Stompy Rex's page

The idea of new classes existing to expand not only a general or mechanical niche, but a *genre* niche is an I've explored some, and wondered if anyone else had as well. That is, if we look around us to film and literature, "alternate" forms of fantasy have been on the rise for some time. It seems logical that Pathfinder would expand our alternate fantasy options as well.

What is meant by "alternate fantasy"? Alternate fantasy is the use of traditional fantasy elements such as elves or trolls, and adding a twist. For example, urban fantasy takes classic, fantasy characters and rethemes them in the modern era. Steampunk, an older form of alternate fantasy, or even Dieselpunk, present additional, fun settings for our classic fantasy genre. Elves in stovepipe hats, for example.

These genres are established enough now that it's also possible to retrograde them...for example, shifting steampunk fantasy concepts and ideas into a more classical knights and castles environment is easy to do and may not seem as strange as it once was. With a little alteration it's possible to take that elf with the stovetop hat, add artifice-themed trains, and toss in a few more fantasy swords and armor. Alternately, take the "feel" of urban fantasy where things are more hidden and gritty--and apply it to settings with castles and knights. In the end, you still gain the feel of Mr. Stovetop, but in a more traditional-compatible setting.

Or, your DM just runs Steampunk outright.

In the end, it seems as though many new classes in PF are crafted to diversify its genre options beyond the traditional West or East fantasy additions we've seen in previous editions. For example:

Victorian Fantasy: Investigator, Alchemist, Vigilante (the blooded noble, hero by night)
Steampunk Fantasy: Investigator, Alchemist, Gunslinger, Magus, etc.
Wild Tribal: Bloodrager, Barbarian, Ranger, Druid, Shaman, Witch (I'm aware "wild fantasy" was an option before, but PF has provided arcane "wild" classes for use in such a setting, which greatly expands this option)

I'm a little under the weather at the moment, but this is just off the top of my head. This doesn't even mention the airship rules, for example, that I seem to recall poking around somewhere.

What do you think?

What other themes do you see, made available by the new classes?

And, would you work these alternate genres into your game--or have you made use of these new options in an "alternate fantasy" ...fantasy game? That just replaces the base Western or Eastern fantasy assumptions outright?

Now that Unchained is out and about--are there intentions (I realize it's too early for publication dates) for new Ki Powers? 3pp? Paizo?

I would love to see them.

I'll be running for a fantastic group soon. One of the players is a daughter of a friend. Another is an artist who just had a daughter.

They both love unicorns. They both tend to spontaneously break into song. One has emailed me random unicorn doodles, accompanied by a crying and sad face.

I adore them.

The sad face means I must make this happen. The length of the campaign means I must make this somewhat balanced, and capable of surviving with them along a great and heroic journey.

So, here is my first pass, for a paladin-only mount:

Questions:
The archetype which allows you to exchange LoH for smites isn't an issue with my group. Given that, is the enhanced bond an OP ability?

I'm biased as I love the flavor of it, as it explains the unicorn's lack of innate healing powers as a companion. But, well. You never know, and there may be things I'm (likely) overlooking. :)

Any comments?

Pretty much what it says. Has there been any discussion or commentary by any past or present developers on increasing (or not) the skill points per level for the 2/level classes?

I understand that the skill points per level will not change in this edition.

I'm looking for if there had been commentary, or if this might be addressed in Unchained.

I found reference to some commentary but have had no luck tracking it down thus far.

Any help would be appreciated.

When I was looking through the Plant Shape spell, I started wondering if while it was being written, the author might've put down "Regeneration" when they'd meant "Fast Healing."

Since some plants have fast healing, and none (to my knowledge, though this might have changed) have regeneration, this seems like a reasonable conclusion.

So, is Regeneration really meant to have been Fast Healing in the Plant Shape series of spells?

I'm not proposing a debate or argument about the effectiveness of the spell. This is just me wondering if A had been meant to be B.

In his A Brief History of Fashion in RPG Design, John Kim suggests that game design is less modeled after evolution in some ways than it is a series of related artistic movements. That is, one often develops in response to another. Or, in his own words: "where there are trends which may die out, or classic fashions which may revive."

In his essay, he outlined nine major movements within RPG design:

1975-1980: Explorational Wargames
D&D, Melee, et al.

1978-1988: Literary Simplicity
Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, et al.

1980-1988: Rules-Heavy Worlds
RoleMaster, HârnMaster, et al.

