So, if this test (or parts of it) goes well, what can you expect the long-term changes to be? First off, we need to be clear: Regardless of what people think of the system, there's just no way, logistically, to implement a full change within the playtest period. We might—and I stress might—be able to put out some more samples or previews of where we think we're going, and possibly even guidelines to adapt the printed Resonance system further, but you won't be seeing a total rewrite of the rules.
So, if I'm reading this right, it tells me that Paizo decided they were releasing PF2 on [insert date here] whether it was well received or not?
I'm sorry, but if that is true that displays a fundamentally flawed level of confindence in one's abilities. A new system should not have a fixed release date; it shouldn't receive a release date at all until the design team and the community is happy with the state of the game. Look at 5E, it went through tons of revisions and changes and alternate systems before it was released. The current version of 5E looks nothing like the original playgest document.
You cannot approach developing a new system like you would developing a new class: decide on core mechanics, flesh it out, make changes based on feedback that doesn't alter the core mechanicsz release after 1 or 2 cycles.
If you have to go through 17 different playtest periods before the community is happy, then that's what you have to do. You can't just set a date to release it next year and hope everything turns out okay, because then you end up with Resonance.
What happens if this experimental system is just as badly received by the community? What will you do then? As stated, you might have enough time to try something else, but what if you don't? Do you just ship the product with a system that is generally disliked by the masses? Because if so, that's a good way to destroy a ship before it even sails.
You cannot set a date to publish until you have something ready to publish. As it stands, Pathfinder Second Edition might be ready, or it might not, but either way, you don't know for certain, which means you cannot set a date.
As a die-hard necromancer player (hah-hah, get it?) I am finding myself extremely surprised at my hype for Universalist.
It looks like the versatility is finally going to be worth the trade-off.
Actually, the Universalist is less versatile than the Specialist. Specialist gets to prepare up to 4 spells per level, whereas the Universalist gets to prepare 3 spells. Where the Universalist wins, iscasting endurance by taking Focus Conservation. A universalist will, potentially have up to 5 spell slots for all spell levels, except their top two spell levels.
So the Universalist will be able to go longer and farther than other wizards, but he lacks the potential variety of other wizards due to having one less spell prepared per day.
In effect, the Universalist is more like a Sorcerer who can trade out his spells each day.
It's rare that the stars will align where you'll want to go more than two spells deep in this chain, I would think.
Even if that's true, its still a phenomenal amount of power. Turning your highest level slot into free castings of lower level slots in additio to still getting that highest level slot is still a great choice. At 11th level, turning a 6th level slot into a 4th, and 2nd level slots is still probably a good choice. You could turn those into some buffs or maybe a control spell of some sort.
Okay, so, please tell me you guys have added in limiters so the Focus Conservation feat doesn't totally break the Universalist?
Obviously don't have all the text, but what is written above is that Focus Conservation allows you to only partially drain your arcane focus to cast a spell, and then you can use the rest of that energy to cast spells 2 levels lower in succession. So a 9th level arcane focus becomes a 9th, 7th, 5th, 3rd, and 1st level slot.
But what about the Universalist who has an arcane focus for every spell level? Can he turn his 9th level slot into 5 spells as I indicated above? Then turn his 8th level slot into 8th, 6th, 4th, and 2nd level slots? And so on, and so on.
Because if so... might as well just give Universalist infinite spells, because that's what it will feel like while in play. But seriously, if that's how those two abilities interact, it will make a Universalist crazy powerful, which is a nice change of pace to how they have pretty much always been the worst choice of wizard.
So, based entirely on this post, Clerics are heal boots as nearly everything that has been lined out revolves around casting heal or harm spells. Thats kind if crappy.
Also, I cannot stess enough how much I despise the fact that 2E renames all of the options "feats" instead of different names. Class talents, character feats, and skill unlocks or something. Anything other than using the same word for different things. It's character level, caster level, and spell level all over again.
So... This blog pretty much confirms that alchemists can use magical items, like everyone else, but actually can't use them, because they need to conserve their resonance.
Non-magical class with non-magical abilities crafting non-magical items requires the magical resonance resource to function. Can't wear magical armor or use magical weapons because that all consumes resonance and the alchemist requires resonance in order to use it's class features.
This is a huge turn off for the class and the entire resonance system.
So, am I understanding it correctly that the alchemist gets totally screwed over by GMs? See, if they don't have the downtime to make alchemical items, then they have to use their resonance to spontaneously craft them. So an alchemist with no downtime can't use any magic items as she needs the resonance points in order to make bombs and stuff.
Ganon is an exercise in getting as many natural attacks as possible, but in a reasonable way (not trying to abuse odd magical items or obscure rules). In many ways, he's kind of a quintessential "vivsectionist/beastmorph natural attack alchemist" but that's okay with me. Ganon serves as a Dr. Jekyl/Dr. Frankenstein kind of villain very well; in that he is quite capable of performing all kinds of weird medical experiments on creatures. If you need a villain that would have kind of deformed, anthropomorphic animals or disfigured human medical experiments, then Ganon is your guy.
I have to be honest, I did think long and hard about naming him Shou Tucker... but I think that reference might be too obvious. Though if I ever get to use this guy, he'll be using it as his "human" disguise. Skinwalker's look like humans until they take on their animal forms; appearing as a human, he could be named Tucker, but in his true form, he is Ganon.
Combat wise, he's quite the monster. Tons of natural attacks on a pounce at that. He's a "buff and bash" style character, in that he can pump a lot of extracts to make himself nearly unstoppable. Bonus! A party that uses lots of piercing or slashing weapons will find him a nightmare due to caustic blood, which squirts out a blast of 12d6 acid damage any time he takes piercing or slashing damage. Stab Ganon 3 times, get blasted with 36d6 acid damage, and another 18d6 acid damage on the following round.
If you attack him, you kill yourself. If you don't attack him, he kills you... if you're lucky. He might just make you into one of his experiments :D
Plus, with his familiar taking half of all his damage, due to the Protector familiar archetype, and Spontaneous Healing on top of a buttload of hp, Ganon is a very tough beast and it won't be easy to bring him down.... Outside of Will saves anyway. That's his one real weakness.
I went ahead and turned the post I made above into an actual NPC.
Astrid Halgradottir is a shield maiden and defender of her people. She blesses all those who fight at her side with the strength and endurance of the gods, and each of those so blessed find their wounds rapidly healing as they shine with the radiance of the sun.
The above is possible because of the +12 strength bonus, and +6 con bonus she gives to those that accept her inspired rage. They also gain fast healing 12, and each ally who accepts her song sprouts a halo that shines "as if it were daylight" while simultaneously acting as an [i]invisibility purge[/it] spell within their space and all adjacent squares.
Just picture her standing in the midst of an army of soliders, all sporting gleaming halos that shin like the sun, all of whom heal faster than trolls, and each one capable of snapping tree with their bare hands. She is a force to be reckoned with.
