Snowblind, Snarkwyrm's page

Cantriped wrote:

Everything in PF2's Playtest is pretty underwhelming individually; it's an inevitable result of combining tight-math with choice-glut.

This is one of the sharpest one-sentence diagnoses I've seen.

I never feel more powerful than when I'm casting Heal in 2e, precisely because I actually accomplish what I'm trying to do.

thistledown wrote:

The primary function of a Paladin needs to be Smite Evil, not reactive strikes.

For all you whippersnappers who started playing the game in 2000, maybe.

Are we about to get some story time about the days when elves were a class and alignments had a language?

But the flailing is what makes it suspenseful and drama.

DM_Blake wrote:

...

I was only able to fav this once, and that's a travesty.

Here, take mine.

I thought the devs invented a Treat Wounds system?

I can invent one too: Wait 10 minutes and you recover half of your maximum HP. Do it twice and you're fully healed. No fuss, no mess, no rolling.

It's not too far off from the current system, it eliminates the CLW wand spam, and best of all, it doesn't bog down with tracking a mandatory skill and rolling dice each time you use it after every fight.

Simple, easy, no moving parts, and I didn't have to look up a table of DCs even once.

1 Star, thumbs down, would not recommend. #NotMyPathfinder

ChibiNyan wrote:

Part of the design goals seem to be "Nerf Magic Items"

All magic in general IMO.

Don't be ridiculous.

Magic Swords aren't nerfed. In fact, you could say that Magic Swords are so great that they are the real protagonists of PF2E, and high level characters are just taxis for the godlike power of the +5 potency rune and it's herald, the legendary quality bastard sword.

Unless that high level character is a cleric. Because editions may come and go, but CZilla never dies, apparently.

This seems to mostly impact casters and I kind of don't want casters starting out as good as martials, they have their spells they don't need to be as good with a blade as a rogue or paladin.

If letting a caster start with an 18 in strength makes them as good starting out as martials, then we have far bigger concerns than tweaks to the ability score generation system.

...

I never feel more powerful than when I'm casting Heal in 2e, precisely because I actually accomplish what I'm trying to do.
...

Can I just say something?

Wow.

I know it wasn't your intention, but that is the biggest gut punch I have seen delivered to the PF2E playtest to date.

...

If it crashes again at the 2E launch are you going to argue its a good thing that so many people want the download? Every minute that website is down is a loss for Paizo and they are accountable for it. If you don’t see that as being 100% crystal clear, you don’t have a very good idea of how businesses work.

Hey, if it works for EA...

...mythic...

...Vital Strike [M]...

Now 'ere's yer problem.

Seriously, mythic is horribly unbalanced, and mythic vital strike is one of the reasons why. Shockingly enough, throwing on a crit with a 4x weapon does not improve things.

The idea that they would have dumped all of those bombs on it is just plain overkill though.

To quote Red Letter Media on this:

"So 1 bomber did the job. Did they have to send in 30 of them?"

"Well 29 of them got blowed up."

"They were smart, they knew all of these people were going to #&^$ing die."

Keeping you from accidentally killing them is not your, but their problem to solve. Let the Wizard put some protection on you - he now knows why he should.

Hay Guys, I found the wisdom dumped fighter.

Ikiry0 wrote:

2 Coppers Worth wrote:

low levels of public shootings by legal gun owners

Have you SEEN a Player Character?

PCs aren't exactly typical.

You can say that again.

Hay Guys, I Can Haz FAQ

Protection From Evil: Does this work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or just against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person, command, and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?

The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")

I feel like I should beat TOZ to the punch here.

Say it with me, guys.

Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.

JoeElf wrote:

You can block exactly 0 attacks with Opportune Parry and Riposte using the feat Amateur Swashbuckler.

"Choose a 1st-level deed from the swashbuckler’s deeds class feature (you can’t select opportune parry and riposte). "

Just going to quote this again so it's not skipped over by the OP.

It's kind of important.

BOLD ALL THE THINGS

im helping

Maybe a Wizard diddit?

Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:

Trinam wrote:

Just prior to this post I was talking about how nobody was trying to say there was badwrongfun, and then immediately I pause to say THERE IS BADWRONGFUN.

