Search Posts
Am I right to think that if I am subscribed to the Pathfinder Battles case subscription these promotional miniatures for each set ship automatically with subscription shipments? I don't remember having to add the skeletal dragon promotional figure to my Skull and Shackles subscription shipment. The crux of the matter is that the Gargantuan Green Dragon did not come with my subscription shipment. I added it to my shopping cart to see if the 75% discount would be applied and it was not. Edit: Nevermind, I found the answer. And I have changed my subscription settings so that a promotional figure ships with my subscription cases automatically. My new question then, and I don't see this addressed specifically in the FAQ or elsewhere, is it possible for me to apply the 75% discount on promo figures after my subscription has already shipped? Thanks,
Am I correct to think that by using the 3.5 exception you can make an attack of opportunity against a character making a ranged attack while standing in the second diagonal square away? For the record, I am the GM in question. I accept that I probably shouldn't have made the opportunity. I just want to nail this down for future reference. Do we feel confident that this is covered by the common sense clause? Tam
In tonight's PFS game that made me think of this, a druid character was throwing a pellet grenade. A dragon made an AoO against the character because of the ranged attacked and dropped them. If it had been an Alchemist with a bomb it would have been mixed before the ranged attack was made. Tam
I don't mind being wrong. And I can see why you would think I am. But my statement is based on the following quote.
But even if you disagree with me, that's cool. This isn't my question. Tam
In 3.5 the charging at a diagonal loop hole allowed people to charge creatures with 10ft reach without provoking attacks of opportunity.I believe that it is somewhere in the errata for Pathfinder it was spelled out that this does not work and is simply a gimmick of the square grid. Even though the character is moving in increments of 5', 15', 20' etc, their are still moving through 10' to 5' or 15' depending on how you count it. Tam
I accept that someone approaching a creature with 10' reach diagonally will provoke an opportunity. That is not what this is about. If moving through the second square diagonally from a creature with reach provokes an AoO, do other opportunity attack provoking actions do so as well? Tonight in our PFS game I made an attack of opportunity against a character making a ranged attack in that square. While I am happy with the outcome of the call in this one instance, I would like some clarification for the next time this situation arises. Thanks Tam
Since the RAW and RAI are well defined and no one is arguing them this debate is clearly about opinion and not rules. That makes me curious what perspectives encourage what opinions. Do those of you who think a DC 20 perception check is too low to notice an active invisible creature often play characters that take advantage of invisibility? Is this rule something that threatens your characters directly? For my own point of view, I never play characters that regularly turn invisible. This rule isn't something I often have to contend with regularly. I also have no problem with the DC 20. What are your backgrounds in relation to this rule? Tam
I would also recommend not making the situation more adversarial that it already is by specifically and obviously targeting his character with with nerfing tactics and encounters. This could easily have the side effect of making your situation with this player and his character worse. Address the core of the problem. Treating the symptoms without addressing the sickness will simply allow it to fester. Tam
Some friends and I have been playing a custom home game system for a while but will be playing more and more Pathfinder as we get ready for GenCon. Tonight's game generated some questions. 1. Can you jump an open pit as part of a charge? I don't see anything in the charge rules that prevents this. 2. In which square does an AOO triggered by movement happen? To clarify, a combatant between two enemies moves out of the flank and provokes two attacks of opportunity. If he dies as a result of those attacks, does he fall in the square he was standing in before the move started or the first square he moved into? I tend to think that he provokes by leaving a square, not "having left" a square, and that the AOO interrupts the movement out of the starting square. 3. How do you determine the Reflex save DC for a fireball cast from a necklace of fireballs? The fireball in question was a 2d6 fireball. In the session we went with a DC of 14 because, 10 + spell level of 3 + 1 because the minimum Int necessary to cast fireball is 13. Thanks for your help, Tam
One of the players in my RotRL game wants to read these comic books, but he is concerned that they might give away some of the RotRL story. I feel pretty good that they won't, given how the the comic book story already deviates from that presented in RotRL, but he doesn't want to take any chances. Can anyone point me to a thread where this has been discussed or can someone in the know about the story put his concern at ease? Tam