It doesn't say it's treated as magic for dr full stop. It said it's treated as a magic weapon, when just before it said that a magic weapon can bypass different dr if it had a +3 or more.
Quote the text that tells me ammunition gains the full enhancement bonus of the the weapon. Remember, being treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction is a specific rules term with specific interactions with the rules. In this case, being treated as magic, allows it to overcome DR/magic. There are other examples in the core rules that use the same language, but don't allow overcoming other damage reduction, see Monks and the Arcane Strike feat.
As I said previously, I'm not trying to invalidate the FAQ. You can't do that. I am trying to show where the FAQ erratas the rules instead of clarifying.
Unfortunately, Paizo does this a lot. They've never really used the FAQ as a FAQ but as a hybrid FAQ/pending errata. Issuing an errata because something was unclear is one thing, but they've also used it for outright rule changes as well.
Matthew Downie wrote:
The rule didn't use the word 'only', meaning that you could apply both that rule and the general rule without them coming into conflict. Which is why pretty much everyone played it 'wrong'.
It didn't need to use only, because it states what happens when non-magical ammunition is fired from a magical weapon. It only says it's treated as magic, or it gains the same alignment, it does not state that it's treated as having the same enhancement modifier.
Remember, Pathfinder is typically a permissive system. It tells you what you can do, not what you can't do. There is no rule that says to treat non-magical ammo as having the full enhancement bonus when fired from a magical weapon, therefore, you don't treat it that way.
Also, honest question as my memory is a little fuzzy on this, but is there any actual rule that states ammunition gains the weapons enhancement bonus? I recall people in this thread stating rules for such exist, but I don't recall if was ever actually posted. If such rules don't exist, then it just goes further to show how badly we've all misread the rules for the last ~8 years.
It is important to note that the rule does not say the arrow becomes magic. The rule says that it gets treated as a magic weapon. And thus gets all the rules associated with magic weapons in regard to DR. Just like a one-handed weapon being treated like a light weapon lets it be used as an off-hand weapon without additional penalty... because that's a benefit of being a light weapon.
A benefit of a magical weapon is that you adjust...
Except it does not say that the the ammo is treated as having an enhancement bonus equal to the weapon that fired it. It simply says it's treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction (and affecting incorporeal creatures), and treated as aligned if the weapon is aligned. Full stop. That's it. No more then that. If you think it gains anything else, it's because you are reading more into it than exists. That fault is yours, and not that of the rules.
You need to read what the rules actually say, not what you think it says. This is why the problem has existed for so long, everyone has always read what they wanted to read in regards to ammo.
Lorewalker, your issue with the rules on this ruling is that the rules for enhancement bonuses and DR state that weapons with enhancement bonuses of a certain amount penetrate certain types of DR. This is a true and factual aspect of the rules and no one is going to argue differently. However, when it comes to the rules, specific rules take priority over general rules.
Ammunition has a specific rule for how it is handled. That rule states that non-magical ammunition fired from a magical bow only benefits by being treated as magical, unless that bow is aligned. This is a specific rule that trumps the general rule for enhancement bonuses, even if other rules state that bows transfer the magical bonus to the ammo.
So yes, the ammo has an enhancement bonus, and, normally, this would mean it penetrates DR if it's high enough, but there is a specific rule that nullifies this general application. In this specific instance, the ammo does not benefit from enhancement bonuses, unless the ammo is magical in it's own right.
Unfortunately, this aspect of the rules as been overlooked by everyone, myself included, for many years now. If this had been discovered way back at the beginning of Pathfinder, we'd never have this much confusion and, dare I say it, outrage (in certain areas of the internet) over this ruling. But it wasn't.
It took 6 years for anyone to, truthfully, question the assumed method of playing the game, and then a further 2 years before a ruling was issued. Honestly, I don't think there has been a ruling that so drastically changes how the game is supposed to be played. The closest that comes to mind is when Paizo made that Flurry of Blows ruling that said Monks don't benefit from wielding weapons 2-handed while in a flurry. But even that doesn't compare because it only affected Monks, while this ruling affects every character who uses ranged weapons, which, as we know, is a lot.
Yup, Clustered Shots just went from Green to Blue in a lot of Archer-based guides with this FAQ.
**EDIT**
Ironically enough, the Empty Quiver Style feat chain just got a lot more valuable, too...
The thing is that this ruling is presented as if the game had always been this way. So how was archery supposed to be effective before Ultimate Combat in high level play? As before then clustered shots did not exist. Were you just supposed to spend all your gold on aligned ammunition?
Pretty much.
This is a FAQ that should've been done back in the days when Pathfinder only had the Core Rulebook and Beastiary, but never was (for unknown reasons). And considering the motto back then was "Martials cannot have nice things," it's no surprise the FAQ reached the outcome that it did. Because it's an answer that comes from a book that basically said "Screw Martials, Thug Wizards 4 Lyfe."
It wasn't done because no one asked the question. Go back and read this thread and you'll see most people in it scoffed at the idea of my FAQ. Most thought the whole idea of it was silly or ridiculous or a waste of time. No one ever questioned it because everyone just assumed it was true. Hell, I did the same. I don't remember why I did it, but I know I started looking into bows and ammo for some reason back then and discovered that the actual wording of the rules did not fit the assumed rules everyone played with.
Hence the FAQ. I thought the rules error was probably a holdover issue from the change to Pathfinder, and even brought that point up. But the ruling was upheld, and that's that. I'm fine with either ruling. If they had rules arrows bypass DR, great, if they ruled as they did, that's great too.
Also, wow, I just reread this thread and realized there was quite a bit of low key insults aimed my way for posting it. I'm glad I mostly kepty cool when posting.
Huh, so I was right. GMs everywhere will rejoice, and Clustered Shot is now mandatory for ranged characters. I did not expect this question to ever get answered to be honest.
I can think of an easy way to make it happen and explain it, at least for a villain: monster abilities. So an incorporeal-undead kineticist (most likely ghost) that needs to possess the living to use her powers, since she can't accept burn in her natural state.
** spoiler omitted **
I might actually have to work with that idea some more. ^_^
You would also have to get clarification if it worked too. Maybe, in this situation, it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission? :D
[Edit] Also, Mark, if you're reading this thread, pretend you didn't come across this bit.
PS: I also pleased that the character still has over half her wealth she can spend on fun stuff, since she's competitive without any buff items. I'm thinking of buying a Hand rotary quern so I can turn the ice from Basic cryo into crushed ice. Now I just have to figure out the price for syrups...
Apprentice's Cheating Gloves gives you at-will prestidigitation letting you flavor anyway you want. Best part? 0 calories! It's 100% healthy and 100% delicious! On top of that, 0 pollution as well.
By using prestidigitation, one could set up a sno-cone business, making little paper cones using the spell, creating the crushed ice with your kinesis, and then flavoring it with the spell as well. After 1 hour passes, the paper cone just vanishes, leaving no waste. You could make bowls of crushed ice as well, forming the bowl and spoon with prestidigitation, and again, no waste. You also aren't limited to standard flavors either; you could have lemon cones, strawberry cones, apple pie cones, buttermilk cones, orange cones, watermelon cones... Any flavor you can imagine, you can create with prestidigitation.