I don't know how to explain the joke beyond that.

Maybe that is because you were making a BADWRONGJOKE?

Well played, snarkwyrm.

Well played.

Damn Straight.

Just prior to this post I was talking about how nobody was trying to say there was badwrongfun, and then immediately I pause to say THERE IS BADWRONGFUN.

I don't know how to explain the joke beyond that.

Maybe that is because you were making a BADWRONGJOKE?

Lorewalker wrote:

Rysky wrote:

...

And to preempt a quip, hitting someone with feeblemind and then trying to eat them is still cannibalism.

*Researches spell Unawaken which converts sentient creatures into non-sentient creatures. Opens restaurant*

No.

*bops with newspaper*

No.

Eh, hydra-burgers are still a better restaurant idea.

Guy Humual wrote:

Captain Battletoad wrote:

Guy Humual wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Guy Humual wrote:

Strange then that Hillary Clinton's TV ads were almost entirely policy-free

Because people don't respond to rational policy considerations they respond to rhetoric?

Well that would appear to be the Clinton campaign manager's position.

I mean, he's not wrong. It's a time-honored tradition (for good reason) to appeal to the lowest common denominator when trying to attract a following. If you're not part of that group, you're not likely to be a primary target for the candidate's courtship, unless said candidate isn't serious about winning.

Except of course this article suggests that Clinton historically had the lowest policy content in her ads. Less then any other candidate. So, it would seem that people what a little substance, but again, let's get back to what we need to talk about going forward.

Then stop bringing up the last election.

something something history something something doomed to repeat it something something nothing has changed something something bernie would have won.

am i doing it right?

...

And as you said that torture is not the easy path, I must ask: which option here is easier than torturing the prisoner? Because I cannot think of an easier way of getting the information you want.

Does torture count as the hard path if basically everything else works better?

Torture isn't an easy and pragmatic act of cruelty. It is hard to get information out of torture. Almost impossible, in fact. You could almost call it a pointless and ineffective act of cruelty. Easy to get information from, it is not.

...

"In other news, US military spending has risen by 5% over the past year to cover the cost of the artillery shells used to repeatedly blow up Cthulhu every time he reforms. This has led to the creation of thousands of jobs in the munitions industry."

Build a wall, and make R'lyeh pay for it?

Tremendous.

Spellcasters are weak to GM fiat.

You are right, we do tend to be a little contrarian.

...

Your move, KC.

...

If you spam aligned spells in quick succession it would shift your alignment, and thus your mindset as well.
...

Got an unambigous citation which says that aligned acts change your personality beyond what would be expected for the acts themselves?

Besides, Good people don't have to have a totally Good outlook. They just have to have a Good enough (rimshot) mindset, and our Holy Word using hero definitely has a Good enough mindset, because they are using Good spells and that makes them Good because the rules say so. What more do you want, besides aligned casting rules that aren't so mindbogglingly stupid that no GM should ever pay heed to them.

"So nuking the entire orphanage is irredeemably evil, right? What fraction of the orphanage is not irredeemably evil? Where does the line lie between "horrible monster" and "lessening the heroic act of casting a Grand Spell of Pure, Orphan Annihilating Good"?"

Nuking an orphanage? Evil.

Nuking a town? Evil.

Nuking bandits that jumped you? Nuetral, so a net good act form the casting of the Good spell.

You didn't answer my question. What fraction of the orphanage is not an irredeemably evil body count? Or is killing anyone grounds for getting sent to hell for ever and ever because redemption is not just rare and special, but only for those who do things like swear too much in church since real heavy hitters are disqualified from the heavenly choir?

But it is OK, just cast Blinding ray (yes, it's Good) at some random dude and you will be right as rain for not answering my question. In fact, steal a few wallets before casting that spell. You might as well counter as much of the Good spell as you can get away with by doing petty evil things, because hey, why not? It is not as if context matters much when you blind some random bystander as part of your "Good for the Good God(s)" routine.

So would healing a Solar or something on the brink of death so it can save an orphanage be irredeemably good no matter what spell you used? Can that spell, or any spell cast afterwards that is also aligned not shift your alignment towards evil because you did "irredeemable" good? Or does casting 5 more infernal healings shift you to NE (you monster), like casting 5 Protection/Evil spells would make up for a mammoth monster orphanage rampage (0 to hero in 5 rounds, now I'd buy that for 125gp). Remember - Horror Adventures explicitly says that aligned spells work both ways.

