![]()
![]()
![]() Please could my subscriptions end, asap.
I'm happy with service over the years, but events are making it difficult to keep up regular payments of those amounts, for a hobby. Economic instability, and a falling pound has led to more and more parcels falling victim to customs fees, which wipe out the savings made. Brexit is making a recession likely, whichever version is adopted. Even if it's cancelled, the country's reputation has been damaged, and companies no longer trust the UK as a base of operations. And my job will be moving to a more distant town at the end of next year. A decision has to be made, if I'm following it (and eating an extra hour's travel per day), or looking for new work. With all of that, I can't commit to maintaining subscriptions, especially with a product pile that I haven't read yet. Thank you to everybody at Paizo, for friendly customer service over the years, and all staff who've taken the time to answer our posts.
Bob ![]()
![]() I had a message from someone claiming to be 'Emeline Mattis', email address xxfsilasii@outlook.com. Quoted my Paizo password, and claims to have filmed me through my webcam (which I don't have). I've changed my Paizo password, and blocked the sender, but I thought you needed to be aware someone is claiming to have hacked the site. ![]()
LN Elf Monk 1; Spd 30 Class DC 14 AC 15 TAC 15 HP 16/16 Fort+2, Ref+5, Will+4; Perc +3 (low light) Acrobatics +4 Athletics +3 Lore (Dominion of the Black) +2 Religion +3 Stealth +4
![]() Been trying for hours; can't get anything on aliases to save, so here's the stats. Gender F
Armor Expert Unarmored
Sig Skills Acrobatics, Athletics, Religion, Stealth
Feats
Attacks (all agile, finesse, lethal or non-lethal)
![]()
![]() While I appreciate the majority opinion may have changed over the last few decades, so that high stats are seen as merely 'adequate', I would prefer that the baseline play be set at 'normal people' (with the option to allow higher stats), than at 'offspring of the gods' (with the option to play with lower stats). It's always been a lot easier for a GM to relax a requirement, than to tighten one.
Neither play style is 'better' than the other; it just makes it easier to propose a change of pace, if it's taken as a glass twice as full, than a glass half empty. ![]()
Human barbarian 7; AC 21, touch 14, flat-footed 18; hp 47/75; rage 6 (18) +2 Large bastard sword +13/+8 (2d8+9/19–20) Fort +7, Ref +4, Will +3; +2 vs. fear, +2 vs. traps; Speed 30 ft. fly, haste
![]() Doodlevain "Doodle" Montafescue wrote: Concentration check 1d20+7+4 vs DC 19. It's actually DC26(!), but you still made it. If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you’re casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. ![]()
Human barbarian 7; AC 21, touch 14, flat-footed 18; hp 47/75; rage 6 (18) +2 Large bastard sword +13/+8 (2d8+9/19–20) Fort +7, Ref +4, Will +3; +2 vs. fear, +2 vs. traps; Speed 30 ft. fly, haste
![]() "Anything odd around there?
"I spy, with my little eye,
Inspire competence +2 ![]()
![]() The most urgent change needed to the weapons, is to cease the arbitary separation of 'European' and 'Asian' weapons, and the requirement that the Asian weapons be locked behind a feat tax. "This is a stick. You hit people with it. It's a peasant's weapon, because it's so easy to use." "Thiiiiiissss, on the other hand...(cries of 'ooh' and 'aaah' from the audience)...this, most revered of weapons, this epitome of the martial weapon crafters' arts, is an exotic weapon, and can only be used by those who have trained for decades, under the blind monks at the monastery overhanging the edge of the world's precipice. This exotic weapon is known as....a 'stick'."
![]()
![]() Adding support for this, to bump it up the chart. Rules are no place for euphemism, synonyms, allusion, symbolism, and vaguery. I understand that the writers and developers need space to scratch their creative itch, and audition their writing skills to us, ready for the day they embark on their solo fiction writing career, bursting free from the amniotic sac of their old day job, like a chimerical amalgam of peacock and phoenix. But it doesn't belong in the rules text. ![]()
![]() River of Sticks wrote: I think some of the confusion comes from things like Quick Draw (disallows wands, among other things), and wondrous items like the Scabbard of Many Blades (can hold rods, staves, one handed weapons, two handed weapons, and light weapons, but CANNOT hold wands). That is indeed the source of my understanding. It seems as though a generation of designers have gone out of their way, to enforce an arbitary distinction between weapons and objects, in the rules as written.I wasn't aware of that FAQ, which does alleviate the issue. Though a pedant could still argue that to be a weaponlike object, it must contain offensive magic, so no drawing cures/buff items on the move. Can this be another paper cut?