1984-1993: Comical Rules-Lite
Toon, Marvel Superheroes, et al.

1986-Present: Universal Problem-Solving
GURPS and its imitators.

1987-Present: Fast Cinematic Action
Star Wars, Feng Shui, et al.

1991-Present: Dark Storytelling
Vampire: The Masquerade, et al.

1991-Present: Diceless Fantasy
Amber Diceless, Everway, et al.

2000-Present: Crunchy Challenge
D&D3 / D20, Rune, et al.

...however, the article stops at 2000 (or 2004, when it was published). It's now 2014.

In your own thoughts, where are we today, and where are we headed?

Just wool-gathering at this point. What do you consider some of PF's "Popcorn Topics" to be? Some I can think off off-hand are:

- Wizard versus fighter
- Alignment
- Dang-fartin'* DMs|Players|etc.
- Caster versus noncaster (slightly separate from wizard v fighter)
- The fighter is boring
- The rogue is AUUUUUUGGH!
- The monk is AUUUUUGGHHH!
- Rollplayer versus roleplayer
- RAW versus RAI
- ______ is broken
- Kobold tail feats
- It isn't realistic/well it's a fantasy game
- High-level play versus mid and low

* This is my word. It is a very precious word. You cannot steals it.

But have I left any out?

Popcorn topics are sort of cyclic topics. Topics that come up from time to time and repeat, repeat, repeat...because they've effectively become part of the culture. It's akin to asking, "What is art?" in Design 101. Everyone does, and they can't stop talking about it, all the way through 401. Or, you know, they're the gamer equivalent of that chat by the watercooler. You know the type. It starts with: "Hey...so. How are the Wildcats this season, Bob?"

Hard cider? Vodka?

...oh, you're the martini type?

Okay, have a seat. You see, I could use your help.

I'm considering some sfx-heavy abilities for players to earn once they reach level 14+. I've tried pricing these according to MI creation rules, but as you know, pricing is as much science as it is an art (here, have a little more vodka). For these abilities, I would like to do something awesome for my players. I'm not wanting something like "hits an extra time really hard," but something theatrical and amazing along the lines of paragon, an "epic reveal," and so on. I have some rough ideas, and could use help pricing them...as well as developing them, if you'd like to share some ideas, too. Feel free to speak up with, "it would be great if my character..."

My concern is, -what are they worth-? The abilities:
- Would be counted as part of the PCs' WBL
- May be earned once by any particular PC
- For the sake of DM headache, transformation abilities should have similar uses/day or durations
- Are not something every player will be interested in

My brain tells me this is too much, but my heart tells me it is awesome if it can be made to work. I need your help making it work.

...oh, hey! I found the Kahlua. Top you off?

Iron Infusion
Through a ceremony, you've bonded the very metals of the earth into your skin. You take on a decidedly rock-like appearance.

- DR 5/Adamantine

Wings
- Draconic, demonic, devilish, angellic, etc.
- For price, I've been considering basing it on the Wings of Flying, plus 25k from Wish to make it permanent

Beastform
- Beast shape II
- Something akin to a 1 hr duration, with a 1 minute rest inbetween, similar to rage (thematically, calling on this much magic into your body is exhausting)

Dragonform
- Form of the dragon I
- Something akin to a 1 hr duration, with a 1 minute rest inbetween, similar to rage (thematically, calling on this much magic into your body is exhausting)

Herald of the Deity
I'm undecided on this one. Something like divine might. The idea here is the PC takes on a larger version of themselves, their muscles bulge and a nimbus of light surrounds their form and they resemble a servant of their deity. For example, they may take on aspects of an azata, and so on.

Other Ideas
- Ethereal form, Planar shifting (a quirky dimension door ability)

Yes, this is very sfx-ish. It's flashy. Some of it may be too much (here, have yet MORE vodka). But, it's what I'm going for, but I could use your help. Again, don't be afraid to begin a reply with: "it would be great if my character..."

...annnd, we're all out of vodka. Don't worry, there's more in the cabinet.

There's 4 hours left to get a Braille gamerdie.

This is a follow-up to a previous post about accessible board games. 64oz Games' KS hit its mark and there are 4 hours left. This means that they'll be shipping Braille dice to backers.

I love dice, I love accessibility. Thought I'd let y'all know. Obviously, check the site and read the KS before making a decision.

One of my grumps with skills such as Diplomacy is that they're one-shot. That is, a PC typically rolls, and then...that's it. Without adapting the rules for Performance Combat into Influence Combat, there's little dynamism to be had.