God, this aligned casting rule is so gloriously stupid.

EDIT: I just noticed something.

So nuking the entire orphanage is irredeemably evil, right? What fraction of the orphanage is not irredeemably evil? Where does the line lie between "horrible monster" and "lessening the heroic act of casting a Grand Spell of Pure, Orphan Annihilating Good"?

Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:

Rysky wrote:

...

Depends, everything isn't just one whole single Alignment Act after you do something, so casting Infernal Healing (Evil) to save someone who is dying (Good) would go a ways to counter the Evil from casting Infernal Heaing but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting aligned magic.

Likewise, using Holy Word (Good) to nuke an entire orphanage filled with little children would go a ways to counter the Good from casting Holy Word but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting orphan nuking aligned magic, because alignment is mostly a label and having the wrong label is Bad(TM) because it is dangerous because it is bad(TM).

What if they were orphaned goblin children?

Then it is just a Good act, because goblins are evil because the bestiary says so. Yes, even children. Especially Children.

I do have to warn you though, for every goblin baby orphan that you hit, somewhere in the world a Paladin falls.

...

Depends, everything isn't just one whole single Alignment Act after you do something, so casting Infernal Healing (Evil) to save someone who is dying (Good) would go a ways to counter the Evil from casting Infernal Heaing but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting aligned magic.

Likewise, using Holy Word (Good) to nuke an entire orphanage filled with little children would go a ways to counter the Good from casting Holy Word but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting orphan nuking aligned magic, because alignment is mostly a label and having the wrong label is Bad(TM) because it is dangerous because it is bad(TM).

I've heard a complaint before that thanks to feats being every uneven level in pathfinder, the game is much more open to minmaxing and powergaming than 3rd. Any thoughts?

...

Oh, definitely. All the Polymorph, PrC hopping and Gate Chaining shenanigans in the world cannot compare to having Toughness, Power Attack and Weapon focus before level 6.

My eyes. My poor, bleeding eyes.

*opens mouth*

*closes it*

...

...

That is glorious.

Kthanid wrote:

Which concept is there that you couldn't use the base classes for?
Keeping it to "standard" fantasy, of course, because "Star Wars Stormtrooper" is obviously a different field (though still...).
The base classes are even redundant within themselves (Sorcerer/Wizard, Cleric/Paladin, Cleric/Druid, Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger, Bard/Rogue), the only difference is in rules, but rules only affect character concept so far. The Alchemist, Summoner and Witch are still Sorcerers/Wizards, from an archetypal and conceptual perspective, the Cavalier is still a Fighter, and so on. What do you want to bring in? A Kineticist who could be an elemental-focused Sorcerer/Wizard?
Just because they made different rules for something, it doesn't mean you weren't already able to play it. Unless you're the least imaginative person on the planet, etc., etc.

Any mage who doesn't use vancian casting? A warrior who is a living conduit to the plane of negative energy which tears apart their body as they use their power is just a wizard to you? Warriors who can destroy spells through pure skill? Heracles? A young man is accompanied by the ghost of his dead twin? Dragon riders? The warrior who can summon hundreds of weapons and launch them at their enemies? Anyone from celtic myth? A person who died and is possessing their own body by exploiting the fact they were destined for greatness? A warrior who get's supernatural power from her mother's bow? A mage who get's knowledge by literally eating books? A mage who get's his magical power from just having genies who bring the magic to him? A mage which battles foes in a thought-space rather than the realworld? The warrior who can feast on creatures and take their powers? A gunslinger who shoots spells? A nature mage who can use ritual sacrifice to help plants grow? A warrior who is merged with a freaking cosmic-soulstuff-mecha-cop? Undead powered by positive energy? A person who turns takes their soul and shapes it into armour and weaponry? The boy who literally has an angel and a devil on his shoulder?

I'm pretty sure a wizard could do that.

5E is no more a solution than houserules are.

You're the DM, you can control the magic. You can do that in a OD&D game and in a 5E game.