...
...
I may have done this once or twice with characters...
Paizo has done a great job giving the kineticist a lot of support since its release. Two books introduced tons of new content. In the realm of 3pp, Purple Duck Games's Kineticists of Porphyra is pretty well done.
Letariel wrote:
Ok, forget the archer comparison, and instead go with the sorcerer comparison. A sorcerer going for evocation (let's say fireball or battering blast as the most common) will always do more damage, assuming it's not a total marathon game (which is pretty rare). And the sorcerer will also being flying/invisible/untouchable and have utility spells, so the utility comparison will be similar. Am I wrong?
The sorcerer should still be doing more damage with single uses of spells because they don't have an at-will blast aside from cantrips. Nearly all of the kineticist's utility is either at-will or can be at-will.
Cyrad: In theory, I agree with you, but for realistically, I've never heard of a sorcerer that ran out of spells after lvl 2 (before which, as you stated, they just use their cantrips). Sure, there are some DMs that run marathon games where an kineticist would shine, but a typical game has characters resting when they are out of resources (spells, arcane points, judgements, hps, etc). In those typical circumstances, "single uses of spells" are pretty much infinite.
ASharkInAPanzerNamedShark: As for not wanting to compare to the sorcerer because there isn't as much content for the kineticist, isn't that the point of this thread? To make more content?
Okay, first of all, please stop exaggerating. You can't honestly say that you've never heard of a sorcerer, or any other caster, running out of spells past level 2; that's extremely dishonest, or you never speak to anyone about games.
The system cannot be balanced around the idealized 5-minute work day; this isn't reality. Lots of GMs don't let their parties rest unhindered. Lots of GMs cause disruptions in parties forcing them to keep going. Pathfinder, at it's base, is built upon the assumption of having multiple encounters in which parties expend resources during adventuring. Granted, not every day is going to have 5+ fights, but it should during any significant location of enemies, i.e. dungeons, castles, ships, etc.
If you honestly think that the Kineticist needs more damage, and be capable of matching evocation focused casters, or DPR Archers, then you should not be giving advice on the Kineticist. The kineticist does perfectly acceptable damage, and brings quite a bit to the table as long as you are aware that the kineticist is intentionally designed, from the ground up, on purpose not to be the heaviest hitter in the lineup! It is not intended to be dealing more damage than other classes focused on doing so, nor is it intended to bring more utility than other classes focused on doing so. It is intended to be a hybrid of the two.
Stop comparing kineticists to Archer Fighters, or Fireball Sorcerers, and start looking at them in comparison to Bards, or Inquisitors, or Magus. Sure, those classes can push beyond the kineticist in damage and utility, but they also blow through their resources doing it. The kineticist holds up just fine when you compare it to the classes it should be compared to.
It is not the king of AoE blasting. It is not the king of single target damage. It is not the king of utility. But it's pretty good at all three of them, and never has to worry about not having enough resources for the next fight. Other classes do, and they do it frequently. Full casters, partial casters, and martials, they all run out of resources, while a Kineticist can very often go whole adventures without needing to take more burn than what she uses to charge up her defense.
I'm still unclear why Cosmo enjoys giving dogs diseases...
Because the borderline murderous apathy and absolute certainty of superiority cats possess is more akin to Cosmo than the affable and loving nature of dogs?
Another question about kinetic maneuver: If I use it to disarm someone at range, does the weapon snap to the kineticist, or drop on the ground right there?
I'd say it falls on the ground like a normal disarm, but then you could use basic tk to pick it up as a separate action (assuming the target hasn't picked it up, first.)
Not quite as fun. :/ I like the jedi sort of image where stuff snaps into my hands. At least propelling an item 15' is just a move action with mage hand, so if I don't move I can still deny stuff to my target.
Oh, I agree it's not as cool, but unfortunately in a rules-heavy system like this, cool is often overriden by rules. If you're playing a home game, I'd talk to your DM and see what they'll allow; it's not like it's a particularly overpowered thing to do, and there's a sort of precedent with the pilfering hand spell, which allows for you to pull the item to yourself.
Disarming weapon wielding enemy is one of the best things you can do to them. Typically, anyway. You take the sword from a high level martial, and you gut much of their offensive power.
If this were allowed, a telekinetic could use a wand of true strike to, basically, auto succeed the disarm and then yank the powerful artifact or weapon away from an enemy.
It may be a simple thing, but it's also very powerful if used right as you simultaneously disarm them, and remove the weapon from their reach.
My family and I are, right now, sitting on a plane bound for New Zealand. Hasn't left yet, not even taxi'd. Just sitting at the gate and... the bloody plane lost f!@$ing power twice!!!
What's the best weapons for use with the conductive weapon ability for kineticists?
Preferably those that don't require additional feats to use
It's still a little iffy, but I believe you can only use the conductive ability with kinetic blast on ranged weapons, because kinetic blast is a ranged weapon.
Wouldn't you be able to apply Kinetic Blade to an energy blast to circumvent that?
Many, if not most, GMs would, but kinetic blade is technically a non-aiction that activates when you make an attack. It could be argued that, since you're not attacking with kinetic blade, you can't activate it to use as part of conductive.
There have been multiple debates about it in various threads, I've never followed it very closely enough to know the arguments each side uses. This is just a recollection of my skin readings of the debates.
Personally, I would never use conductive for this purpose as you don't benefit from Overflow with conductive. Kineticist itself has little to know support for using non-kinetic blast weapons, so you're basically wielding a weapon using only your BAB and ability scores. You don't have class features to boost the damage and accuracy of the attack for conductive to even come into play.
Also, keep in mind that conductive requires you to pay twice the cost. So if you can't reduce the burn cost to 0, if will cost you double burn to use conductive. Since there is a limit on how much burn kineticist can accept each round, you may not even be able to pay the cost to activate conductive.
So for me, conductive is just not worth it. It may be an interesting niche strategy for a super-single shot attack. Like some super vital strike/conductive attack. But that would just make it a gimmick.
So, Ambrosia, you are telling me that you read the posts in question, and have determined that Rysky was not upset about them, despite, literally, telling Klara, "F##+ You!" over her post made? Further more, you think the other posters were trying to gaslight and dismiss Rysky and that he was engaging in good faith.
If this is actually true, then we have nothing more to talk about on this subject. I can only conclude that you were incredibly biased in your reading of those posts, as the posters that were "gaslighting" him went to great efforts to try and explain the misunderstanding to Rysky before the posts were removed.
Despite every explanation, and clarification, by Klara and others in the thread, Rysky repeatedly claimed that Klara was equating transexual people with psychopaths and schizophrenics, simply because Klara was using them as people representing a similar popularity density.
