paizo.com Favorited Posts by cfalconpaizo.com Favorited Posts by cfalcon2023-02-04T05:54:04Z2023-02-04T05:54:04ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Unwilling Spells and How to Write Themcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v2ik&page=2?Unwilling-Spells-and-How-to-Write-Them#582018-04-18T23:53:07Z2018-04-18T21:58:15Z<p>I don't think the rules should change at all.</p>
<p>It doesn't make any sense for an unconscious character to be willing to be teleported by his friends, but unwilling to be teleported by his enemies. He's unconscious, and can't make a conscious decision.</p>
<p>If you really want this in the rules, then the devs need to provide some in-universe reason that defines actions in sensible ways. It will be quite a bit of rules, but it can get what the devs seem to talk about wanting without special casing PCs, or otherwise allowing for an unconscious person to somehow not be unwilling in some cases, but not others.</p>I don't think the rules should change at all.
It doesn't make any sense for an unconscious character to be willing to be teleported by his friends, but unwilling to be teleported by his enemies. He's unconscious, and can't make a conscious decision.
If you really want this in the rules, then the devs need to provide some in-universe reason that defines actions in sensible ways. It will be quite a bit of rules, but it can get what the devs seem to talk about wanting without special casing...cfalcon2018-04-18T21:58:15ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: why alignment (for characters) needs to gocfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uysk&page=13?why-alignment-needs-to-go#6102018-04-19T10:56:02Z2018-04-18T21:42:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:</div><blockquote> Removing (mechanically relevant or otherwise) alignment is easier than adding mechanically relevant alignment. </blockquote>Is it? Seems equally viable either way.</blockquote><p>No, it's not.
<p>The current game has alignment. That means it has alignment mentions for pretty much every creature, and some weapon affixes mention alignment, and some class features mention alignment. It's in a bunch of places. Taking it out is a little bit challenging, because you have to make sure that some things don't get too strong (a Holy weapon that works on everyone you don't like too strong, but is it a big problem if the Paladin's smite loses that restriction?). But it's doable.</p>
<p>Now picture a game without the alignment baseline. You have to manually come up with content as you go. Which monsters are "always evil"? Which are "usually evil"? You don't have anything to go on. This is much harder than the other way, where you simply ignore the pieces about alignment you don't like for free as you go. This hypothetical version doesn't have a Holy weapon affix. What if you want one? How hard should it hit for? </p>
<p>It's just huge amounts of content that you don't notice if you run a game without alignment, but that you'd basically never be able to replicate if you tried to inject it on top of a game that lacks alignment completely.</p>graystone wrote:Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote: Removing (mechanically relevant or otherwise) alignment is easier than adding mechanically relevant alignment.
Is it? Seems equally viable either way.No, it's not. The current game has alignment. That means it has alignment mentions for pretty much every creature, and some weapon affixes mention alignment, and some class features mention alignment. It's in a bunch of places. Taking it out is a little bit challenging, because you have to make sure...cfalcon2018-04-18T21:42:17ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paizo Blog: All About Spellscfalconhttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkpv&page=13?All-About-Spells#6422018-04-19T17:53:26Z2018-04-18T16:52:07Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Tangent101 wrote:</div><blockquote><p>If you look through the comments when this discussion arose, you will find multiple people talking about how this is a problem. You haven't noticed it or you have people who eventually overcome it and you "don't see it as a problem." </p>
<p>How many just quit?</blockquote><p>Over the term "level"?