Basically, the adventure included with the playtest kit is simply not the kind of adventure that I enjoy playing or running any more (despite my incredible memories of this particular location). There was a time when I had all weekend to play and a long dungeon crawl was awesome. That was a long time ago. So, I asked myself where I could find a good adventure that I could adjust easily that allowed me to playtest the rules in a few hours? The most logical answer was a PFS module. I have been very busy with school for the last year and a half and haven't kept up with all the modules released (I am not eager to see exactly how much it will cost me to catch up ;)). So I am asking for advice from you guys. What recent modules do you think could fill this bill? Ideally it would have an interesting story, not feel too railroady, have at least one interesting locale, and a variety of encounter types. Thanks for your help. I look forward to hearing your ideas. Tam
Thanks man. That addresses most of my concerns right there. I really hope though that those of us that are hoping to go all out on printing maps and such can get access to a PDF ahead of time. Tam
Mobilize the army. There is an opportunity here. Not only can Paizo present a solid Free RPG Day offering. They can also encourage their staunch supporters to run this adventure at game stores across the country. It is like using Free RPG Day as a platform for a nation wide "Come meet Pathfinder" event. Players both old and new who play through the adventure in store may be doubly encouraged to turn around and run it for their friends. Tam
What are the chances that someone who wants to organize a Free RPG Day event around this adventure can get an early PDF to prep with? I might be able to get my favorite store owner to let me put up a poster of the cover and advertise to try and get a couple tables to play this adventure in-store that day. If I have the adventure ahead of time I can print out scaled color maps. The store could even raffle off or give away the maps I make that compliment the adventure. It would all advertise Pathfinder and PFS here locally. Tam
I would keep it as simple as possible. For example.... The sorcerer has 15 AC before casting this spell on himself. So now his AC is 22 with 15-21 being from bone armor (15-21 because you succeed against ac by meeting/beating it). Any attack that is 22 or above hits readily, bypassing all armor and damaging the sorcerer. Any attack between 1-14 is dodged by the sorcerer or just misses. Any attack between 15-21 doesn't damage the sorcerer because it hits the bone armor instead. Damage is applied to the bone armor. I might even have any damage from an attack that destroyed the bone armor, but was in excess of that needed to destroy it, carry over to the sorcerer. Tam
Fixed to quote the original questioner rather than meIf a player really wanted to multi-class in say, rogue and ninja, how many GMs would truly tell them, "No, they are the same class"? And how many GMs would say, "Sure, if you want to, it would be better to just pick one in the long term, but hey, whatever"? My bad. Thanks. There are times I wish the bbcode tags for these messageboards were buttons and a little more convenient. But they work. Tam
To be clear, I in no way poked into anything. This player showed me the pdf on his laptop, probably to test how accepting I was of pirated pdfs, and I explained the situation to him. I would never violate a player's privacy. PFS though, has specific rules that players must follow for material in supplements to be available for their character's use. Unless it is in the "Core Assumption", the Core book, Bestiary I, and Seekers of Secrets, players are responsible for bringing their own copies of any books they want to use. These can be PDFs or hard copies. If they are PDFs they must be Paizo PDFs (Paizo is still the only place to get them legally that I am aware of). You can bet that if someone brought something that I was unfamiliar with to my table I would want to see it. If they were unwilling to show me, then we have a problem. Tam
Steampunk campaign.... :
What what? This is the first I have heard of this. Is your half-orc gunslinger that I just read about partially responsible? You should look up an old Dragon article about D&D modernized. Can't remember the name. All the same races, classes, and magic, just with cars, gangs, and corporations. There was this gun that had two portals along the length of it's barrel. The first would catch any bullet fired and transport it to a degrading orbit around earth in near space, just one year in the past. The bullet would shrink in size and pick up speed as it fell toward earth. After a year passed, and the bullet caught up to present, it would pass through another portal and exit the end of the barrel. By now it is smaller than a grain of sand but packing quite the punch. Pure awesome. Tam
If a player really wanted to multi-class in say, rogue and ninja, how many GMs would truly tell them, "No, they are the same class"? And how many GMs would say, "Sure, if you want to, it would be better to just pick one in the long term, but hey, whatever"?