Having a policy that errata can only be compiled, if a book goes to a new printing, means many books will never see their content formally clarified and corrected. ![]()
![]() I'm fine with there being example flavor given, as long as it's understood it's exactly that. If a spell was described, 'you extend your hand, and the orc in front of you is folded inside out.', it would obviously not be relevant to a PC using the spell against a target that was a non-orc.
So I'm fine with feats, traits, and class abilities (whatever they end up being named) having example descriptive text.
![]()
![]() Similarly, we can do without multiple traits that do the same thing, but with different enforced flavor text. We can write our own character backgrounds, and justify our own mechanical improvements. I'd like to see an end to explicit flavor text, in general.
Either every PC with a certain bonus is shoehorned into the same flavor. Everyone who wants to improve their reaction time has to have been bullied as a child, so, no you can't have been the happy contented child of a circus knife thrower...
OR, you wind up with repetitive entries, for the same benefits, with slightly different flavor text.
Why can't I decide my PC is good at a skill, without being forced to wade through overly specific material?
The game should be generic enough, to be used by GMs who run a home brew campaign, in their own world. ![]()
![]() We certainly don't need a hundred different feats, that all give +2/+2 to two different skills.
It reminds me of the D&D3 practice, of setting a race's favored class. No favoring anything except wizard, for you, Mister Elf.
Rigidly defined favored classes led directly to every race having a dozen sub-races, purely to work around that restriction.
![]()
![]() tonyz wrote: Strip out the rule that requires a +1 BAB to draw a weapon as part of a move action -- it affects a few characters for one level (maybe 2-3 if they're dipping multiple classes). It's just an extra bit of annoyance to remember early in one's career and then never again. End the arbitary distinction, between 'weapons' and 'objects', that allows someone to unsheath an oversized, vicious, twisted, spiky, great weapon from a back scabbard on the move, but not slide a smooth wand from a pocket, or pull a potion from a bandolier. ![]()
![]() Since we're all mourning Damiel, it's as good a time as any, to dig up this old piece of nonsense, about his attempts to medicate some of the forum regulars. Apologies to all concerned. Damiel's Drink
(Chorus)
Sebastian Brony became a pony
Leprechaun Spanky looked tired and manky
(Chorus) Mikaze was frantic, a hopeless romantic.
TriOmegaZero, the Caydean hero
(Chorus) Ashton Sperry was notably merry
Mister Timitius found potions delicious
(Chorus) Poor Damiel, he became unwell, he
To the Cathedral he ascended
We'll drink a draft or two
![]()
![]() thflame wrote: Also, I have read fantasy stories where a character's magic item didn't work when they needed it to. It added tension to the story and made it a whole lot more interesting. Another legacy rule from AD&D, that never made the cut to D&D3, was that dwarves had to roll for item failure (20%!), for anything that was not armor or weapons. The reasoning being that dwarves were highly antimagical, hence the bonuses to saving throws (highly prized in those days, when resistance items were rarer). D&D3 kept the flavour, kept the bonuses to saves, included bonuses to Con, (later increased by PF to Wis AND Con) that bumped saves, keeping dwarves as the kings and queens of passed saving throws, but dropped the downside; having to be more self-reliant, because you can't depend on your gear. ![]()
![]() Tarik Blackhands wrote: Plus if I want to fish for examples of potion failure for chugging too many, I could point out the Witcher for that sort of thing (okay, that's actually a build up of toxins within the potions and not wibbly wobbly resonance, but the effect is similar) AD&D included the infamous Potion Miscibility Table, which you had to roll on, if you drank a potion while still under the effects of a previous one. Results went from the mundane (second potion fails to work, half effect, first potion replaced by second) to the alarming (one of the potions' effects become permanent) to the lethal (drinker explodes). So there is precedent, for wanting to reduce the number of potions a PC consumes.
![]()
![]() Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote: If people hate CLW wand, then fix the lack of healing, end the magic item mart and fix wands. I imagine they could do all four. If all classes had some form of self-healing, it would negate the assumption (which I've always hated), that every party has to have an obligatory cleric.Though for non-casters, that healing would be framed as toughness, grit, perseverance, chugging from a whiskey flask, taking a cigarette break, looking at a photo of Aunt May and Mary Jane, remembering your promise to the nun at the orphanage, before picking yourself up and crawling on. The problem with wands and other spell-in-a-can items is the ability to go nova with them. Having the wand as an extra option isn't a problem. By limiting the number of times an object can be used per day, it increases the PCs' range of spells known/prepared, without excessively increasing their number of spells blown through in one day. And having items be used less often, means they will cease to be bought in vast quantities, thus fixing the Magic Mart anachronisms. ![]()
![]() Jason wrote: The only way the illusion is detected is if it is lower-level than the detection spell. If it is of the same level, it is unnoticed. This is the one thing that stood out most for me. While playing several editions of D&D, from Moldvay B/X, through AD&D, 3.0 to PF, one of the mythical archetypes I've always wanted to enjoy playing is the illusionist. A wily trickster, who wins the day through misdirection. But it seems that character idea was something I've had to shelve, for the last two decades. It was possible, in the past, due to the scarcity of divination magic, relative to the current PF rules.