<p>I'd assume some number around or equal to zero.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>How many felt the game was too complex</blockquote><p>For this vague of a question? Probably some. But there's always been a plethora of "simple" games that don't maintain any tradition, and they never seem to have everyone swarm to them. But even 5ed, which is reasonably simplified and assuredly has a much reduced scope to anything in the 3.X / d20 line, and is unusually successful as far as tabletop RPGs go, doesn't throw out tradition unless it is getting something for its effort.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>but simple addition is problematic for them.</blockquote><p>These people are always going to have issues playing a tabletop RPG that is based on simple arithmetic, if simple arithmetic is not <i>at least a little bit fun</i> for them. Certainly you can use tools to do all this work, but it's going to be an uphill battle- one you may be successfully waging with roll20 and some other scripts with your group, but it's simply a feature of the genre- and it isn't a bug to most players.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Spell Circles/Tiers/Whatever works better than level because you separate it from a multitude of other levels.</blockquote><p>I disagree pretty strongly. Spell level is a time tested word, and while it gets people making jokes about the overuse of the word "level" (which has been abandoned most places besides class and spell), there's no evidence that it really raises any barriers or causes any long term confusion. The existence of the class chart for casters which shows spell levels and class levels should put it to rest for most players, and the remaining folks were probably always going to get confused, asking why their 7th level wizard can't cast 7th circle spells.Tangent101 wrote:If you look through the comments when this discussion arose, you will find multiple people talking about how this is a problem. You haven't noticed it or you have people who eventually overcome it and you "don't see it as a problem."
How many just quit?
Over the term "level"? I'd assume some number around or equal to zero.
Quote:How many felt the game was too complex
For this vague of a question? Probably some. But there's always been a plethora of "simple" games that...cfalcon2018-04-18T16:52:07ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paizo Blog: All About Spellscfalconhttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkpv&page=12?All-About-Spells#5762018-04-18T04:06:01Z2018-04-18T03:58:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Zaister wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fuzzypaws wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Guessing time. :3</p>
<p><ul><li><b>Alter reality:</b> Illusion, quasi-wish. Create a permanent (or instantaneous if they really want it to be that potent) illusion replacing reality within its area of effect.
<br />
</ul></blockquote><p>Hmmm.
</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">AD&D 2nd Edition Tome of Magic wrote:</div><blockquote><p><span class=messageboard-bigger><b>Alternate Reality•</b></span> (Alteration)
</p>
<b>Range</b>: 0
<br />
<b>Components</b>: V, S, M
<br />
<b>Duration</b>: Instantaneous
<br />
<b>Casting Time</b>: 3
<br />
<b>Area of Effect</b>: Creature touched
<br />
<b>Saving Throw</b>: None
<br />
With this spell, the caster creates a small variation in probabilities. This variation lasts only a moment, but creates alternate results for one recent event. When the spell is cast, any one event attempted by the recipient during the previous round is recalculated, essentially allowing (or forcing) the creature to make new die rolls.
<br />
Only events that begin and end in a single round can be affected. Only one die roll can be rerolled. If the creature touched is a willing recipient, the player can choose which roll (the original or the new roll) affects him, more than likely picking the most successful. If the creature is unwilling, he must redo the action. The second result, whatever its outcome, cannot be changed.
<br />
Typical uses of this spell include allowing a fighter to reroll an attack, forcing an opponent to reroll a saving throw, or allowing a wizard to reroll the damage caused by a fireball.
<br />
The material component is a small, unmarked die.
<br />
</blockquote></blockquote><p>Pardon the massive block quote, but it's been a few pages.
<p>Fuzzypaws is remembering Alter Reality correctly. "Alternate Reality", as Zaister quoted, is a different spell.</p>
<p>The mistake? Consulting 2ed, which had illusionist as a specialist, next to many others that we still have today, like necromancer.</p>
<p>AD&D, the game in question, aka 1st edition, has Alter Reality, and it's an Illusionist spell. In that game, "Illusionist" is a class next to "Magic-User", and is largely limited to ONLY illusions (obviously there are some odd exceptions to this). 2nd Edition rolled the spell lists together and gave us something like the modern distinction we have today with wizard.</p>
<p>Here's the spell:
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">ADVANCED D & D Adventure Games PLAYERS HANDBOOK wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<b>Alter Reality</b> (Illusion/Phantasm, Conjuration/Summoning)</p>
<p>Level:<i>7</i>
<br />
Components: <i>Special</i>
<br />
Range: <i>Unlimited</i>
<br />
Casting Time: <i>Special</i>
<br />
Duration: <i>Special</i>
<br />
Saving Throw: <i>Special</i>
<br />
Area of Effect: <i>Special</i></p>
<p>Explanation/Description: The <i>alter reality</i> spell is similar to the seventh level magic-user <i>limited wish</i> spell (q.v.). In order to effect the magic fully, the illusionist must depict the enactment of the alteration of reality through the casting of a <i>phantasmal force</i>, as well as verbalization in a limited form, before the spell goes into action.</blockquote><p>Going to the illusionist's <i>phantasmal force</i>, a 1st level spell, in turn directs you to the magic-user's spell of the same name, a 3rd level spell. It's generally the spell that became <i>minor image</i> (<i>spectral force</i>, the 3rd level illusionist spell, became <i>major image</i>). The text for it includes visual illusion only, and excludes "audial illusion".