Yeah, you can hammer in that nail with a hammer, or you can hammer it in with a soap bubble. You are the GM-Hammer-Man. You control your tools. Don't let your tools control you. Use whichever tool you want to, because it makes literally no difference to you in any way if you are in charge of your game-tool-thing.

...

Wait, what?

Play a ...dun dun DUUUNNN....Fighter. You can kill people with a stick.

Even better a fighter with disarm.

Oh you broke my weapon? Let me kill you with yours.

Oh yeah, its not like the class design of fighters pushes them towards heavy specialization in one category of weapons, or even worse, one extremely specific kind of weapon. Fighters can just pick up and use any weapon without a care in the world, because they won't take Weapon Training, (Greater) Weapon Specialization or (Greater) Weapon Focus. Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Clerics, etc are all screwed, though. But not a fighter. Nope, Nope, Not at all

Clever...

The Fighter was fixed successfully awhile ago, it's called Path of War.

But what if you don't want weeaboo fihtan magic?

And before you respond...yes, I know damn well exactly how "weeaboo" PoW is. But I am not the one you need to convince.

I don't know why, but I keep reading that as, "With the exception of SWAT, police strippers and similar..."

Get your head out of the gutter, KC.

Unless you fell there after passing out from a drinking binge induced by the phrase "President Trump". In that case, I think I might join you.

By the power of wishful thinking?

...

.

Except for - what makes you think the particular statistical sequence you 'detected' is invalid? Flipping heads twenty times in a row, for example, is a void statistical outcome. And not rolling twenty for two sessions straight has happened even rolling out in the open.

Right, so lets say that the GM apparently rolled three very low numbers in a row that just happen to save a PC from nigh-certain death.

And they hesitated before declaring the results of the rolls, which isn't something they normally do.

And their body language and tone was abnormal, in a way that would typically suggest intent to deceive.

Naturally, a reasonable person would think that the PC just got lucky and the GM is a totally honest, upstanding Game Master.

No, wait, that's completely stupid. The reasonable thing to think is that the GM probably fudged the rolls, and that they are reasonably likely to also fudge other rolls in future when the PCs are in vaguely similar circumstances.

On a more general note, you can fool some players some of the time, but you can't fool all players all of the time, and it only takes one misstep before a player (or the entire table, if they reveal their suspicions) will operate under the default assumption that any lucky break may actually be the GM screwing with the numbers. They wouldn't know for sure that the GM is fudging, but they would know that the GM probably would fudge if they felt they needed to, and that is enough for most purposes.

***confused face***

Knight who says Meh wrote:

I have to say I'm getting really tired of Trump supporters complaining about "the elite."

Get used to it. Bernie supporters complain about them too.

I thought the Bernie bros complained about the top one tenth of the one percent?

Trouble with that is, doesn't it give credence for a PFS GM to say "no take 10, period"?

Yes. It can be used to justify literally any behavior by the GM so long as they can say that they were doing it because of "mah dramah and pacing".

That is exactly why it is a widely despised "non-FAQ". It is as if part of the player base asked "This is too vague, can you be more specific?", and the PDT responded "Too vague you say? 'k then, to be more specific, it can be anything your GM wants it to be because they know how to write their story better than you, you poor stupid player...why are we giving this non-answer, you ask? &$*% you, that's why."

...{evil} deity ...right mind ...

Heh, funny. You're a funny guy.

I was until you popped up, guy.

Is guy too soon? "Pal" and "buddy" seemed too antagonistic even though it goes along with the meme.

But, really, even when I pointed out your error you persisted trying to act oblivious. So, yeah...

You should probably just fold.

Yeah, but you can't market a product that doesn't do what it says it does.

Well, yeah.

Now, I have this snake oil here that will cure all your woes. Plenty of people buy it, so it must work. Want some?

I wonder how this will be taken...

***munches popcorn***

... I then started equating {literally anything else} to spells and nothing seemed overpowered anymore.

Funny, that.

MageHunter wrote:

Wait, so I don't need to repent anymore?

Hurrah!

Hah! Ninja'd and didn't notice.

Well, it's important to note that I'm not exactly Iomedae...

So you *don't* torture people for not being your fawning, docile adorers?

***zoidbergs***