In a nutshell, this. Tam
I too am really looking forward to PaizoCon. I am also starting what I like to think of as a PFS Outreach Program. I currently run PFS games in Little Rock, AR. About an hour north, give or take, is Conway. And to the east is Jacksonville. I think that once each month I will trek out to stores in these areas and run PFS games to try to drum up some excitement and interest. Hopefully I can identify some GMs to run games when I am unable to make the journey. I hope to bring at least one or two other GMs with me to be better able to adjust to, and accommodate any number of players. It's going to be awesome. Tam
For myself, I didn't mind the lack of direct interaction over on the WotC boards when I was there. I could slam a product without someone coming in and saying, "Don't be mean about the product because the designer will get their feelings hurt." There was a level of (brutal) honesty, that frankly on a board like this isn't going to happen just because of the social pressures involved. That doesn't mean there aren't better pay offs for getting the kind of interaction you get here that outweigh the negatives, but there are downsides on both approaches. We can argue all day about the actual value of what some consider "brutal honesty", but it would almost certainly be a waste of time. I am actually very glad that there are social pressures on this community that encourage a small amount of decorum in its members. If it discourages people from lashing out without any sense of tact and without lending constructive criticism to a conversation, product, class or what have you, I am all for it. A little respect goes a long way. It goes so far that if it cost me a few bucks each month so that Paizo could pay a full-time moderator, I would pay it. Then again, as long as people moderate themselves this will never be necessary. Tam
Many comforting things. Thank you Erik. There are a few reasons why I love you guys and support you as much as I do. The main reason though is exemplified in your post. I honestly feel that you guys are the greatest gaming company ever and I look forward to supporting you and enjoying your products for many years to come. Tam
Tambryn why do you have to act like this when someone says something that you don't agree with? It does boil down to the fact if you do not like it you don't have to buy it. The fact that you are trying to make change for the better in your opinion are wiped out when making comments like the one above. Some people actually DO worry about their own home game and that is the true import to them and them alone. Why is this a problem for you? You alone can not make a change to Paizo and the way they publish or choose to publish their rules and how many classes they think they should release and the timeline as to when they do. As much as you like to think that you can, all you can do is to sway others opinions to your way of thinking. Acting like the above... gets you no where in that regard other then showing the ones who don't believe the way you do that you are not acting very mature and thinking that the internet is a place where a bunch of people come and say what ever they want and hide behind the cloak of anonymity. I regret that you read that as an attack on Blackerose. I can assure you though, that it was not. Their post had the tone, to me, of someone who had not read the thread and thereby hadn't had the opportunity to notice that the exact same point had been made over thirty* other times. Wanting to know whether I was wrong or not, I asked. What seems to keep being skipped is that I never once said anything about not buying the book. I will buy the book for a few reasons. I like the classes. I will have a Ninja in my PFS game this weekend and I am looking forward to it. I am eager to see what is in the book besides these three classes. I support Paizo. It would take a serious blunder on their behalf for me to completely write a book off. I also hope that other people that are assuming the worst about the book because of the inclusion of these classes will at least give it a chance. My concern is not about my gaming group. I, as the GM, have a always had veto ability at my table and this book will not change that. I will allow the classes in my game. One of my players has already expressed his interest in playing a gnome gunslinger, sweet. My concern has nothing to do with whether the classes are cool or not, or necessary. Paizo has not, to date, published a book that I did not want to purchase. My fear is that, if they follow WOTC's example, they might publish such a book in the future.
My concern is for my hobby and Pathfinder in the future. Tam *please note that "thirty" is an estimate. It's probably more.
so I have only heard the stories regarding 3.0 and 3.5's ten thousand splat books and 30 classes. Let's call it 85. Tam
Well, I hate that a reactionary few have given those of us who want to express constructive concern a bad rap. I love new classes. New rules are fine. I just want Paizo to pace themselves for the long race. The Gunslinger would have fit fine in the Alkenstar supplement when they got around to it. The same for Ninja and Samurai in the Tian Xia material. UC would have been fine with archetypes. I wonder if the "oooooooh shiny" new class effect could be encouraged if archetypes came with their own artwork. Tam
So, now I will pretend that the Samurai is the only class being published in UC. They could fill the space left by the absence of Gunslinger and Ninja with . . . Samurai cultural details (not necessarily Tian Xia information, but more generic samurai stuff but with a sidebar that provides some Golarion specifics) like their relationship with their master, an honor system, different flavors of samurai based on weapons and tactics (here I am thinking samurai archers, samurai with ploearms and the like), details on samurai analogs from other oriental lands, detailed samurai equipment. Again, instead of 3 classes, 1 class with a lot more support than the basic class description. Tam
As long as new classes are QUALITY, then I am not sure what the issue is. As both a GM and player, i want more choices, which is why I allow any decent 3PP classes in my games. And even thought its not "mature" it still comes down to dont buy it or use it, if you don't want it. Nobody expects you to buy EVERY product, and I am sure most home games can go along just fine without MOST of them. Wait for the next one you think is worth 100% of your time and cash. I agree, that would work, for someone whose only concern was for their home game. As a side note, a small point of curiosity for me, did you read this thread before posting? Tam
It is easy for some of us 3.5ers to over react. 3.5 was handled so poorly. And for many of us, class bloat had a lot to do with it. But as long as we keep voicing our opinions and Paizo keeps heeding them as much as makes sense, we will continue to have a good middle of the road game that has something for everyone. Tam
so I have only heard the stories regarding 3.0 and 3.5's ten thousand splat books and 30 classes. I have zero desire to count them all. But according to this there were 175. Tam edit: I should probably count them. There seem to be quite a few duplicates. The end number might not be nearly as dramatic as 175.
