike along with peoples thoughts of what is overpowered/underpowered in the book :)

That said if anyone wishes to please feel free and i am more than happy to add them to the credited play testers

Once again thanks for the response it means a great deal :)

Fabled Workshop would like to invite you all to try out our first Beta book The Fundamental Book of Rogues.

Any feedback, opinions or suggestions are more than welcome and can be given at our site or in this thread.

The aim of this book is to address the problems with the rogue class that are seen by many (but admittedly not all) and to bring the class back into play without having to resort to the ninja alternative class.

Our website:Fabled Workshop
Download: The Fundamental Book of Rogues.

Thanks for your time and keep in mind as the book is beta it does not contain the entire finished product and has not undergone full editing yet. :)

Often when someone goes on about making fighters supernatural on these boards, someone else will rebuke with the idea that fighters should be bound by the laws of the world AKA they should be realistic. But are they really?

I've seen iconic examples of Wizards, Assassins, Rogues, Bards, Barbarians, and Paladins in stories and myths, but I don't think I've ever seen one of a straight fighter. I don't know of any fighting character that wasn't either charismatic, stealthy, or a barbarian.

In real life, what I know of both historical and modern armies is that they are actually trained in many non-combat skills as well. Making them closer to rangers than just fighters. Is there anyone in real life who is only skilled in the use of a single type of weapon?

Recently, I've seen many threads that want to combine rogues and fighters for mechanical reasons, but maybe they should be combined for flavor reasons, maybe call them mercenaries.
In it's place, the Ninja should be left (magic wielding assassin is probably what the rogue should have been).

Or perhaps I'm just missing something?

fighters as well as other classes such as rogue are always going to be better than real life humans. This is because real life humans suck ass.

HOWEVER its not that they are better than RL humans thats the issue. Fighters are NON supernatural. They do not break the laws of physics, just the laws of probability and human skill level. Thats how they should be and that's how i hope they stay. This goes for the other non magical classes to. One of the reason i hate the idea of a ninja replacing a rogue so much but thats for another time/thread.

looks about right compared to the other races. The only thing that MIGHT be of concern is the natural armor bonus equal to half the con modifier. But you have a few AC negatives and a dex minus to balance it out so unless they get insane items/ability score stuff should be fine.

TOZ wrote:

Because we choose to.

On contrary, I play Pathfinder because Paizo's Orbital Mind Control Laser tells me to.

Sometimes I get a glimpse of free will, but before I manage to do anything I hear a booming voice of Cosmo say *OBEY. SUBMIT* and I reach for my credit card again.

just what i was thinking :P

The same reason i do anything that i have 100% control over.

Fun and Enjoyment

it seems to be legit. However you may find a few DMs who won't allow this. This is most likely an overlooked aspect of the archetype rather than deliberate design.

But like i said looking at it from a strict rules point of view it seems like you can use the shield without penalties to your acrobatics.

i doubt its an error but why are both small and medium races classified as 0 points. Surly small should be -1 if medium is 0. It is a disadvantage after all.

Also just as an opinion type thing the slow base speed only giving -1 seems iffy. Personally i reckon -2. Speed is a major thing.

wow, very nice mate. Good Job

illusions have always been interesting. I have always ruled that illusions can't cause damage but at the same time i don't allow them to be bypassed without a save. For example an illusionary wall can't be walked through unless you save. Your mind prevents you from walking through it. I do this because as much as people try you just can't keep the meta game out of it all together and illusions suffer from that.

that is retarded, smack in the face whoever said an animal can't make a 5 foot step. They can and DO all the time in the real world.

Hell many animals in the real world have better....MUCH better combat tactics that 90% of the worlds humans.

Jeremiziah wrote:

Can you explain why HiPS is necessary?

It's not, I was having a brain fart.

The idea here was to try and increase the usability for distraction, but it is stepping on the toes of not only the feint section of the Bluff skill, but maybe Sleight of Hand as well.

I'm thinking about changing it so that you can only take a withdraw action (and maybe only a standard action version of withdraw) after creating a distraction. This puts it closer to the intent of the original Stealth rules without some of the wackiness of those rules.

Good catch, folks.

the rules look great as they are written here.

Don't change that! This is something sneak character (especially rogues) NEED!