So you saved it, for when you believed it truly necessary. And as an illusionist, you capitalized on that fact, through clever choice of subject and placement. By accounting for existent environmental factors, you could place an effect that made sense to those who perceive it, and rely on them rationing their resources enough not to 'waste' a spell querying it. That changed, with D&D 3.0.
PF went even further, by handing out infinite cantrips/day.
And then they declared that all casting is obvious.
So, my poor illusionist concepts had to hang their hats up, sometime in 2001, after hitting headfirst the wall of changes that made them non-viable. May as well stick to casters using blatant, obvious displays of power. Subtlety was dead. Hopefully, these upcoming rules will allow players to once again use illusionists (and enchanters), without requiring GM pity to function. ![]()
![]() SquishyPoetFromBeyondTheStars wrote: I would really hope that at the very least something relatively basic like taking an AoO would be available to everyone either automatically or as a universal feat that can be taken. otherwise I feel like your setting a precedent where we get nickle and dimed for wanting to build something "less traditional". And if that's the case then we're back where we started with characters needed to spend a ton of feats to just one thing kinda well. While I agree, that AoO should be an option available to everyone, at some point in their career, if not at level 1; I expect that each class will have a thematic option from level 1, with further options unlocked through levelling, which make more sense as reactions, than just 'poke them with a stick'.
BBEG: "You think me beaten? I will DESTROY you...uhhh...where..."
![]()
![]() They've been an option in multiple rule sets since the 1980s, from my experience.
And many forum writers (back when mags had letters pages!) promoted the concept of giving rerolls for good play. ![]()
![]() Redelia wrote: Undead don't just destroy the living in order to eat. They destroy the living because that kind of malice is just part of what it means to be undead. Beings powered by energy from the Positive Material Plane don't just destroy the living in order to eat. They destroy the living because that kind of malice is just part of what it means to be powered by the evil energies of the Positive Material Plane.![]()
![]() Bardess wrote: The only thing is... that even with my modifications, the dùlra spell list still includes too many distructive spells. It would still need some tinkering (maybe one day...) Is this something that could and should be best handled through roleplay? The player deliberately choosing to limit their character's choices, to fit their ethos?After all, a person whose ideology is untested, and un-tempted, cannot as easily claim to be morally pure, than one who has the ability to do something, and refuses to do so. ![]()
![]() CraziFuzzy wrote: In a non pfs game i play a completely different shelynite but in order to match shelyns ideals and actually use her favored weapon well (built before paths of the righteous), it is a brutish half-orc forgepriest. She crafts, and uses a golden glaive, but she certainly looks nothing like any of the slender and graceful glaive wielders illustrated throughout various sourcebooks - none of which are buildable in pfs. Half-orcs haven't been forced to be brutish, since the PF open playtest in 2008. They have the exact same stat mods as a humans.![]()
![]() I've just read the thread, after seeing it ping into the recent top ten.
If there's still space, I'd love to apply, if there isn't, no hard feelings, and I'd ask if I could be on a reserve list, in case anyone drops out. The back and forth on the discussion thread seems way in advance of what passes for roleplay in most groups, thank you all for a good read.
For disclosure; I did back the Blight Kickstarter, and have the material to download, but I've yet to begin reading it, as my home group's tabletop campaign has probably got many months to go. I'm happy to hold off reading any GM material, if required.
![]()
![]() I'll sign your petition, Bertie.
But he doesn't get thanked. Sometimes they'll compliment me, like it's my doing, or I'm his boss or somesuch. They'll talk over his head, like he isn't there.
![]()
![]() My chosen subject, fellow citizens, is slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the bondman, making his wrongs mine.
Whether we turn to the declarations of the past or to the professions of the present, the conduct of our nations seem equally hideous and revolting. Avistan is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with the God Of Man and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of our constitution and our holy texts which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery, the Great Sin and shame of Avistan! I will NOT equivocate, I will NOT excuse; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, shall not confess to be right and just. What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply. While ever a single man, woman, or child toils in bondage, our celebrations are a sham; our boasted liberty, an unholy license; our national greatness, swelling vanity; our sounds of rejoicing empty and heartless; our denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; our shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; our prayers and hymns, our sermons and thanksgivings, with all our religious parade and solemnity, are, to the Gods above, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy; a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. And that is why I cast my vote, for Tiller Credence. (with thanks to Frederick Douglass) ![]()
![]() Rysky wrote: It's annoying when you get inspiration for something with less than a week left and everything else going on keeps you from ironing those ideas out >_< If any of you have any unfinished ideas, I recommend you get them written down asap, and work on them while the inspiration is still with you. Test it on an NPC in your home game, run it past your friends, see if it's a feat or spell they'd pick for their own PCs. Ask someone you trust to spell check it, grammar check it or critique it. Ask your group's canon-savant to look for holes in your timeline or geography. It might sound like punishing yourself, but practice is practice.