<p>I don't know if alter reality required you to first cast phantasmal force on round N and then cast alter reality on round N+1, or if expending the 7th level spell slot simultaneously with the 1st level spell was the correct method of play.</p>Zaister wrote:Fuzzypaws wrote:Guessing time. :3
Alter reality: Illusion, quasi-wish. Create a permanent (or instantaneous if they really want it to be that potent) illusion replacing reality within its area of effect.
Hmmm.
AD&D 2nd Edition Tome of Magic wrote:Alternate Reality* (Alteration)
Range: 0
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Instantaneous
Casting Time: 3
Area of Effect: Creature touched
Saving Throw: None
With this spell, the caster creates a small variation in probabilities. This...cfalcon2018-04-18T03:58:47ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: The Magus NEEDS to be in the Corecfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v2c9?The-Magus-NEEDS-to-be-in-the-Core#312018-05-03T04:24:22Z2018-04-16T23:20:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">kyrt-ryder wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Xenocrat wrote:</div><blockquote> Counterpoint: It doesn't. Only Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard really need to be in core. </blockquote>Fighting man, priest and mage </blockquote><p>It's "Fighting-Man", "Magic-User", and "Cleric". Cleric was the first non-hyphenated class!kyrt-ryder wrote:Xenocrat wrote: Counterpoint: It doesn't. Only Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard really need to be in core.
Fighting man, priest and mage It's "Fighting-Man", "Magic-User", and "Cleric". Cleric was the first non-hyphenated class!cfalcon2018-04-16T23:20:00ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paizo Blog: All About Spellscfalconhttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkpv&page=3?All-About-Spells#1172018-04-17T04:00:03Z2018-04-16T23:18:08Z<p>This is definitely an interesting way to do this. This could be really good. IMO the best blog yet.</p>This is definitely an interesting way to do this. This could be really good. IMO the best blog yet.cfalcon2018-04-16T23:18:08ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: The Magus NEEDS to be in the Corecfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v2c9?The-Magus-NEEDS-to-be-in-the-Core#292018-04-27T21:05:02Z2018-04-16T23:00:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">KingOfAnything wrote:</div><blockquote> Mark mentioned once making a passable Magus as a Wizard with a sword (I think). I’d like to try a build once the play test comes out.</blockquote><p>I doubt that some multiclass thing will magically turn up better designed than an actual class designed around this. Especially something as interesting and well put together as the Pathfinder Magus.
<p>Being told "you can build it badly in core" is always junk anyway. Same issue with the ninja. If someone says "Help me build a rogue", your answer is to discuss what they want to do with that rogue, and point them in a helpful direction. If someone says "I want to play ninja", and the game is young enough (because none ship with a functional ninja), the next statement is "well, take rogue, then grab potentially suboptimal weapon "short sword" and call it a wakizashi, then grab suboptimal feats X and Y so you can do ninja stuff..." </p>
<p>When someone wants to play a character, the ideal case is that that character concept exists as a template. Assuming you can get there from multiclassing is often a bad assumption- unless the designers very carefully considered this potential and have a bunch of solid multiclass feats (or other plug-in abilities) that make this functional. Certainly, we've never seen this type of build function properly since at least AD&D, and possibly not even then. Meanwhile, alternate classes and prestige classes have a very high likelihood of giving the player exactly what they want.</p>
<p>Also, after following this hobby for so many years, I'm really sick of hearing about how some character concept that is always done correctly in a splatbook later can TOTALLY THIS TIME be done using stock core rules. It can't. It never ever ever can. The wakizashi isn't a short sword, the fighter/mage isn't a magus, the kitsune isn't a "refluffed" gnome, or whatever, none of those things are ever true.</p>KingOfAnything wrote:Mark mentioned once making a passable Magus as a Wizard with a sword (I think). I’d like to try a build once the play test comes out.