If anything i personally would change it so you only need cover or concealment to START stealth, not to continue it (in other words the hidden condition should not end if you end your turn without this cover or concealment)

otherwise nice rules :)

why hide it? you would think the most powerful god would just keep it. That way they have it on hand to keep safe and to add to there own power if someone tries to take it

i would allow it, but only because once used the bear trap should snap shut making the weapon unless (at least the bear trap part) unless it is reset (i would prob give a 2 round reset timer) i think that's a fair trade for a feat.

the DM did nothing wrong here.

Burn the b@%%* alive. Set her and her tree on fire. If you think she might run start the fire further out and have it work its way inwards towards her (wind spells?) Fire elementals would also do great

lol, i find it a bit funny that the main objection is that you have to destroy a bit of nature to get the iron. What about wood? your cutting down trees? what about leather? your killing animals for it?

I would LOVE to see an antimatter druid although being on a planet like ours would probably give him little to work with :P

heh,

i think the druid in general is tricky because it comes down to the intent of the class rather than the fact of nature.

i THINK the intent of the class is to basically function in both a natural and uncivilized/advanced way. To me that would also restrict alchemy even if it comes from the natural world.

Now if you want to ignore the games intent of druid and just focus on the druids sphere of influence (nature) then in reality you can influence metal of any type in any way you wish because as we know humans (and in fantasy worlds elves, dwarves and so on) are natural creatures and everything they use including there technology comes from the earth and there own brains. Worked metal is just earth and fire combined with your brain. It is completely natural to make and use things made from it in the real world.

So to me it comes down to those 2 choices, follow the intent of the book with druids or just follow the sphere of influence.

*shrugs* personal choice. Good Luck :)

iron is a natural part of the earth so it should be part of the druids arsenal. Smelting/working iron on the other hand seems to go against there code to me.

I could totally see an iron druid that has a new set of spell like abilities or spells based on using iron as a spell component/modifying it to create some things/fight with but using non magical ways of creating things with it (and i mean any creation process than even includes non magical elements) seems off to me.

as someone who played nwn for many years as well as owning a PW World for a year i can tell you it would be impossible to do a pathfinder set of rules on it.

To much of the rules are hard coded into the engine and cannot be changed with the toolset.

Sorry!

there is now more than enough classes. I don't want any more at the very least until they fix the current ones (if at all)

troll man is trolling

The ninja is not being detected by the wish. The ninja is being detected by the characters AFTER the Hidden Master ability is suppressed. Thus it is RAW legal. (Note: The caster need not detect the ninja to cast the spell, as it does not target the ninja, nor does the spell need to detect the ninja.)

Your mileage may vary as to the ability of Wish to suppress class abilities.

Its an interesting idea but it sounds more like semantics to me. I as a DM would rule by the wording of the ability that wishing for the suppression of the ability is in essence being done to detect the ninja. If that is the case (i suppose it depends on the DM) then the cannot be detected by any means thing is still active.

These kinda questions are always dodgy in an incomplete universe such as dnd and pathfinder as we can't do experiments to find the answers. :) As (from memory) a god or goddess of magic is usually responsible for magic i would say that the intention of the magic especially in circumstances like this would matter.

but *shrugs* there is no way to know for certain i guess

wish may be the most powerful spell in the game TOZ but it seems hidden master is more powerful as a wish is still part of the any in the books description:"While invisible in this way, she cannot be detected by ANY means".

I personally think wish SHOULD overpower it but the designers obviously disagree with me and as what they write is considered RAW they win in all RAW discussions.

very nice list! a good solid change/clarifications balance wise.

it depends on the characters INTENT!

If he made this deal/sold his soul for the greater good/as a plan with his parties knowledge to help them then its not an evil act but a neutral one. If he did it only to get rid of his personal gold debt then it is very evil.

break enchantment is needed (or a similar ability)

LE or CN change since he has had warnings before. I also agree that unless he has the status spell up start piling on the negative modifiers for trying to be a general.

I might even move him to pure TN if his defense for his actions is self defense because he is still being moderately unlawful

Sigil87 wrote:

To me anything without a counter is silly

Why can't wish or miracle counter it?

"I wish we could detect this foe."

"Lord, tear away the veil that guards our enemy."

You seriously would say 'no it doesn't work' as a DM?

i would LOVE to say i would allow a wish like this to bypass it BUT by RAW it is against the rules.

"Can't reveal does not equal no counter."

As for that i agree you can do certain things to make the ability not worth while such as killing them (somehow) but by no counter i mean there is no way to get around the invisibility effect other than waiting it out and that isn't really a counter.