TheCowardlyLion's page

UnArcaneElection wrote:

I didn't think they were malicious -- I thought they were doing this at legal gunpoint.

As it happens, WotC backed down on the OGL changes that spawned any sort of legal gunpoint concept.

That's noteworthy because "what if they try again?"

Well...

They tried another unwanted change, got negative feedback, and backed down. And much faster than last time.

It's almost like they've learned not to alienate players.

Obviously not since, well, they did it again.

"School of making deals with fiends" is proooooooobably not the ones you wanna invite to Sarkoris.

@Peacelock

*nods*

While i disagree with that claim obviously i certainly won’t deny the boon the 3pp stuff was (and is), especially given the shunt to online play overall during that time.

You made the claim that Paizo would have outright failed without these. That’s the hyperbole.

Paizo owes the CUP everything. They often say how PF2E’s success saved the company, but the tools created under CUP are what saved PF2E from failing amidst the pandemic. And in the future, no new ones can be created.

That is a very bold claim.

Were these programs helpful to those who used them? Yes, but i think you’re vastly overestimating how many people used them, or that they were required to play.

Spreading this sort of impassioned hyperbole doesn’t really help anyone.

For those of us who aren't lawyers, why exactly are "Vesk" and "solarian" allowed when "Drift" isn't?

The latter is more or a less a unique specific thing whereas Vesk are not and Solarion is a grouping of mechanics, if I were to guess.

s'all good

You know you can just say you hate the Interrogation Investigator and don't want it in your games. It's ok. We won't judge you.

Throwing out ad homimems just make you look ridiculous.

I don't know why multiple people are operating under the assumption that I would never have the targeted npc lie or give up info, when I never claimed that.

I also don't understand the hostility towards me by you lot but this feels like it stopping being about the Investigator awhile ago.

Did you read the ability?

Whether it answers truthfully or not, you clean something from its body language, and it is off-guard to the Strike you make using Devise a Stratagem against it before the end of your turn.

Elfteiroh wrote:

Ed Reppert wrote:

If WOTC owns IP rights to the word "focus" in the sense of an item used to aid in casting a spell, then IP law is seriously fscked and needs to be corrected.

Note: "focus" is defined similarly to "locus" on page 303 of the Core Rulebook.

The word "focus" is Latin for "domestic hearth". "Locus" is Latin for "place". My dictionary has definitions for both, but does not suggest a meaning in a magical context for either. However, "focus" is a lot closer than "locus" to the intended meaning.

It's less specific elements, and more an percentage of them. Like, if WotC sue that Pathfinder as a whole is too similar to D&D, and present to the courts 50 instances of similarities, or if they manage to present 200 similarities, the latter case have WotC more likely to win.

There's some similarities that would be very hard to remove, like "having casting classes, some being named Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, and Bard". It's way easier to rename focus and some other singular terms.

At one point, you really want to get down to like 50 similarities, but you're still at like 54... There are some choice that must be done. So you rename Focus component to Locus, you rename mithril to dawnsilver, Attack of Opportunity to Reactive Strike, and Flat-Footed to Off-Guard. While you manage to keep a couple of other seemingly random ones.

So yeah. The problem is not "Focus component" as a singular thing, but as a part of the whole.
Another problem is that nobody know the "minimum" percentage that can "pass". It's always dealt "case by case", and two different judges could also have different pivot points (or other person/group responsible to make that decision). So you always want the smallest amount of similarities.

(Note: all the numbers used are random and only for illustrative purposes.)

But the terms Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, and Bard were around long before the grandparents of anyone ever involve3d in D&D were born. Pretending that those...

You missed the "part of the whole" part

Well, you'd be the first person who's said that to me. Literally every single time I've presented the two side-by-side the person I'm showing immediately recognized they are very much the same ship. The Revolution just has the side pods cut off, the front cockpit glass colored to grey, and greebling added. They are the same ship.

…

They are not.

You are being awfully carefree throwing out these accusations baselessly.

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

Got any sources for the claim that Paizo/Starfinder is stealing art?

Look through the starships in SOM: many of them are bad Photoshops of stuff taken from other properties.

Prime example #1: the Redshift Revolution, SOM p85 is a bad photoshop of Star Citizen's RSI Apollo medical ship; they didn't even change the ship's colour.

Had to borrow/bug a friend to see the ships in question since i don’t own the book and your “prime example”… looks nothing alike, the only thing they DO have in common is the color.

Edit: also compared your Justicar and Serenity, they have absolutely nothing in common, at all.