When the original playtest came about, the subject of skills came up, and the boards were mostly silent...at least compared to other playtest areas.

So this is my challenge to you: If you had the opportunity, how would you address skills in a PF 2.0? What's your ideas for them?

I imagine "minimum 4 skill points, with the exception of int-based casters" is a given, so what else? Would you address the greater system? If so, how?

Hey, there. I'm considering converting the rules for Performance Combat into something akin to Diplomatic or Influence Combat. A few of the tweaks I'm considering:

- Use the Performance Combat rules largely as written, with Diplomacy replacing Perform
- Profession and Craft may be used much as Diplomacy may, when within applicable areas (Craft/Swordsmith could be used among other weaponsmiths or among a group of dwarves, for example, whose culture places a particular value on the skill)

So far, so good. I'm down to the section on action types, though, and victory points. Any suggestions for guidelines here?

Also, any possible speed bumps you could see, and suggestions for overcoming them? I'm looking for some brainstorming, if you're willing to share. :)

Hey, there! Some of you may have heard of this, some not. Some friends of mine just launched their first Kickstarter, which is aimed at making board games accessible to the blind...enabling both the blind and sighted to play together.

It is pretty damn awesome.

The company is run by a teacher for the blind, and a guy who designs board games. They're a pretty cool pair.

I'm really excited for them; they've worked long and hard to get here.

Hey, there. I'd wanted to see if anyone else was well, noticing this and if so what your thoughts were regarding it. That is, I think Pathfinder's style is changing.

In the older era, classes like the fighter worked well with 2 skill points, because their primary focus was on combat. Likewise, the rogue or thief had their focus on sneaking and other, more out of combat utility. Each had their own, separate roles that they could fulfill.

In the newer era, the ideal seems to be: "every class has a way to contribute to every part of the game, just in different ways." In this era, the desire is that every class be a "fighter," though in different ways (an example here is the Investigator or the War Priest, who each have their own way to challenge their lower BAB). Each class should also possess more "out of combat utility," as well, which newer classes such as the witch and inquisitor possess.

Has anyone else noticed it, and if so--would its result be more for the design of more and different classes than your fighter and rogue, rather than revising them?

This doesn't ask if either of these classes are favorites, or if the classes themselves are good, or bad. It more asks if say, this era/style change IS a thing, and if classes which are too role-specialized in one area need to be broken up and diversified in order to fit the new era.

Summary: RPGs and RPG styles evolve. We have only to look at the era surrounding Nobilis, oWoD, and contrast it with times when crunchier games were the norm. Are we looking at one, now, within Pathfinder? What does that mean for older classes, which are more singularly roled?

Alright. I'm assuming "just like" means they don't get any of the plant immunities, but I'm not 100% on it. Could someone help me out?

Except for the companion being a creature of the plant type, drawn from the list of plant companions, this ability otherwise works like the standard druid's animal companion ability.

Source.

...eat a delicious, delicious steak.

Then bake cookies.

Because cookies.

What are you going to do?

I've been together with the same person for approaching 15 years. I'm the RPGer. He isn't. I realized my situation may be somewhat atypical (we always hear about it being 'the guy' who's the gamer), and wanted to open up a thread to see if that's true...or just generally ask questions, discuss it, and so forth about how couples manage gaming, either together, separately, with kids in the mix and so on.

So, here's a set of questions to get us started.

...feel free to answer all or none, or invent your own. As always, keep it civil.

1. Does your spouse game?

Mine only plays video games. I think he'd play a fantastic wizard, but he's less oriented this direction. If it's something like Morrowind though, he will partake.

2. Have you ever asked/encouraged them to join in your hobby? How? Also, how did they respond?

Yes to both. I've just accepted that it isn't an interest. It doesn't stop me from being hopeful, though.

3. How do you handle the conflicting interests (if they conflict)?

While I'm hopeful he'll join at the table one day, I don't pressure him. I am consistent in that he knows he's invited. That said, I also try and support his hobbies. He has a large television for his video games.

His game room has some comfortable couches so that friends can visit and play the games (my one insistence on him getting an entire room was that it not always be a solo activity).

If he runs a video game event, I'll partake some of the time or help plan. Other times, I might provide the food (I love to cook) and then find something else to do.

He also lets me know I'm welcome to join in at any time.

4. Did you meet them at a traditional gamer event? (Tabletop session, Con, etc.)

Not disclosing this one! I will say we did not meet at a Tabletop session, though.