Than explain to me the sudden panic I have seen in the last few months about their being too many classes Do you mean the last few months, or the last couple days? I was cool with APG and Ultimate Magic. I realize the game needs a foundation of classes. But only with the release of the UC playtest document did I become aware that the direction I thought Paizo was going with Pathfinder might vary significantly from where they are actually heading. Until this document was released I was under the impression that the Magus would be the last class for a while. Then, before the Magus is even published, there are three more. There are probably quite a few others who were under the same impression. Tam
Dude, it was awesome, I will be going back down to the market whether you give a tour or not. That said, I really hope you give another one. I gotta get some more of that brass pig action. Tam
I understand that. This thread is simply my attempt to be critical of class glutt while also being constructive. There are always, after all, future books to sway you on. So says this slave. Tam
Where did Paizo give an iron clad promise to not release any new classes. No one said such a promise was made. The message I hope Paizo gets from this thread and the concerns of those like myself is this. . . "Paizo, we trust you, we have for years now, but there are a few things that look a little concerning. I'm a little worried. But not so much that my faith is you has been shaken. Just please be careful and be doubly vigilant to avoid WOTC's mistakes with 3.5. And oh yeah, see you at PaizoCon." Tam
On the other hand, I saw several people in this thread who were asking for it. They saw the Pathfinder reset of core to a few books as a good thing. I just reskimmed the entire thread. I don't see anyone saying "Ok Paizo, thats enough, the books you've published so far will do, Pathfinder is complete, find some other way to make money." If I am wrong please show me. Tam
Maybe I am not seeing it. Yet how on one hand some might say they do not want the system to remain statci yet at the same time ask for it oto remain static. Want to see change and development and at the same time want the opposite. The problem seems to be that you have somehow wrongly inferred two different things. That people want no new classes. And that if people did want no new classes, no new classes would equal static. These two assumptions are simply not true. I don't know anyone who is advocating this. Tam
While some are not coming right out and saying it the impression I'm getting is that some are accusing Paizo oflying about rules bloat when they never promised anything about it. Post me a link to where any of the devs gave their personnal guarantee that their would be no new rules. rules It actually seems that you are inferring much more than is being implied. Who has forgotten that Paizo needs to make a profit to continue publishing the game we love? Who has accused Paizo of lying? Who said they want the publication of crunch to cease? Who said anything about rules bloat? This thread is about class glut. The only class in UC that really has any new rules is the Gunslinger and then just barely. We are simply a group of customers that are giving our feedback and criticism, hopefully constructive, to the company that we support. Tam
For those that are worried about rules bloat, what kind of rulebooks do you want to see? I want to see the same kinds of books. I am in no way asking Paizo to produce less material. The APG is cool and the UC seems promising. Just please slow down the new class releases. Did the APG need 6 or 7 new classes? I don't think it did. It would have been fine with 3 or 2. And an APG 2 could have easily carried the next couple classes. Can we just take our time?
This can be misleading. You will find that many of the people that are asking for slower class glut are also in the playtest forums giving the UC playtest their all. Don't assume that slower class glut means "No more classes." Very few of us, from what I can tell, actually feel that way. I understand the desire for some people to have a set system that doesn't change. However, people who buy "Core" and nothing else become non-customers. Paizo is going to expand the game, because they promised to support the game they were creating. So if Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat are not the sort of expansions you want, what are you looking for in a new book? Again, there seems to be this huge misconception that we want a stagnant system. I cannot think of one person for whom that is true. I currently own everything, besides some cards, that Paizo has released. I support their continued growth and health as a company completely. Class glut is just something that a lot of us see as unhealthy for the game as a whole. I certainly hope that the future holds Psionics, Epic levels, Divine levels, and Monstrous Races. I agree completely. But other than psionics, do any of these really need to introduce new classes to Pathfinder? I don't think so. Archetypes can handle everything. Some would argue that they can handle psionics also, but that belongs in a different thread. Tam
|