I’m not gonna go through the entire list (if someone else wants to feel free), but two prominent “examples”… aren’t.

You made very serious accusations and have just your fumes to back them up, not a good look.

Got any sources for the claim that Paizo/Starfinder is stealing art?

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

The GM shouldn’t screw over the player, likewise the player shouldn’t try to screw the game and treat this ability as mind control with every use granting a binary of “divulge all plot information” or lose a turn.

Well certainly not--but that's not an accurate reading of what I said, either. I grant you it's the last paragraph you missed, but then it's not as though the question of action costs was particularly pertinent to my case.

Apologies, that was more in response to the thread as whole spun off from your snippet i quoted, rather than all directed at you.

if all the creatures you encounter are going to subvert your class features by saying 'screw you' when you ask questions,

And they should not.

As mentioned on a previous post this is up to the GM and the context of each situation and character when the ability is used.

The GM shouldn’t screw over the player, likewise the player shouldn’t try to screw the game and treat this ability as mind control with every use granting a binary of “divulge all plot information” or lose a turn.

An answer you don’t like is still an answer.

Are people still really trying to argue that some variation of "I will not answer your question" is definitely answering the question? Are you all actually that hostile with your players when you GM?

Like dude just ban the feat if you're that mad about the investigator interrogating someone for information.

There’s no need for insults (pot kettle hostile something something), and im certainly not the one mad here.

But we are obviously working on vastly different definitions of “direct answer/response”.

Refusing to answer, or giving an answer (no matter how truthful or not) that has no information at all is not allowed if the Investigator succeeded at the check.

Where is this stated?

Critical Success The target must directly answer your question. It doesn't have to answer truthfully, but you gain a +4 circumstance bonus to your Perception DC if the creature attempts to Lie to you. Whether it answers truthfully or not, you clean something from its body language, and it is off-guard to the Strike you make using Devise a Stratagem against it before the end of your turn.

Success As critical success, but the circumstance bonus to your Perception DC is +2.

Paizo gets a cut of it. An unearned, unnecessary, undue cut.

Who’s IP, system, and setting are you using?

I miss the "founders in charge" era

Lisa and Vic? Yeah i dont miss them at all.

To deny fan art,

where was this stated?

Replying "screw you" is also directly answering.

… i dont think P1 was built to oppose anything. I think it was just made so Paizo could stay in business.

Loooooooooool

Not adressing all of that but, “PF1 outsold DND5” is a fantasy with no basis XD

Not outselling the absolute best selling system in the market is not a failure you seem to think it is.

I am aware, but they were not necessary changes.

You’re mistaken.

Waaait, this is part of the subscription? Got email about order pending

Well, crap, I can't afford 70 dollar purchase this week :'D Crap crap crap

QUICK! Contact CS!

That's how they handled the P2 playtest.

But as always with subs, never sub with the assumption you'll get the pdf early, it's a nice bonus when it happens, but it's not a guarantee.

Also some of the Iconics DO have a stated sexuality rather than all being player viewpoint sexual, such as Quinn and Kyra and Merisiel.

So it’d be closer to say bi until stated otherwise, which i believe was always Paizo’s stance.

Also “removed” would mean it was there in the first place and taken out after the fact.

Mika Hawkins wrote:

Announced for November! Product image and description are NOT final and may be subject to change.

If I buy the hardcover do I get a PDF too?

No, the free pdf is a perk for Subscriptions, not simply buying the book.

"Dae is a solarian. At the time of their birth, they miraculously manifested a stellar mote."

I'm not sure I like this miracle. Philosophy is not hereditary.

Magical black hole/supernova powers go a biiiiit beyond a philosophy.

Just like Wizards babies showing an aptitude for magic after they're born.

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

And if no one buys that book?

If no one buys the book I think Paizo has a much bigger problem on hand. A Player Core book has more universal value than a highly themed book that caters to a more specific audience. If Paizo can't move that then there is something dangerously wrong happening with their business and writing staff.

You can call it a sample of one if you want, but among my three tables I see players more interested in buying Player Core 2 than Howl of the Wild because Player Core 2 actually affects their current characters, rather than some speculative character they might get to play in a few years. And I hear more conversations about my players hoping the remaining classes would get fixed rather than getting hype for War of Immortals.

PC2 has the rest of the revamped Remaster changes.

A proposed PC3 I've seen thus far is just releasing content under ORC regardless of actual content changes.