5. How do they handle you spending on your hobby? (Finances can sometimes be an issue)

We attempt to balance it. If a new item comes up (for example, Paizo's newest Bestiary), we'll discuss it. If a new video game comes up, the same.

As to who ends up spending the most...I plead the 5th.

Put on your thinking hats!

I've been wanting to run a druid-centered storyline for some time. The druids in this world are your traditional guardians of the wild, they're less traditionally mediators between the cities/farmlands and the wilderness, and they work with spirits as well as the gods of nature.

This storyline would potentially run just a handful of sessions. I've just had trouble coming up with something that short that isn't "protect the forest."

I love the Native American and Old World mythos. I love the fae. All of these ideas are on the table.

Levels could range from 2-10.

I could use some ideas.

...help?

PS For literary safety, I'll be modifying ideas somewhat, on the off-chance one of my players ends up reading this!

This question is two-fold. The main part of it is a rules question (I accept RAW and RAI, btw, based on which makes the most sense and balance).

A player of mine was reading the Combined Spells portion of MT, and wondered if, by preparing a wizard's spell in your cleric slot:

1. Do these spells still suffer ASF?

2. Is the spell arcane or divine when cast in this way?

3. Can these spells be spontaneously converted into Cure spells?

The other part of the question, my own, is: even if the above aren't RAW, would you feel allowing them would be OP in a game that isn't minmax/OP'd, but was more towards the middle?

Anyway, I would appreciate your help.

Here's the text of the ability, as per the PRD:

I'm looking for suggestions for a good, 3PP rogue/thief/sly fox/knowledgeable scamp/shady character and so on. That is, a complete class from the ground up that you feel is reasonably balanced.

I've always felt the Core rogue has a conflicting message (Am I a thief? A scamp? Am I a sexier fighter?) and while I loved Kirth's concepts he put forward...

...I don't want to add 40+ pages of material, nor delve into Kirthfinder (sorry, Kirth!).

My group also isn't interested in the ninja, so that route isn't an option.

I ran into a great comment over in another thread. While I agree that high-level does need some clean-up...DQ's comment presented a way we might be able to do that, at least in part.

"The System Doesn't Work"

No.

I have ran a level 14-19 game over the course of a couple years. I also ran a mythic playtest one-shot with 20th level characters. The system worked just fine for me. The hardest part wasn't game balance, it was simply encounter design, because NPCs had a lot of spells (and this is before stuff like the NPC Codex came out). I also found it hard as GM (but not impossible or game-destroying) to keep track of monsters' abilities when they had gazillions. I think often high CR monsters are designed by tacking on more and more abilities rather than making them really, frighteningly good at a few things, and that is a flaw in the game's creature design. It is especially problematic because while a monster may have 20 options for what he can do with his turn, he still only gets one turn per round (mythic rules where there's ways to give big bads an extra turn per round really helps).

It's not imbalanced, at least in my experience. It's just a lot of work.

...it's a good point. A few more powerful abilities are easier to track than a number of smaller, but effective ones. What I would like to do is brainstorm ideas, or share ideas, for abilities for high-level creatures that are in that category of 'very, very effective' while still being fun...and are a little easier on the DM.

The goal here is to explore this and potentially build a resource for players and DMs alike.

Players have worked hard to get to high levels, after all, and it's fun to be able to do these things. If by sharing ideas we can make this happen a little easier...then why not?

Pathfinder explored the concept of monk vows, which got me to thinking: why not? Monks throughout history have been known for their vows, whether they follow a theistic or nontheistic order.

We have, for example, the Benedictine Monks as an example of a theistic order. A Bhuddist monk could be an example of a nontheistic one.

What vows might you write for your monk?

I imagine styles of vows would be varied, that they would depend on the order the PC chose to be part of.

What if a 'boss' monster's actions were tied to the number of PCs?

This is a thought I've been tossing around. One of the big issues with the traditional BBEG is action economy...this is especially true with a greater number of players.

I almost wonder if, similar to the 'advanced' templates, there might be templates applicable to creatures, or at least a set of rules for when the party number gets higher...or conversely, if they're the only creature in that scenario.

I'm aware this exists in other games... Is anyone aware of a 3pp who's produced something similar? Or, what would be your thoughts on implementing it, and its ramifications?

A previous thread got me to thinking on this. I'm something of a social introvert--that is, I love talking to people, though it takes energy to do so. That said, I've...got something I'm not sure how to handle. If any of y'all have dealt with something similar, I'd appreciate any advice you have to give.