That's it. That's all Klara was doing in that post. She was saying that, based on population, for every 1 transsexual person, there are roughly 3 psychopaths, and 3 schizophrenics in the world. However, portrayals of these three demographics is vastly skewed. You will find vastly more transsexual people in media, than you will find psychopaths and schizophrenics (outside of law shows, anyway).
It is in my opinion, and many others, that Rsyky grossly exaggerated the situation and then continued to keep blowing the problem out of proportion for over a misunderstanding that he refused to contemplate.
I have three copies of the PDF of the posts that Klara saved. Others have copies as well. If anyone wants to find them, they are out there, and aren't hard to find. I can't share them here, because Paizo will delete the post, otherwise I would.
If a mod finds a post "upsetting", then odds are other posters and silent readers do to. And since usually a mod isn't aware of specific posts until someone flags them, then the odds that more than on person was upset seems increasingly likely. And unlike posters who can just close a thread and ignore, Paizo's staff are stuck with being exposed to it. Why should Paizo staff have to tolerate insensitive and abusive posts in their work environment, especially when they have warned these same posters repeatedly to desist?
Why are some of the banned posters' defenders so adamant on defending them, urging for extra consideration and tolerance of repeated bad behavior, but are perfectly willing to throw someone else under the bus--in this case, Rysky--simply because he happened to be the only one to openly probe the poster's thoughts and attempt to engage in a discussion with the problematic conclusions in those posts? Is it because Rysky is a SJW, something he (and I) consider a badge of honor, but is considered an abusive/dismissive epithet on "friendly" places where free speech is more valuable than community and inclusion?
A post can be upsetting without being abusive or insensitive. I don't recall if you are one of the people who have actually read the removed posts, but if you aren't, then please don't speak more on the subject until you do.
But, to address your comments on Rysky... Rysky grossly misunderstood what was being said and became very upset over the post. Rysky continued to be upset, and defended his viewpoint causing him to be upset, even after being repeatedly told that he was misunderstanding the post. This was not a case of "Rysky being the only one brake enough to confront these horrible monsters posting on the forum".
Why are we defending the banned posters? Because they did nothing wrong. Outside of reposting a thread asking for clarification, after being told to make the thread in the first place, Raital did absolutely nothing wrong. Banned.
Ashiel hardly even participated in the discussion that lead to the posts being removed. Then Ashiel sought out answers to why it was removed, and expressed his opinion over the upsetting actions taken by Pazio. Banned.
They did nothing wrong, and they were banned. I'm sure Paizo will do their best to justify Ashiel's banning by continue to state he'd been a repeatedly problematic poster and Ashiel ignored several instances of correspondence correcting his posting habits (which Ashiel claims never happened, as he lacks any such correspondence in his email)... but they have no justification for Raital.
Their justification for banning Ashiel is flimsy at best, but Raital was banned with no word, no warning.
In addition, I will defend Ashiel and Raital, because they can't be here to defend themselves. I highly any significant portion of people monitoring this thread would bother to seek out Ashiel or Raital to find out what happened from their point. We certainly know Pazio won't reveal what happened.
If we weren't here posting, then the only what Paizo posts, painting Ashiel and Raital as being clearly wrong, would exist. I'm not saying everything Ashiel did was right, but I also feel he didn't do anything worth being banned over. Despite what Paizo says or claims. Unless Raital is being incredibly dishonest in her account, then I know she did nothing to be banned over.
To the staff of Paizo, you have, on multiple occasions now, claimed that you have “corresponded” with Ashiel over the last 4 years about posting appropriately on this site. Exactly what do you mean by this? Because Ashiel has stated, on another forum, that he has only 1 such record of anything, and that was for a 24 hour ban, for something he admittedly did that was wrong. Outside of that single email, Paizo has never contacted Ashiel about any such posting policies.
The only thing that I can imagine you mean by this, then, is that Ashiel has been apart of many discussion in which his, and many others, posts were removed. If this is what you mean, then why have you not taken such action with others? Hell, why have you not taken such action with myself? I have received multiple 3-day bans for my conduct here on the forums, doing such things as sniping at Mods, being outright abusive, and the most heinous of them all, being Sarcastic.No, that was not sarcasm, I was actually banned for 3 days for being sarcastic.
I have also had many of my own posts removed, maybe not as many as Ashiel, but many of them. So why am I not banned? Why have others who have been just as disruptive, sarcastic and borderline abusive, not been banned? Do you even keep records of these things?
If so, please forward all such records on Ashiel, to Ashiel, as he has no such record of them. If you don't have any records, then what are you using to back up your claims other than half-remembered scenarios? I know that, in many cases that Ashiel's posts were removed, he wasn't even breaking any rules, other posters were.
Or is that the problem? Is the problem that Ashiel, unintentionally or not, riles up other posters to cause problems, even if he himself is not breaking any rules?
I would suggest you take a good, long, hard look at any moderation incidents involving Ashiel and see who was the one at fault. If Ashiel wasn't the one causing the problem, then why is he being punished now?
I'd also like to ask why posts discussing Anevia's portrayal in Wrath of the Righteous were removed from the thread. I'm assuming the posts that got flagged for removal were either Klara's statistics post, or Rysky's response to it, and any replies. The posts before that involved a very calm and polite discussion on the Anevia's portrayal and why Ashiel disagrees with it. As far as I'm aware, nothing in those posts broke any forum rules, so why were they removed?
I would also like to see you, being Paizo's moderation team, open up discussion with Raital Latral was also banned. I'm not as familiar with what happened with her, but Ashiel provided a discord copy of their discussion. Raital claims that she was in the process of posting in the Ask thread, supplying her own viewpoint on the discussion as a trans perseon herself, when all the posts got removed, and she made her post. She added a bit about how scary it was for mods to come in and remove any discussion, effectively silencing her voice. Her post was likewise removed.
Raital proceeded to contact Paizo, I believe she made a phone call, and was directed to post in the Website Feedback forum and ask what happened. So she made her post... and it was deleted. She made the post again, and it was deleted. Then she got banned.
No discussion, no warnings, no $200 for passing Go, just banned. I cannot conceive of Raital being a disruptive poster or doing, really anything, worthy of being banned and yet...
Ashiel has stated that he is a trans person, and so has Raital. Ashiel was part of a discussion on why he disagreed with Anevia's portrayal as a trans character. Other members furthered the discussion, and caused it to become heated. Ashiel had very little to do with the heated discussion, bar the initial criticism of the portrayal of Anevia. Raital only made 3 posts total, the one in the Ask thread, and the creation of 2 threads.
Appearance wise, you have two trans people being banned over their criticism of a trans character in your product and the following discussion. You claim it was because you have had repeated correspondence with Ashiel over his post content over the years, but you have provided no explanation for why Raital was banned.
Personally, I find your explanation suspect for Ashiel's, and furthermore, I find your ban for Raital highly displeasing.