In effect, PC2 and Howl are NEW content. The hypothetical PC3 would just be reprints, which the community is not fond of.

hoping the remaining classes would get fixed

Again, people be using VERY varying definitions of broken/fixed. The classes are perfectly playable.

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

How is that Paizo's problem/priority?

Because if they did not care about 3rd party developers, then leaving the OGL would be hypocritical if they are just going to perpetuate bad practices. Let them not forget where they came from.

Bad practices being continuing to pay their employees?

Printing one book instead of another book is not not paying your employees. Either way they are paid to write or draw, it's just on a different project.

And if no one buys that book?

Well for starters, most of the stuff DOES work, where getting varying definitions of "broken" here.

Secondly, "why make new things" again, to stay in business, they had to disrupt everything to rush out Remaster.

Moosher12]You can mix at the table, but you cannot when writing 3rd party content.

Additionally, there is a common sentiment in the Video Game industry that a large amount of players players would rather see a game fixed before it is given new content. I think this applies here.

You'd be mistaken.

Because the greatsword is unquestionably the best weapon in the game. 2d6 is always better than 1d12. Greatsword cries on 19-20 as well. There's not a weapon that's even close, as far as two handed weapons go.

1) None of that applies to Second Edition.

2) You're responding to a 6 year old conversation.

It's really shocking to me that people are saying "why bother, the Champion exists" since a thing I have wanted since the original PF2 playtest is "the ability to play a Champion without being beholden to a God." Not just for atheist champions, but for like animist champions (but definitely also for those), or reincarnationist champions, or ancestor-worshipping champions, or "I don't even think about religion" champions. Not a reskinned oracle or something, an actual honest to goodness martial with good defensive abilities.

I figure the Guardian should be the class I have been wanting.

And hopefully now with Guardian they'll drop the "Champion is the Heavy Armor class" bent and let them focus on doing Champion stuff.

… as has been repratedly told to you by others and the numerous blogs and official posts since the formation of ORC and the Remaster was announced.

The Raven Black wrote:

Count Ranalc is CN. And he is very much a god of darkness and shadow.

While this is true, how much one can worship Count Ranalc is debatable given how he's vanished. I believe his faithful could still draw power from him whole he was in exile, but now that he's seemingly GONE gone, I don't remember if they specified what, if anything, changed. The Eldest are weird like that. And The Count was a d*** anyway, even by Eldest standards. Up there with The Lantern King! :P

He can still grant power, this is specially called out.

AoN ;ink

silversarcasm wrote:

Arazni is not still undead and hasn't been for 2e! At the end of 1e the radiant fire severed her connection to her soul cage, freeing her from her lichdom and leading to her ascension to a full goddess!

Oh, so does this mean she has been fully true resurrected? Without any connection to undeath at all?

she’s a deity.

Her statblock is: deity

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

keftiu wrote:

ornathopter wrote:

Yes! Do we think the Commander will be a sort of Warlord type, iterating on some of the ideas they had with the Envoy? And Guardian - the name makes me think it's a defensive type, but that's so open ended, and really it doesn't HAVE to be that.

I'm hoping for a Warlord from the Commander, a proper aggro-drawing tank in the Guardian, and for this mystery book to basically just have the stealth subtitle of "Hey, 4e Actually Had Some Good Ideas" :p

Cole Deschain wrote:

Your heresy has been noted ;)

Why are you excommunicating her?! She's RIGHT!!! :P

I'm seemingly getting two of my 4e favorites here: a Warlord class and a big metaplot event driven by divine murder!

Folks, I am feasting. If only the Godsrain mutated those it touched...

... Isn't that the Examplers?

Novels are back yay!

Liane is writing also yay!

Just because someone evil doesn’t give an okay to use Slurs against, fictional or not. That’s like, kinda low bar basic right there.

What changes have been made to ghouls? I hear that Ghoul Fever might have been removed given its ties to DnD Ghouls.

The ghoul was actually showcased in this new blog.

Perpdepog wrote:

The lamia is a mythological creature. I think them being lion-bodied is a D&D-ism, but them being snaky shouldn't be off the table.

The snake-bodied lamia appeared (with that name) in a mildly pornographic painting from 1890. It's clean.

The lion-bodied lamia showed up in a mildly pornographic woodcut in Edward Topsell's “The History of four-footed beasts and serpents”, back in 1658. Also clean.

I've seen the Edward Topsell woodcut, unfortunately it's more sphinx than kittytaur.

I am very curious about whatever that three headed white and gold stag thing is on the side of the box

One of the new Remaster Archons