You see, at one point in our gaming careers or another, we've all known the guy or gal who'd not taken a bath, who...well, we all have. So this is where it's leading to:

My area just opened one of its first honest-to-goodness brick and mortar gaming shops. The trouble is, it's already showing signs of becoming one of those shops. ...you know the type. The owner smells as though he hasn't bathed in months, and the place is already gaining layers of funkitude.

Have any of y'all ever brought this up, and if so, how? They do a lot of M:tG and CCGs (in fact, that's almost all the store does). It's not something I play. That's the other issue.

If they did board games, or Pathfinder (he says he's looking into PFS), I and my friends would stop by more often. As it is, though...

...this would be a nonregular patron walking in and saying: you got the funk, dude. I've thought of purchasing a bunch of 'gamer soaps' and delivering them, but that struck me as a little passive-aggressive, unless I could think of a fun way to do it, and even then...

Yeah. :/

Have any of you ever handled something similar? If so, how, and how did it go?

Hey, there. Before diving in here I want to acknowledge that yes, the cavalier isn't to everyone's taste. However, we've had something of a turnaround.

Therefore, this thread is not to gripe about cavaliers, but to offer some feedback on what's led to a positive reception. I feel as though there's something here that not only is it positive, but worth sharing. Of course, YMMV.

The cavalier's main issue and its glory is the mount. Some of the ways we've addressed the "I'm interested, but I'll never, ever take the class because I might be in a dungeon" issue is:

- Addressed the language. The cavalier does so much damage on a mounted charge that we've begun to compare their charge to smite. That is, it doesn't always work, but when it does, it's awesome.

- Addressed access to the mount by adding an option based on existing game mechanics. A PC may be able to scale a cliff, but the horse cannot. We explored a number of options, including the squeezing rules. However, the class is nonmagical and we wanted to keep that flavor.

The compromise was to have their order bestow upon each cavalier a token. This token is representative of their order and tied to the cavalier via their oath. Use of this token permits the cavalier to summon their mount in a manner similar to a paladin. In this way, it's the power of the bonded object which enacts the magic, and not the cavalier himself.

- We made the beast rider archetype "sort of" the default. That is, most any animal may be chosen as a mount so long as it's reasonable and passable via the DM. The heart of this means: expand their mount list to more awesome choices. Players want to be awesome, so why not let them?

- We've gone with a simpler, "common sense" approach regarding magic items. That is, a cloak of resistance may be a saddle blanket of resistance. While animals are unable to wear rings, they are treated as having vaguely similar item slots, though are not allowed to surpass a regular PC in terms of the number of them.

- Animals are animals. This employs Paizo's blog post, and keeps the previous point from getting too far out of hand. It's also streamlined combat--that is, a mount tends to perform along its trick list. This makes DMs, and other players, much happier and keeps things fairly streamlined.

These rules together have not solved all issues, but they have lent some enthusiasm I feel we'd not have had, otherwise. Too, some of it's just acted as a reassurance that PCs do have options, even when things are more difficult.

I'm putting together another chart, and have been compiling a list of exceptions.

So far:

Bracers of Armor: Crafter's level must be at least 2x the bonus.
Amulet of Mighty Fists: Crafter's level must be at least 3x the bonus.
Cloak of Resistance: Crafter's level must be at least 3x the bonus.

The bracers stand out as a 2x. Is this intentional? For normal armor or shields, the PRD states that its CL is three times its enhancement bonus. I'm assuming this applies for purposes of MI crafting DC, also.

Also, any other exceptions you're aware of? By exceptions, I mean: wondrous items whose crafting DC doesn't have a static entry, but instead scales in some way, similar to the above examples.

Just curious, as many of the "2.0" discussions have focused on a need for not reinvention, but streamlining. Smoothing out.

How would you approach this? Where would you approach it? This is more a thought exercise for fun rather than a serious proposal at this point.

Hey there. I'm in the process of cleaning up some of my old Pathfinder tutorials and visual aids. These tutorials are based on questions that players have had, over time, regarding the Pathfinder system (some of this dates back to 3.5).

This one covers: How do Magic Arms and Armor Work?

Some of these tutorials will need more work than others, so I appreciate your feedback and ask for your patience as I work through them. They're as always, free to use and modify to your heart's content. This one is a little more polished than most and I wanted to share it in case anyone else found it useful. It does use one term not inherit to the game, though that's noted in the piece.