![]()
![]() Good luck to everyone who submitted for the first time.
These forums have lots of talented people, creating material every week for their home games, but write off their efforts as nothing special. Especially the ones who say 'I don't have time to write. I only run pre-written material', but even they will have to tweak, rewrite, or add to that material to fit their players' preferences, their PCs' backgrounds, or fill in the gaps when they wander off the written page. ![]()
![]() Over the decades, I've lost count of the players who insist the next session/adventure/campaign be totally free of rails or restrictions, and they be allowed complete free reign to go anywhere, and do anything they can think of. And when you give them that, they stare at you like a nest of startled baby owl chicks. ![]()
![]() The Invenusable Flytrap wrote: Indeed, I'm starting to think up some homebrews that take place AFTER Starfinder (they would basically be Pathfinder homebrews still, but story wise keep all of the events and features of Starfinder) where Golarion has been mysteriously returned and a new deity named Omnia has made it's presence known (I actually attempted to make this deity already, check out the General Discussion thread in Pathfinder, look for Jurassic Bard). What if we've got it all wrong? And Starfinder isn't the sequel to PF, but the other way round?PCs who break level 20 get to form a new planet from the wreckage of the asteroid field, and set themselves up as deities? ![]()
![]() Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
[Hervé Villechaize]"Boss! De boat! De boat!"[/Hervé Villechaize] [Ricardo Montalban]"Welcome! Welcome, my friends, to TPK Island!"[/Ricardo Montalban] ![]()
![]() I'm glad you mentioned Jamestown, Jim, as I was going to ask if that was an inspiration. There's a current TV series of the same name, which may help get the mood right, and give some insight into the obstacles faced by the settlers. 'By the makers of Downton Abbey', apparently, but with a slightly larger helping of drunkenness, whoring, poisonings, and explosions.
![]()
![]() I don't care for Monday's blog.
Monday you can sort your dice,
Saturday is great.
I don't care if Monday's blue,
![]()
![]() IMO, if the GM is going to insist on all corpses being legally purchased (and I do actually agree with the reasoning), it's up to the GM to set a cost for it, in the absence of any official price. I wouldn't set it too high, though. Not more than the cost of the onyx material component. Because you're not so much 'buying' a corpse, as purchasing a licence to circumvent the usual laws on disposal. The government has to charge you, as compensation for taking work from the gravedigger and mortician. Some of the fee is likely to be passed on to them. ![]()
![]() I think you can all take pride in the fact that this has come out on time, for as long as it has, with reviewers reporting a constant increase in quality. The release of issue 17 will mark nine years of herding the cats of this forum toward a common goal, with all their awkward questions, and attempts to reimagine the submission guidelines to their own interpretation. Like a swan floating serenely across the surface of a lake, to outside observers it appears effortless, as they can't see the frantic paddling going on below the surface.
Take some time out, because you've earned it. ![]()
![]() As to the original question, what I'd like to see would depend very much on the specific terms of the Compatibility License, what material is present or lacking in the Core Book and early releases, and what material Paizo decides to keep open or closed. So it's hard to answer what we're missing, and what you're allowed to create, until all that is known.
Another galaxy, which can evolve in its own direction, and allows, or better facilitates, styles of play or sub-genres that are not as fully supported by the Paizo material? ![]()
![]() There's a lot of contributors inspired by The Plain of Ten Thousand Swords, and the spooky goings-on there. Whoever came up with that in the original book needs a pat on the back. On that note, it may not be apparent, but the 'dark stranger' who protects three generations, in the song 'The Night Shepherd' is meant to be a shoki, and this is how the shokala (page 9) are sometimes made.
![]()
![]() Unfortunately, the deadline for issue 17 was on Jan 1st, but there should be a call going out for issue 18 once the shortlist for 17 has been chosen, and the dust settled. The thread for issue 17 contributions is already kicking around ideas for the next theme; if you follow that, you'll see what's leading the running, along with some of the reasoning behind why some themes get picked, or not. ![]()
![]() That seems a very expensive solution, to deal with an issue that could be covered by simply saying to the GM, "Before we set off, we'll write down all the pertinent information from the briefing, borrow a map, and refresh our memories of local events.". I certainly don't want to reward lazy players, but at some level we have to respect that for most, it's a game, not to be taken too seriously, and that the PCs who live or die by their wits would be more motivated, patient, and aware, that a group who are in their fifth game of the weekend (and tenth coffee of the day), trying to fit the scenario into a narrow time slot.
|