Now, I've been a loyal customer of Paizo for years now, ever since a friend gave me the Core Rulebook as a birthday gift several years ago. I've purchased nearly every hardback book todate (I have not purchased Horror Adventures or Ultimate Intrigue), and I have bough many Adventure Paths, soft cover books and accessories, such as flip-maps, harrow decks, map cards etc. I may have been disenchanted with recent design decisions, but I've still been purchasing things I liked and wanted. Granted, I haven't been using your online store, as I prefer to buy local, but I've still been buying.
But these recent incidents have ruined me as a customer of your products. I don't like the way you've treated people I consider friends. I don't like the way you guys moderate your board, as there are no real rules, extremely vague guidelines, and moderation policies are as fickle as the moods of the moderation team. With the exception of a few threads, like Ravingdork's Character Gallery, or N. Jolly's threads on the Kineticist, I will also no longer be a member of these boards.
I don't believe this incident reflects well on Paizo as a company. It also doesn't reflect well on the deep rooted perceptions of a notable part of the community that there is some form of censorship behind the scenes done by the moderation team. I've seen many posters comment on the boards that their, or others', posts have been removed. They didn't break any guidelines, but they did clash with the personal beliefs of members of the Paizo staff, or actions taken by the staff.
It also doesn't help, that for all the claims of trying to be a fair moderation team, there have been examples of this not occurring. There is a growing perception that certain actions taken are unofficially approved of, depending on who they are taken against. Such as harassing or insulting people who disagree with Paizo; as long as the posts don't generate too much stink, or are too public, they are often overlooked, even when flagged, because they are made against “approved targets”.
Likewise, I know your moderation of incidents with Ashiel has been suspect in the past. I won't mention the users name, but many know that Ashiel was actively stalked, harassed, and abused by a poster on these boards; the poster even went so far as to use information he'd gained over the years to track down Ashiel's personal Facebook account and spread it around the boards. Thankfully, Ross Byers, if I recall, deleted those posts and reprimanded the poster. But this activity went on for years and nothing was done about it. It wasn't until this poster got a little snippy in a playtest thread with one of the design team that he was finally banned. If I recall correctly, the poster even admitted to monitoring Ashiel's profile page to see where, and what, Ashiel was posting so he could respond to it.
Pazio has not done right by Ashiel in the past, nor is Pazio doing right in the here and now. Even if you were to unban Ashiel, which I suspect you won't, I don't know if he were to come back. As it stands now, Paizo has repeatedly proven it's moderation policy is suspect and can easily be abused.
This is all I have to say for now. I don't know if you will respond to any or all of this post, and I don't know if it will help make Paizo a better place in the future... but I felt in needed to be said. I don't believe anyone at Paizo intended this to happen, nor do I believe there is actually any intentional censorship going on. Regardless, I wish Paizo well in it's future endeavors, and more than that, I wish Paizo's forums becomes a better place. I've greatly enjoyed my time here, and I will miss it sorely. I will continue to monitor this, and a select few other threads, but as of now, I'm gone.
Weapon Attacks and Special Abilities: Many places in the rules use the term “ranged weapon attacks” and similar terms, but how does this apply to spells, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, and extraordinary abilities (heretoafter called special abilities) that require ranged attacks but might not necessarily seem like weapons?
In general, special abilities that require attack rolls benefit and suffer from all modifiers affecting attack rolls even if those modifiers mention weapon attack rolls (such as the penalty for firing into melee, the bonus on attack rolls from Point-Blank Shot and inspire courage, and the like), unless the spell specifically calls out that it doesn’t apply them (for instance spiritual weapon calls out that it isn’t affected by feats and combat actions, but it would still have to deal with cover, and firing into melee if ranged).
When it comes to modifiers that affect weapon damage rolls, or simply “damage rolls” (such as the bonus on damage rolls from Point-Blank Shot, inspire courage, and smite evil), special abilities that deal damage on a successful attack roll, apply them on hit point damage only, and only once per casting or use, rather than once per attack. For instance, if a spell or special ability launched a dozen different ranged attacks simultaneously, only one (of the user’s choice) would receive bonus damage. This doesn’t apply on area effects with the rare potential for extraneous attack rolls, like fireball. However, there is a category of abilities that deserve a special note: Abilities like Arcane Strike that specifically enhance a character’s weapon or weapons themselves never apply to special abilities (with the exception of special abilities like the warlock’s mystic bolts that specifically call out that Arcane Strike applies).
In the same vein as abilities like Arcane Strike that affect a character’s weapons, abilities that say “with a weapon,” “with a melee weapon,” and “with a ranged weapon” almost never work with special abilities because such wording is almost always used as shorthand for “manufactured weapon,” “manufactured melee weapon,” and “manufactured ranged weapon.” The exception is abilities that deal damage when a creature touches or hits you in melee (for instance, the occultis’s energy ward focus power), which should also deal damage when a creature makes a melee touch attack against you but rarely call them out directly.
Certain special abilities (for instance rays, kinetic blasts, and mystic bolts) can specifically be selected with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. They still aren’t considered a type of weapon for other rules; they are not part of any weapon group and don’t qualify for the effects of fighter weapon training, warpriest sacred weapon, magus arcane pool, paladin divine bond, or any other such ability.
Abilities that modify the action usage of ranged weapon attacks or require their own special action almost never work with special abilities, since special abilities require their own actions. For instance, Pinpoint Targeting wouldn’t work with scorching ray or the soundstriker’s weird words because each of them requires its own action to activate and thus can’t be part of the feat’s specific standard action. Rare exceptions include mystic bolts and kinetic blade, which can specifically be used as part of other actions.
This FAQ plays all merry hell with the Kineticist. Here's why:
Nearly every instance of "melee weapon" or "ranged weapon" is shorthand for "manufactured weapon".
Special abilities that have attack rolls and deal damage only deal bonus damage once per casting or use, and not once per attack roll.
Kinetic Blast is specifically capable of selecting weapon feats, but is also specifically not considered a weapon for the other rules.
Haste wrote:
The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)
A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.
All of the hasted creature's modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject's normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature's jumping distance as normal for increased speed. Multiple haste effects don't stack. Haste dispels and counters slow.
Using haste as an example, it specifies that it grants an extra attack with a natural or manufactured weapon. This means that, since kinetic blade/whip is neither a natural weapon, nor a manufactured weapon, that it does not benefit from haste per RAW.
Likewise, things like Bardic Performance calls out adding bonus damage on weapon damage rolls, and per the FAQ, we now know that this is likely shorthand for "manufactured weapon damage rolls". However, assuming that it does, in fact, apply to kinetic blasts, the "once per casting or use" rule comes into play. So if you make a full attack with a kinetic blade, you only gain the bonus damage on one single attack, and not the entire attack sequence. Note: the FAQ specifically calls out inspire courage as an ability that only applies once per casting.
So, yeah, this FAQ plays all merry hell with the assumed rules. Especially since the verbiage chosen screws over anything that isn't a manufactured weapon. If you recall, the FAQ says, "spells, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, and extraordinary abilities (heretoafter called special abilities)." Why is this important? Because many monster abilities are considered Su or Ex abilities.