As a special note, while this document lays the foundational knowledge for crafting, it doesn't cover it--that's part of a larger tutorial on my desk in draft form atm.

I'm also still working on the Actions in a Round tutorial, by the way, with all of its excellent suggestions (big thanks to Howie, btw). It's just on the backburner at the moment as I'm a little swamped with other things.

What this thread is NOT: an area to complain that tutorials aren't needed or aren't wanted. I'm attempting to improve an existing project, and offering the materials for free. :3

...and by older, I mean more: hey, we have families now. So ideally, these questions are for gamers who are hitting their 30s, 40s, and are likely raising kids, too. Or maybe they aren't.

- How have your priorities changed?
- How has this changed your gaming?
- How could brick and mortar stores change to be more "family gamer" or "older gamer" friendly? Yes, these can be two different groups!
- How should companies market to older/family gamers?
- How has your tabletop experience changed?

Some general questions that I'd like to throw out there. Also, it'd be a treat if we could hear from Paizo on the topic as I think they've done great! Is there a podcast on this someplace that I've missed?

Just tossing around some ideas here that I could use some feedback on.

I've been thinking about incremental antimagic. In stories we often run into areas where characters find magic difficult, but not impossible. I'd like to find a way to mimic that, but in such a way as it could be adjusted (that is, added or subtracted to or from) incrementally as the story requires.

For example, incremental antimagic rules could be used to make it gradually harder to cast or access magic as the PCs climb into the Forbidden Mountains. Or, as the Wizard Overlord's power progresses over the township, the PCs begin to feel this oppression...and become motivated to stop it.

The obvious method of this (to me) is to begin with upper level spells or magic effects, and then as each "degree" is added, work down from there. But, what about spell-like or supernatural abilities that have no explicit level?

Or, what about instead of removing these abilities entirely (only temporarily) make them "difficult to access." Say, similar to simulating the effects of some entity blocking the ether of magic it just becomes increasingly harder.

Potentially require a concentration check, then up the DC over time?

Just some thoughts, here. Again, these effects wouldn't be intended to be permanent, but something that could be layered on over time, or used briefly, during the course of a storyline as it was required.

How would you do it? Or, are there rules for this already and I'm overlooking them?

Also, I'm still working on the action chart. It is not forgotten. I'm just still thinking over options and have been a touch swamped of late as I swim through other projects.

Hey there. I'm starting the process of cleaning up some of my old Pathfinder tutorials and visual aids. These tutorials are based on questions that players have had, over time, regarding the Pathfinder system.

I could use some ideas for this one, currently: Actions in Pathfinder.

That is:
1. I'd appreciate any ideas to make the document more clear or usable
2. I'd appreciate some rules-checking
3. I'd appreciate any general feedback you have to offer, such as questions or conflicts that you've encountered in your life as PF DM or Player; for example, are there areas of the game you've had to explain more often than others? Which areas? I may make these a subject for a future tutorial or aid.

Some of these tutorials will need more work than others, so I appreciate your feedback and ask for your patience as I work through them. Also, I recognize too that it can be difficult both in writing and critiquing them.

As a special note regarding this visual: this one is a little less easy for me to edit. If I am a little slower to respond, it is due to that and not that I don't appreciate your feedback. I will be keeping an eye on this thread. :3

What this thread is NOT: an area to complain that tutorials aren't needed or aren't wanted. I'm attempting to improve an existing project.

Hey there. I'm starting the process of cleaning up some of my old Pathfinder tutorials. These tutorials are based on questions that players have had, over time, regarding the Pathfinder system.

I could use some ideas for this one, currently: Combat Maneuvers.

That is:
1. I'd appreciate any ideas to make the document more clear or usable
2. I'd appreciate some rules-checking
3. I'd appreciate any general feedback you have to offer, such as questions or conflicts that you've encountered in your life as PF DM or Player; for example, are there areas of the game you've had to explain more often than others? Which areas? I may make these a subject for a future tutorial.

Some of these tutorials will need more work than others, so I appreciate your feedback and ask for your patience as I work through them. Also, I recognize too that it can be difficult both in writing and critiquing them. When I originally made Combat Maneuvers, for example, it was written for players converting from 3.5 to PF, so it may reflect that mindset overmuch, or assume too much system mastery to begin with.

What this thread is NOT: an area to complain that tutorials aren't needed or aren't wanted. I'm attempting to improve an existing project.

Not sure where this goes, so I am going to give this the old try!

