Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
I was excited about playing this class before.... now after seeing the changes, The insanely massive nerf studied strike is has made my players completely disregard the class, they won't even consider it at this point. If they want to take away all the physical damage to the point where it's pretty much pointless and make it a skill monkey/caster, don't give abilities that will just become completely pointless by the time you get access to them.
Agreed. Fluff good, implementation bad.
Weird. All I get is the google drive upper frame and then "Not FoundError 404"
John Stout wrote:
I am running Kingmaker right now, at level 3. I'm wondering if there is some way to apply a balanced vampiric template myself. But just not seeing it for my Dhampir player.
John Stout wrote:
I am considering running an adventure for an all-dhampir party where, at some point, the dhampir will be given the opportunity to turn into full vampires. I've got Blood of the Night but I can't find any real way for me to provide a progression. Should I just apply the vampiric template at the relevant time?
I was just looking into doing something just like that for a Dhampir player in a game of mine. Hadn't really gotten working on it yet, but now that this thread is here, I'll chip in if I think of anything good.
Yeah. They really should play a Wizard instead.
Nah, it just conjured the image of a giant red dragon looming over my shoulder as I type with a nametag that says "BIG BROTHER"
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I would get some, yes. But the cost would still be more than paying the penalty which means I pay the penalty, quite simply. Unless I can get an exemption or the cost of the plan is cheaper. It's a tax that I have to try and figure how to pay as little of as possible.
Assuming that there is an actual labor market. In my area just having a job sets you apart from a lot of people my age. Nobody here has any leverage at all because there hundreds of people willing and able to take the position.
At the lower rung there is a HUGE glut of people fighting for jobs. You may not see it but businesses because of the endemic unemployment have the employee over a barrel. Work harder and faster for less money has been the tune for the last couple of years because there is always somebody there to replace you.
EDIT: And let me be clear. I actually like my employer and my job. It is what it is. I even sympathize with them a little because it was either cut my hours or have to pay a penalty or the cost of upgrading my healthcare plan, would of meant cutting services to the people who come to us.
Scott Betts wrote:
Yes. Of course. They would be stupid not to. I bet they only waited to see how the political and legal challenges to the law shook out, and also to make projections as to exactly how it would affect their margins.
No, you make less actual income because your minimum wage, part-time, benefits-free employer is terrible.
Here's a hilarious thing. It's a public institution.
Here's how you know it's not a "stealth tax": no one in your situation is paying it. You're not paying it, obviously, but more importantly neither is your employer. In fact your employer is (purportedly) cutting your hours to avoid paying it. They're not losing out! They'll just find someone else to give your lost hours to.
It's pretty obvious. I now take home less money and also am forced to pay even a small amount into a state mandated program, or pay a penalty(Which I will pay, because it's a whole lot cheaper)
And yet many employers have found ways to do both! But I'm glad you've identified for us one of the primary problems with unregulated free-market capitalism.
I don't even want to touch that with a ten foot pole.
I cannot fathom how you can see this situation and imagine that the federal government is doing you harm. Your employer cut your hours so that it could deny you and nearly all of your coworkers health insurance, and it's the government's fault?
Let me say this again. They gave my employer, a POWERFUL FISCAL INCENTIVE TO HAVE ME WORK LESS HOURS. To the tune of a $2,000 penalty or however much the costs would be to upgrade or change our plans to fit whatever is mandated by the exchanges in my state. It's honestly pretty simple.
Scott Betts wrote:
Because they already had a plan in place to meet the original mandate time frame. Why wait for a year and not go ahead with the cuts if you have already identified ways to do them and know that within a year you will have to do it anyways, and can experiment with temporary and part time workers to fill your labor needs instead of expensive full time employees?
And still have plenty of time to deal with the inevitable bits that don't go right at your own pace. So that you can then take the hours cuts national. At the lower end of the workspace there are far more people than there are jobs. There will be even more people now cut back to 20/30 hrs a week that you can choose from other employers to fit your business's needs.
Scott Betts wrote:
That is the thing, it's a stealth tax. I work less hours and make less actual income already BECAUSE of this. It's a 25% loss of income (More because now overtime is strictly verboten) for which I either have to get a second job to make up for, with the increased transport costs and other costs (uniform, loss of flexibility to attend school, etc) eating up yet more of that income, or simply cut my spending.
I'm not into making excuses. The primary motivation of a business is not to take care of employees, it is to make money. And if within the new parameters of the law the best way to make money is to use as few full time workers as possible and only use part time and seasonal workers for high demand then they will do that, and still reap the benefits of their employees having health insurance. Because they no longer have to offer it to appear as competitive to other jobs providers in the market.