Manticore wrote:
Spikes (Ex): With a snap of its tail, a manticore can loose a volley of four spikes as a standard action (make an attack roll for each spike). This attack has a range of 180 feet with no range increment. All targets must be within 30 feet of each other. The creature can launch only 24 spikes in any 24-hour period.
Let's say that you've used Leadership, because you're a badass Bard to acquire a manticore as a cohort mount. It takes Point Blank Shot as it levels up, and you regularly buff it good hope and inspire courage. Let's be generous and say those abilities don't refer to manufactured weapon only and work for the manticore. Per the "once per casting or use" rule (because the FAQ uses "Special abilities" as shorthand for spells, spell-like, supernatural and extraordinary abilities), that means the manticore only receives the bonus on damage from Point Blank Shot, good hope and inspire courage on a single hit with his Spikes (Ex) ability.
I uploaded Genbu, the Earthen King a human geokinetic that rules over a mountain, and Kearnen, the Phantom Thief to your shared folder. I was going to upload a couple of NPC builds, but giving them a once over shows that recent FAQ/ratta makes them obsolete for those who still follow Paizo's rules.
This should be in website feedback, if anywhere (although without context - ie the last four years of private emails, it's hard for any of us to know whether it's a reasonable decision or not).
I can't imagine how a thread like this is going to help anything, though. It would be much more productive sending an email to community@paizo.com.
The problem with this, is the people that oversee your posts at website feedback, and, as such, the people you would raise an issue with over the moderation team, are, in fact, the moderation team themselves.
Grossly exaggerated example, it would be like asking the dirty cop to investigate complaints about the dirty cop himself.
I have seen many examples of the... I dunno if censorship is the right word but... censorship of posts in the past. Usually over controversial issues, politics, religion, and especially, anything related to LGBT topics.
Now, I'm not saying Paizo is trying to avoid discussion on it, not that at all, but I have witnessed examples of posts removed because a moderator seemingly "took offense" to someone else's viewpoint and removed the post or posts.
This has been a growing trend I've seen, and something I've seen more and more people complain about. Especially since the moderator team has a seemingly unwritten list of rules that they can delete post or ban people over. For example, you can be given a 3-day ban for being "Sarcastic". I know this one, as I was banned for it.
The posts in question that triggered Ashiel's banning got a little heated, but, honestly, were the result of a misunderstanding. A post was made about the relative percentage of transgender's in the modern population compared to that of schizophrenic people and psychopaths. I believe it was that .3% of the people today are transgender, while 1% of the population are diagnosed with schizophrenia and 1% as psychopaths. The post went further on to discuss the level of inclusion; that there are far more members of the LGBT community as NPCs, major and minor, in adventures, than there are NPCs who are outright stated to be a psychopath, or schizophrenic.
Another poster took great offense to this, and took the misunderstood belief that the previous statistical comparison was equating LGBT, schizophrenia, and psycopaths to be the same thing.
This entire discussion was started after Ashiel criticized Anevia (the transgender NPC from Wrath of the Righteous, for those unaware) because, in his opinion, he believed Anevia was poorly characterized and comes off as a "token" character for inclusions sake. He argued why he thinks this, and stated others may think differently, but that was his opinion.
So that's a very, very brief summary of the discussion that went on. Some tempers got heated over the statistical comparison to the population and the lack of equivalent portrayals, but I can't honestly believe someone should have been banned over it.
It goes back to the "unwritten rules" of the forums that only the moderators seem to know, and which may very from day, to day, as their mood changes. Sometimes it's okay for someone to discuss LGBT, especially if the discussion agrees with the moderator over-seeing the discussion, other times, it's not okay, and the posts are removed. Again, especially if the moderator disagrees with the opinions within, even if the opinions are not harmful.
Honestly, I'm personally pretty fed up with the moderation here myself. On the surface, the moderation here is great, but there is a definite underlining of something wrong in the way it is done, and it grate's on my nerves. I've got a lot of people I consider friends here, but I'm personally ready to find some place else to talk. I don't know about others, but it would be really nice if the Moderators were held to higher standards and had actual rules they had to follow. Especially since so many posts have been deleted, or posters punished because the moderator has a personal opinion that makes them ignore any "rules" they may follow.
This is, essentially, what the elixir would do. Richard Magarey, better known for his crossdressing pro-wrestling persona of Lady Beard, is obviously recognizeable whether in "normal" clothing or in female clothing, just as he would be if he drank the elixir.
On the subject of multiple deities...
My issue with multiple deities is that such a thing can only happen with different cultures.
For example, in the Elder Scrolls universe, the different factions and races may worship gods under different names, but each one is still the same God. Lorkhan, for instance, is a God seen as a great hero of Men, but he is reviled by the elves for his part in the creation of Nirn. Why? Because Lorkhan tricked the Aedra into giving up part of their divine essence to create the planet Nirn. Some managed to stop the flow and retain most (but not all) of their divine spark and are worshiped as gods. Others were unable to do so, and began living on Nirn. These diminshed Aedra began procreating, and from them came the ancestors, the Ehlnofey, who would eventually separate and evolve into the Men and the Mer.
The races of Men hail Lorkhan as a champion of Men, for they would not exist without him. While the races of Mer, curse Lorkhan for stealing their divinity and rendering them mortal.
The different races and cultures of Elder Scrolls may use different names, and have different viewpoints, but they all worship the same gods. Akatosh, Auri-El, Alkosh are different names for the same being; the first being to form from the beginning of the universe.
In the Elder Scrolls, there are only, really, a handful of Gods. Different cultures may view them differently, and have different names, but they're all the same.
But in most campaign settings, you have multiple different gods of the same aspect, like we do in our world. For example, a "sun god" in the form of Helios (Roman), Sol (Norse), Ra (Egyptian), and Kinich Ahau (Mayan). Each god is different from the other as they came from different cultures.
However, unlike in the real world, fantasy campaign settings try and make a "universal" list of Gods. In Golarion, for example, they have the core 20 deities, and these deities pretty much make up the religion for nearly every culture.
This breaks my immersion, and is the root of my problem with it. Calistria, Lamashtu, Arshea, and Nocticula are all, on some level a "god of sex". It would stand to reason that, evil, good, neutral, whatever, different cultures would worship different gods as their "god of sex". But this isn't what happens. You go to a temple of the "god of sex" and it is a temple of Calistria pretty much every single time.
The closest this ever came to happening in our world, is when Rome conquered the Mediterranean and much of the surrounding lands. When they conquered a region or a people, they would make worship of the Roman gods mandatory, but they continued to allow the locals to keep worshiping their own gods.
Taldor, and Cheliax both conquered much of the Inner Sea, this is true, but at the same time, there are many places they never went. So why are the same 20 deities found every where you go, despite there being many different gods for any given aspect?