This refers to the page: Equipment of the online PRD, though may also apply to future print versions.

It would be helpful if the weapon sizes table included the category "small" in addition to "tiny."

While many of the weapon resizings can be guessed by looking through the weapons table itself, there are sizes that have no easy reference, such as 2d10.

To fill in these gaps, the user has to go to the Bestiary...under Universal Monster Rules. This is a completely different book, and assumes that the player would possesses prior knowledge of the table. There is no direction to point them towards it.

This is a small change, but would make the section much more usable. I realize changes necessitate a domino effect of effort, and appreciate it if this one would be considered!

Before I devote energy to this, I'd like to know if this has been done before.

At our table, we get the occasional question of: is this feat an x action or a y? And can it be combined with c?

For simplicity's sake, I'd like to make a chart that is simple to use and reference. However, I wasn't sure if something like this existed already.

Where items are controversial, I'd provide a note.

A quick-and-dirty version of the chart might look like:

Feat.............Usable with FA?......Common Q&A
Vital Strike....No...................Cannot be used on a charge or combined with Spring Attack
Sunder.........Yes/No...............Monk may use as part of flurry, disagreement on FA or not for others

...though I've certainly not decided on a final format yet. At this point, I'm still researching.

Or is there already one out there that I don't know about? I would sure love to buy one.

Inspired by: http://io9.com/5958203/is-this-the-oldest-d20-on-earth

...I can't be the only history geek out there, and this looks awesome.

Also, apologies if this is the wrong forum. Wasn't sure where to put this.

Thought I'd share this because of how awesome it is. Plus, it's nice to see articles that mention the hobby positively.

14-year-old Jack built a device that traveled into space and took photos. It was manned by a tiny Lego man. He's going to submit it for his school science project.

His hobbies? Playing Dungeons and Dragons, fencing, and reading books!

Ref: Article on CNN

I'm not sure where to put this, so I'm trying here. They're finding evidence that shrunken heads...really were a thing. More, they were part of ceremonies intended to protect the warrior from revenge from his enemy.

http://news.discovery.com/history/head-hunting-dna-analysis-110614.html

Could add some background into someone's primitive setting homebrew...

...I thought it was time for another one of these. They need reminded from time to time. :3

To the folks at Paizo:
- Thank you for putting up with the snark that crops up during playtests. I know firsthand how unpleasant this can be to deal with, and you deserve nothing but admiration for working through it the way you have.
- Thank you for being willing to take a different approach to the classes in Pathfinder. Every class has a way to advance or expand now, or most of them do, outside of Feats and Spells. Rage Powers. Mercies. Discoveries. These are amazing things and have expanded the game in ways that weren't possible before.
- Thank you for publishing amazing art and providing work for artists. In addition, thank you especially for depicting female heroes and subjects who aren't bimbos.
- Thank you for helping keep DnD alive and supporting the community in a positive way.
- Thank you for not flooding us with PrCs by not making them a necessary part of a PC's life, but rather a flavorful experience.
- Thank you for supporting a diverse gaming sphere and work force.

I could add more here, but think it's a good start. These guys do a lot of work, and I think it's important to remember to say "thank you" from time to time.

Sometimes, it's too easy to get wrapped up in our own arguments, or what we feel is "wrong" with this or that, without remembering the bigger picture.

So, thank you to Paizo, and to everyone here who has made this hobby and community what it is. We may not all agree all of the time, but we can at least come together and throw some dice.

I wanted to talk about some of the ideas in this article: http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/game-currency-theres-more-than-money- at-stake .

...and ask: what other, alternate currencies do you use? For instance:

- Awarding feats instead of treasure
- Awarding traits for roleplay

...and so on. Is there something specific you'd come up with, that works for you or that you've seen and particularly enjoyed, either as a DM or a Player?

Disclaimer: I'm not the writer of the article, or in any way affiliated with GS. I just really enjoyed reading it.

I'd heard a rumor that rage points might be revisited in later publications as an alternate rule set. Was this ever done, or am I just blind? O.O

Or, is the last release of them from beta?

For those who don't know what I'm talking about: Rage points were a system that let you handle barbarian powers via a points system. That is, so long as you had enough points, you could use the ability. This was introduced during beta, but probably felt too foreign at the time, so Paizo moved to the 1/rage, 1/day system in place currently!

Note, this also meant there wasn't rage cycling...what you could do and how often was solely a function of your rage points...sort of a ki pool, but Very Angry, of course.