Because Obamacare does not actually "tax" me does not mean that it does not have a negative effect on my income, and many people like me. It makes people like me who work hard to try and get ahead take another step back, and end up even more dependent on the federal/state government for basic services that before I was able to get by the sweat of my own brow.
Scott Betts wrote:
If your employer is doing this any time soon, it is not in response to the employer mandate. That mandate has been delayed and will not go into effect until 2015. He'll have to find some other excuse to blame denying you hours and insurance on.
" But to determine whether employees work enough hours on average to receive benefits, employers must track their schedules for three to 12 months prior to 2014 — meaning many are restructuring payrolls now or will do so early next year."
It couldn't be businesses trying to adapt early to the looming penalties, could it? No, businesses are stupid and wait until the last possible moment to shake up your entire workforce. Instead you do a piece at a time, small amounts first to figure out how to do it. Then you do a company wide cut.
Scott Betts wrote:
Because as we all know, dollars magically appear out of nowhere to pay for everything. It's all free stuff that I will never have to pay for in taxes levied in another manner to make up for the massive budget shortfall.
I don't know about limits (Although this is a large enough company to go over I would guess). I would surmise that it would allow them to reap the benefits of healthcare for their employees (More time on the job, less turnover, etc) without having to actually pay for it.
Or it could just help them to sleep easier at night knowing they are not "really" ending people's insurance. I have no idea.
It was actually pretty decent. Yes, my employer is doing this. Basically it is easier for them to hire one or two additional part time people to fill in the time gaps. They could continue to pay the additional healthcare cost, or they could simply shift us onto the exchanges by cutting back hours and ending coverage. I imagine that is a huge cost savings to them.
Therefore their employees would still "have" health insurance, just not through them. I imagine I will pay an additional 50 or so dollars a month out of my lowered salary for healthcare. That still makes the 100 dollar yearly penalty much more worthwhile. In the end, yes my "out of pocket" costs are less (provided I get the subsidies) but it will be an actual severe net loss of income.
Getting another part time job would incur inefficiencies in time and transport costs, as well as probably a disincentive in the fact I would receive less subsidies the more I earned. So I'm probably not only going to be out money, but additional time as well.
The more supreme law of the land than Congress is the law of Unintended Consequences.
Even if it that is true, My employer is ending health insurance for everybody not of management or above and cutting us all back to less than 30 hours. The lost wages between 40 and 30 hours will end up costing me even more.
Somehow I doubt the subsidy will cover the full amount. Somehow, someway as usual the average joe will be left holding the bag as has been true since before I was born.
Fair enough. Instead of all of this, it would of been much easier to simply cut taxes for households/individuals under certain amounts or offer a tax credit specifically for purchasing whatever insurance an individual deemed fit.
Tie them to a certain percentage of a basic healthcare plan and be done with it. If there is not enough tax to be credited, a person is then given a credit. Credits are also issued for children. Problem solved. People make their own choices of plan and the government is involved only in a minor way in determining the percentage covered.
Instead you have a massive government bureaucracy that is indeed confusing and sometimes contradictory that is missing/pushing back it's own deadlines but yet still will enforce compliance penalties on citizens.
In all honesty, Obamacare was a massive strategic error on the part of the Obama administration. He spent a good deal of his political capital and mandate on getting it through. Instead of putting Republicans in a position of opposing tax credits/breaks for middle class and low income families, he put them in the favorable position of opposing massive government spending, program creation, etc.
There might be such a thing as a Congressman who works in good faith. There might even be such a thing as a Congressman who's not utterly beholden to people who don't answer to the public. It's one of those concepts that's interesting to contemplate... like absolute zero.
How about an individual?
Maybe. If they feel like personally they can get away with it. It's a calculated risk to vote on anything one way or another. If your bet is that Obamacare is going to blow up (Seemingly a good bet) then having a record that you can point back to of voting against it is a good thing. If your opponent in the next election can go AND HE VOTED FOR OBAMACARE with a black and white image of your face and bloody red lettering across the screen and Obamacare is seen to be a gigantic failure, then you are in deep, deep trouble.
Gun Control, Abortion, and others are issues that are divisive, and already known percentages. A Representative can make a judgement of the risk of going against majority will versus the dollars he might get in support from interested parties. Obamacare is a Win/Lose proposition. If you are a moderate/conservative Democrat or liberal/moderate Republican you might be in some serious trouble. It's holding a hand grenade and pulling the pin and then squeezing tight and hoping it does not go off in your hands.
Except of course there is the slightest sliver of possibility that they are responding to the push from their constituency to oppose the plan and are worried if they are not seen as staunch opponents to such an unpopular and confusing plan they will be voted out of office for somebody more suitably representative?