Even weirder, is how come there is no influence of previous empires? I mean, Thassilon conquered much of Avistan and had it's own religion of it's own making. It ruled for a very long time. Sure, the empire fell 10,000 years ago, but the religious practices of the Thassilonian empire should still be present in the "modern" day descendants of those who lived in the empire.
But there isn't one. There is only the core 20. Worship of any god not in the core 20 is some minor thing, part of some cult, or something. But that's not how it should be.
It makes sense for Elder Scrolls, because there's a finite number of gods to worship. The "sun god" of the Altmer would be the same "sun god" of the Redguard, even if they are depicted and worshiped differently. On Golarion, however, there are 15 different deities who grant the Sun domain, and therefore, 15 different deities who can be seen as a "sun god". Unlike in Elder Scrolls, each one is a distinctively different god, some are Good, some are Evil, some Chaotic, some Lawful.
So for me, it makes sense for there to be multiple gods of the same aspect, as long as there are different cultures to back up the worship of these different gods. But if you don't, then it makes more sense for there to be a limited number of gods, and, instead, different interpretations of the same gods by all the different religions.
G#& d$$nit... I had this nice post with examples of the Elixir in a, somewhat, real life sense. Also went into the "multiple deities of the same type" subject. But it got deleted because, f#$! you touch screen and my fat fingers!
I'll type it up again later, but, for now, I have yardwork to do in preparation for winter.
It would probably involve a hefty penalty on to-hit rolls, since keeping a weapon on point while firing bursts is very hard. I like the AoE idea though. You could also implement suppressive fire, like what Ashiel had in her Gunslinger thread.
Good point. I intended to put something like that in there, like a cumulative -2 for every burst you make in a round, but I forgot.
I blame Cosmo for the company my Cousin works for going bankrupt and laying him off. Now he's never going to be able to pay me back in time for the plane ticket I bought him after he got stranded up here in Alaska after his brother's wedding. I'm traveling to New Zealand for my own sisters wedding at the end of the month and there is no way he's going to be able to land a new job and pay off the debt he's inevitably going to accrue while looking for a new job, and then pay me back before I leave.
Outlaw Star was always my space-wester-opera-thing of choice. Others preferred Cowboy Bebop, or Trigun, which I enjoyed both of, but Outlaw Star was definitely my favorite. The most memorable episode for me, was when Jim got that date with the girl on the space station, but she never showed up. She had a good reason, but that reason is something Jim will never know, nor likely, want to know.
Yeah, it's always bugged me that no one has ever seemed to want to tackle the concept of fully automatic weapons in the traditional d20 combat style. This is the only method that I've ever heard of that even remotely resembles real automatic weapons. Of course, the farthest I've ever let that train of thought go in the past was, "automatic weapons have a rate of fire letting them attack multiple times for every normal attack."
I never put any further thought into it, because I've never really intended to use modern firearms in my games. But shows like RWBY have really started to appeal to me, so mixing guns, swords and sorcery has started to grow on me.
Unfortunately, it doesn't really help with the "guns vs. armor" thing. If one wanted to get more accurate, one would needs to give guns an armor penetration mechanic, making it so manufactured armor of less use against guns. I mean, modern armor can absorb a shot or two, as long as they don't hit the same spot, but that's more akin to damage reduction, than armor as we think of it. Modern combat relies more on taking cover, and not getting hit at all, instead of deflecting it.
Also, another thought, when using the burst fire or automatic rules, they might use an 'exploding critical' method. So on a critical hit, only one of the shots that hit is a critical, unless the confirmation role is also a critical threat, which turns another shot into a potential critical, and so on.
I've never given it any serious thought, but I've often wondered if modern firearms, and future firearms too, shouldn't have some sort of rate of fire mechanic. Like, some abstraction with needing to control the recoil and heat of the weapon as justification or whatever.
Pardon the rambling here, but this is just off the top of my head, so some of it may not be very clear or not be very well thought out. Literally coming up with this as I type.
Basically, a weapon like an M-16 has, say, a rate of fire of 5. This means for every attack you make in a round, you can fire off 5 shots at the target you're aiming at. So if an M-16 dealt 1d6 points of damage, a single burst deals 5d6 damage on a hit. Apply bonuses from having an enhanced weapon/ammo (+3 rifle would deal 5d6+15), but other bonuses, such as from feats or class abilities, only apply once per burst.
Then, for weapons with a fully automatic capability, you could use it to fill an area with bullets by dumping the mag as a standard/major action (if in d20 Legends). Basically, you can fire every shot, up to a weapons maximum limit (weapons like a light machine gun have much larger ammo pools and don't get emptied in a single round), assigning each shot to a person. The people targeted make a reflex save vs a DC of 10 + BAB + dex for half damage and they take a -2 penalty for every 3 shots targeted at them after the first. So someone targeted with 7 shots would have a -4 penalty on their saving throw.
This lets you shoot more shots at wily targets with good saves, like Monks or Rogues, increasing your chance of hitting them at all.
You could also make rules for letting weapons spray down hallways, essentially, as a line AoE. Unlike other line AoEs, like Lightning Bolt or a dragons acid breath, damage is dealt to the first person only, unless he makes his save, at which point the next person in line takes damage. Or if he dies.
So, with the above half-assed mechanic, a riflemen could single-fire shots to get the most damage possible per shot, or he could burst fire to more quickly bring down enemies at the expense of ammo, or he could got full auto to fill an area with bullets if he needed.
Granted, it does make automatic weapons extremely powerful, but... well, they should be. Sure, a greatsword deals more damage per hit, but an automatic weapon can deal a lot more hits in a given time period.
I'm probably going to regret posting this in the morning and wonder what the hell I was thinking as I typed it but... who cares?
Personally, I inherently distrust anyone who's word is taken with as much gospel as Endzeitgeist's is in our community. I've seen numerous people have buy, or not buy, products purely on the word of him alone, regardless of what any other reviewer has to say.
D20 Legends - Classes: I won't be commenting on any typos, or hold over text, just comments, observations and questions as I'm reading along in the classes chapter.
Alchemist: So an Alchemist gains True Alchemy, Concoctions, Biomancy, Bombs, and Mutagens all just for becoming an Alchemist right? They also advance with your total level, so just putting a single talent into Alchemist can be fairly rewarding, even if they won't be nearly as potent as someone who specializes as an Alchemist.
This is interesting, as it really helps with characters who practice alchemy as a "hobby" not feel like they wasted a talent during leveling.
Barbarian: I notice that Barbarians get rage powers every few levels, are these in addition to the talents they get? So a Barbarian could have some 10 rage powers, along with talents spent in another class? If so, a Rage Chemist (barbarian/alchemist) looks pretty fun!
Bard: I really like the force multiplier this bard is, but I notice the bards power caps out, at this point, at 12th level. The reason is Inspire Greatness increases your effective level for level dependant effects. Pick up Inspire Courage/Greatness/Heroics and the Epiphanies to match, along with the ability to maintain at least two of them. At 12th level, Inspire Greatness gives you +4 effective level, raising your Inspire abilities to 16th level, which puts you at the level cap. So at 12th level, you buff yourself to 16th level, and grant +5 to levels, attack, damage, AC, defenses, immunity to fear, and 25 temporary hp.