I ran into this just a little while back. What are your thoughts?

In Monte's post, he states:

"It’s easier to be negative than positive. If I say something sucks, it’s much easier to defend that position than if I say something is good. This is of course, an extension of that ages-old sentiment that it is easier to destroy than to create."

And then goes on to add:

"Geeks, as much as I love them, seem particularly susceptible. Not just because we want to prove we’re smart (and discerning) but because we are smart. We do see the flaws, and ultimately everything is flawed. (This makes us very difficult to please.)"

What do you think? What are your thoughts?

Just picked up our 2nd edition copy. ... :D

Woot!

Okay, this is somewhat off the wall, but it's a subject that's gone around in local circles for some time now, and I'd like to throw it out to the greater community.

I'm finding an increasing number of female gamers knit, crochet, or some similar handicraft. Also, I'm finding that of male gamers in my area, many/most of their GF/SOs knit, crochet...you get the image.

It's to a point that when I visit other cities and other friends, if I make the suggestion: you know, I wonder that gaming stores don't have a knitting section, I get: YES!!!! with some of them jumping out of their seat (one girl jumped up and knocked over her chair at the restaurant we were eating at)!

...is this just me?

Do you knit or sew costumes? Does your GF/SO? Is it a "female gamer" thing? Is it a "spouse of the gamer" thing? Do some of the guys do it?

A fighter is a fighter is a fighter. Yet, they can be wonderfully versatile when it comes to combat.

How do you prefer to build your fighters so that they survive more effectively or provide you with more flexibility, not outside of combat, but within it?

What are your minimum requirements for a "versatile combat fighter", that you would actually play and build?

I prefer my fighters to have a ranged and melee option at minimal, for example. The guy who stands in front needs options when the enemy shifts. He or she may not have a fly potion at the ready, or the terrain, creature type, or battlefield setup might dictate that isn't the best option.

Another friend of mine prefers any fighter she plays has a combat maneuver of some type, preferably of the disabling nature. Another demands IUS, for the times weapons are lost or ICly, due to the game, aren't something you'd have on hand.

How do you build yours, or how would you approach it?

This is not about being flexible outside of combat--it is about being flexible within it.

One of my favorite concepts to play as a wizard is the buffer wizard. My guy is nearing level 9--he can see it, he can see it!!! It's right over THERE!

...What spells are your favorites that I might keep on the lookout for?

We typically have a S&B fighter, a monk, and occasionally a barbarian (who went the spellbreaker route...so things I can do for him are a little more limited).

Allowed spells are Core and APG. The party is co-op minded. The DM has asked that summons be kept minimal (for sanity purposes, and everyone at the table respects that).

Oh, and...

There's no healer, often never has been. Just lil' ole me.

Advice? Ideas? I'm interested in what you have to say. So hit me. :)

Just what it says. I'm looking into some potential ideas, and would like to see what options are out there. Where might I begin looking after the Bestiaries? Are there any favorites that really "stuck out"?

I love the new paladin, although I hope my reading here is incorrect. Is the paladin unable to cast Heal Mount on his or her mount after 15th level?

Heal Mount is designed for the specific and sole purpose of healing a paladin's mount, but post 15th, "a paladin's mount gains spell resistance equal to the paladin's level + 11."

This looks to me as though it would be a difficult roll to make.

Is this intended? I'm surprised in any case. Maybe they meant for Spell Resistance: No, given it's a paladin-specific spell, made for a specific intent? Is there something I'm overlooking?

...at least, not in the books I personally own or have looked over. :)

Premise: There seemed to be a need for something akin to this, and I liked it as a paladin-themed spell. Paladins are supposed to adhere to the idea of mercy in addition to their military focus and this may fit that theme.

This spell is based off of magic weapon with the target changed, casting sped, and duration dropped from minutes to rounds to reflect the last-minute nature of the spell.

Merciful Blade

Transmutation
Level: Pal 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 swift action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round/level

Sometimes, mercy is called for in the martial field. With this prayer, the paladin asks his or her deity to dull the edge of a weapon so it inflicts subdual damage instead of lethal damage. This does not alter the weapon's damage type, or otherwise change the weapon in any way. Despite the name of the prayer, any sort of weapon wielded by the paladin may be affected. If the paladin drops or otherwise loses the weapon, the spell ends.

I'm of a mind that this wouldn't work with a bow, but up to you, personally. Conceptually, I like it for what I see the paladin as, and believe it fills a hole in their prayerlist. YMMV.