You know, representative government and all that.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Eventually we will all have a single personal digital device that does everything our phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, iPods, etc do. I may not live to see it, but that day is coming. And I think I will live to see it.
Hoi chummer, don'tcha gotta commlink already?
Gently handled MetaLink for only a hundred nuyen.
Almost no blood on it.
Yeah. I deleted that comment right before you replied because I realized that it was wrong and that it only forbade things like a Bite and a Tail Slap and such.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I can't say how happy this makes me. I'm always for simplicity and consistency unless it absolutely breaks the game and a more complicated solution is necessary. The less I have to flip to the FAQ to explain to a future player why X does not work the way he thinks it does is a good thing.
This is actually the clearest, most reasonable explanation of what is going on, and manages to not belittle or insult the intelligence of anybody who disagrees. Thank you Kazaan.
I would however, point out that Charging Pounce was specifically pointed out not to be hampered by the Slow spell here:
Which we know is the opposite of Haste.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Maybe perhaps being less condescending would help you? Just saying.
This is getting wildly off topic. But you are indeed correct about Feint not being a combat maneuver. I mentioned it more for the fact that it makes the most sense to be substituted for an attack, but is not. But yet something like a trip attempt, can be.
A Dirty Trick can not, but a Trip or Disarm or Sunder can be substituted as an attack. So a Haste would generate an additional Trip, Disarm or Sunder, but not a Dirty Trick or even a Feint (Which seems like the best use of being able to move faster than your opponent and feint one way before stabbing the other with something like Haste)
Back on point. I understand that per Spell Combat, haste would generate nothing despite it being a full round action "much like the two weapon fighting rules" The point is that it is unnecessarily confusing. The whole thing is.
Also, please note that if this ruling is correct, than the Hasted Assault Arcana and the inclusion of Haste itself on the Magus List seems rather strange.
EDIT: Also this seems to directly contradict James Jacobs. Which is not impossible as he is the creative director.
Your examples are riddled with inaccuracies, so I will assume you are new to Pathfinder. Take some time to read through the Core Rulebook, and the FAQs, and come back in a few months. I doubt you'll have any troubles if you approach the rules with an open mind, and don't argue incessantly when people try to explain them to you.
Ad hominem, eh? Cute.
Combat Maneuvers are Attacks? I thought they were combat maneuvers. So if they are attacks, could I Feint as an attack as part of a full attack action? Clearly I can't, as that is only pointed out to work with special maneuvers that are equal to attacks.
Some exceptions to the Full Attack action benefit from Haste, (Trip, Sunder, etc) others arbitrarily do not. (Spell Combat) But use language that do "Much like two weapon fighting"
It's a confusing, nonsensical mess. It needs to be brought in line with how Full Attacks are handled everywhere else. I can't even try to imagine explaining this to a player.
Sunder, Disarm, and Trip can always be made in place of a melee attack, even a Hasted one.
"This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
So a spell in Spell Combat is much like a Two Weapon Fighter subbing out his offhand attack for one of those combat maneuvers, right? These are specifically not attacks, but yet you can use them with the Full Attack/Full Round Action.
#3: What happens if a character decides to attempt a Combat Maneuver, such as Sunder, with the extra Hasted action?
YES. Again, it's not the matter of understanding WHAT the ruling is, it is the WHY. Why is there a rules exception here? Does this benefit the game somehow? Every exception from the base ruleset is yet another thing that has to be remembered or ponderously looked up when there is confusion at the game table.
No. But I can see your condescension.
Yes. Please try to keep things as consistent as possible.
First of all. I'm a GM. I have never played a Magus. Secondly, assuming that my confusion about how a class works comes from some nefarious place about exploiting the rules is pretty insulting.
Dosn't Haste give an extra attack specifically when you use the Full Attack Action? So if Spell Combat is a "unmodified" Full Attack then you should get the extra attack from Haste, right? But the Devs are saying no. See the confusion?
I just don't understand this. At all.
"On a 1-10, you can play a core class, on a 11-17, you can play a base class, on an 18-20 you can play an alternate class. Sure hope none of you were planning on being a Ninja! Also, roll for your stats, starting gold, race, background, religion, favorite color and food, height, weight...wait, guys...why are you leaving? .......Guys?"
Say "Fantastic!" and you can't wait for how they build a fun an entertaining story together.
Two of my all Monster Party Kingmaker group are Goblins. No joke. One of a high sadistic intelligence (Witch) and the other as a Cavalier, struggling to be a paragon or good and justice but more often than not failing. It's quite entertaining.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
How cool would a sweet Magi-Tech "Cybernetic" arm be? Pretty freaking sweet.