Bards pull lots of aggro huh?
Champions: Champions get a lot for a single level huh? I could easily see myself spending two talents, one for the class, and the other for greater channeling, with many builds. Really alleviates the need for healing.
Is it intentional that all champions are both negative and positive energy channelers? Will negative and positive energy be more of a "neutral" force, like elemental energy is? A bard with 2 talents spent in champion would be a Hell of an ally. Buff the Hell out of you, then clears mobs with channel energy, also heals as needed.
Rogues: Just to clarify, you reduce damage on your cunning strike when using staggering/blinding/bleeding talents before you multiply for attacking a flat-footed foe or for flanking them, right?
By the way... damn, rogues are just little murder machines huh?
Misc.
If a character multiclasses into two metaphysical classes, do they have two separate choices for casting methods and spell types? For example a spontaneous, psionic bard/prepared magical champion.
I thought you were merging "wizard" and "sorcerer" into a single class, but I notice both mage and sorcerer in the pdf?
Over all, I'm super excited for the design as i first see it. It looks like someone could have tons of fun with a huge variety of characters. It's also immediately obvious that you won't need to create tons of new classes either, just more talents and class choices.
The only major character type I don't see represented is "knight". Essentially, nonmagical warrior in heavy armor. I know you hate fighters, but I mean, mounted knights, traveling swordsman etc, exist in all types of fantasy.
How would you go about creating a heavy armored warrior that doesn't have to rely on falling into a rage, magic, or backstabbing people in D20 Legends? Sometimes people just want to play a "Fighter" but that option doesn't seem to be available. At least, not yet.
I gotta say, it's hard to try and ask the above question and avoid the stigma of the 3e/Pathfinder fighter. I mean, there are some things I like about the fighter, namely being able to wield a wide variety of weapons and do well with them without having to spend daily resources, but... I hate everything else.
Anyway, I've only read the "Classes - Alpha" part at this point; I'll get working on the other bits when I can. I'm really getting hyped for this. I think Legends is shaping up to have lots of potential.
There is a bit in Wrath of the Righteous where Iomedae, basically, tortures the PCs if they don't align to her beliefs. It's a grossly summed up version if the events, but there is a bit of accuracy to it. She asks questions, and if she doesn'tlikne your answer, she blasts you with divine power, dealing damage. You can die during this interrogation.
But it's all okay, because she revives you and heals your wounds, right?
Yeah... No. There is a serious disconnect with how a Lawful Good goddess would act.
I line Jason, but... again, there is a disconnect. Unchained Monk was weaker than its current version when got done with revisions. It's worth noting, the Unchained Monk traded a lot of its defensive strength for slightly more offensive power. An Unchained Monk is, basically, a side-grade to a Monk with archetypes. Then there is the whole weapon cord thing, when he spent an afternoon trying to catch his computer mouse in his hand, couldn't do it easily, and decided to nerf weapon cords because it must be impossible to do what it used to do. Which was retrieve a weapon as a free action.
Some of his decisions... We just don't like to think about the rational behind them. If it wasn't for Mark, I shudder to think what the Unchained Monk would have been like.
12 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
So, I've gotten into various discussions over the years on proficiency with weapons, and how feats intended to grant proficiency, don't. I will admit this post is made in response to the discussion over Cao Phan's "rock throwing build" current you ongoing in the "Throwing builds are practically impossible" thread. So I do have an agenda in doing this, and that is to get clarification over what constitutes proficiency with weapons in Pathfinder. But also to prove I'm right, as egotistical as that is.
Simple Weapon Profciency:
You are trained in the use of basic weapons.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with simple weapons without penalty.
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: All characters except for druids, monks, and wizards are automatically proficient with all simple weapons. They need not select this feat.
Martial Weapon Proficiency:
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.
You can gain Martial Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency:
hoose one type of exotic weapon, such as the spiked chain or whip. You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat, and can utilize any special tricks or qualities that exotic weapon might allow.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the weapon normally.
Normal: A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: You can gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of exotic weapon.
Catch-Off Guard:
Foes are surprised by your skilled use of unorthodox and improvised weapons.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.
Throw Anything:
You are used to throwing things you have on hand.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised ranged weapon. You receive a +1 circumstance bonus on attack rolls made with thrown splash weapons.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon
Universal Monster Ability: Rock Throwing:
This creature is an accomplished rock thrower and has a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls with thrown rocks. A creature can hurl rocks up to two categories smaller than its size; for example, a Large hill giant can hurl Small rocks. A “rock” is any large, bulky, and relatively regularly shaped object made of any material with a hardness of at least 5. The creature can hurl the rock up to five range increments. The size of the range increment varies with the creature. Damage from a thrown rock is generally twice the creature’s base slam damage plus 1-1/2 times its Strength bonus.
Oracle Stone Mystery Revelation: Rock Throwing:
Rock Throwing (Ex): You are an accomplished rock thrower and have a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls with thrown rocks. You can hurl rocks up to two categories smaller than your own size. The range increment for a rock is 20 feet, and you can hurl it up to 5 range increments. Damage for a hurled rock is 2d4 for a Medium creature or 2d3 for a Small creature, plus 1-1/2 your Strength bonus.
Rough and Ready:
Your intense familiarity with the tools of your trade allows you to use them in combat as if they were actual weapons and makes them more effective for that purpose than they would normally be.
Benefit: When you use a tool of your trade (requiring at least 1 rank in the appropriate Craft or Profession skill) as a weapon, you do not take the improvised weapon penalty and instead receive a +1 trait bonus on your attack. This trait is commonly used with shovels, picks, blacksmith hammers, and other sturdy tools — lutes and brooms make terribly fragile weapons.
Weapon Focus:
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
To keep post size down, I put the above examples of feats, traits and abilities in spoilers.
So, as you can see, many of the proficiency feats have nearly identical language: they all let you attack normally, but never actually state you become "proficient" with the weapon. The improvised feats state you don't take the improvised penalty, but don't state you become proficient; Rough and Ready has similar language. The Rock Throwing abilities don't have language about attacking normally or not taking penalties, but claim you are an accomplished rock thrower. It is also worth noting that many giants and creatures with rock throwing also possess the feat Weapon Focus (rock); a feat that explicitly requires proficiency with the weapon to take.
Now, the Rules As Written here is pretty clear: you aren't proficient with the selected weapon or weapons with any of the above examples. But I believe the intended function of the abilities is to grant proficiency.
So the question is, what makes someone proficient in a weapon?
Do they need an ability, such as a feat or class feature to explicitly call out proficiency to become proficient?
Or would one of the above abilities grant proficiency, despite not having such language saying so?
Is this FAQ worthy?
If abilities such as Rock Throwing don't grant proficiency, then how do monsters with said abilities take Weapon Focus (rock) as a feat?