I doubt that some multiclass thing will magically turn up better designed than an actual class designed around this. Especially something as interesting and well put together as the Pathfinder Magus. Being told "you can build it badly in core" is always junk anyway. Same issue with the ninja. If someone says "Help me build a rogue", your...cfalcon2018-04-16T23:00:53ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: You Heard It Here First -- Pathfinder 2e is the new unversal game system.cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v1t4?You-Heard-It-Here-First-Pathfinder-2e-is-the#302018-04-13T15:21:46Z2018-04-12T03:59:57Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mekkis wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Pathfinder and 5e are very different. I would hazard a guess that Pathfinder is the leader of rules-heavy high-fantasy roleplaying systems.</p>
<p>If PF2 is too fanatical about simplification, it will throw this marketshare away completely, in exchange for trying to fight the behemoth that is WotC for the scraps. </blockquote><p>I really agree with this completely. There's a lot of 5ed inspired stuff they are testing, and I don't know why they would try to go for a heavily competed market space over one that they have a solid reputation with.Mekkis wrote:Pathfinder and 5e are very different. I would hazard a guess that Pathfinder is the leader of rules-heavy high-fantasy roleplaying systems.
If PF2 is too fanatical about simplification, it will throw this marketshare away completely, in exchange for trying to fight the behemoth that is WotC for the scraps.
I really agree with this completely. There's a lot of 5ed inspired stuff they are testing, and I don't know why they would try to go for a heavily competed market space over...cfalcon2018-04-12T03:59:57ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What to do with an unconscious Tarrasquecfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v1ru?What-to-do-with-an-unconscious-Tarrasque#202018-04-11T02:22:33Z2018-04-11T00:45:10Z<p>You take it to whichever war torn city is having issues with food. You charge some people with keeping its hit points low enough, and you provide Terrasque burgers. Forever. It's unconscious and can't feel, and think of all the suffering you are mitigating!</p>
<p>PCs: solving world hunger, one abomination at a time.</p>You take it to whichever war torn city is having issues with food. You charge some people with keeping its hit points low enough, and you provide Terrasque burgers. Forever. It's unconscious and can't feel, and think of all the suffering you are mitigating!
PCs: solving world hunger, one abomination at a time.cfalcon2018-04-11T00:45:10ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: pf 2.0 alignmentcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyl4&page=2?pf-20-alignment#692018-04-12T23:59:48Z2018-04-10T22:44:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">FaerieGodfather wrote:</div><blockquote> <i>Nonsense.</i> Nature doesn't give a damn about alignment, including any concern for "neutrality".</blockquote><p>Yes, correct, that's why nature is neutral. I really recommend some of the older material on this, where they kind of walk you through the reasoning for this model. It's super good. Or, uh, effective. It's super effective.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote><i>Nonsense.</i> Five out of the nine alignments, all of which are <i>based</i> on human morality... are somehow alien to human morality?</blockquote><p>Only the "good" ones are really defined on human morality, but they have broader truths for any society that isn't inconceivably alien to us. The "evil" ones vary between stuff you could argue as natural (extreme selfishness) and stuff that isn't (devotion to strictly evil ideals).
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>I will agree, at least, that if Druids are supposed to be Neutral, forcing them to be <i>fully neutral</i> makes perfect sense. Again, it's this arbitrary silliness that Druids can be Lawful or Good, but not both, that I object to.</blockquote><p>So the history on this goofy situation is that we started with true neutral druids, but they wanted to open it up in 3.0. They could have allowed neutral good and neutral evil- arguably reflections of nature- but instead they also allowed lawful neutral and chaotic neutral- a bit harder to justify, and went with the "some aspect must be neutral". This means that the lawful neutral of the druid is less about the primacy of order and more about order in nature, but this distinction is only ever implied.
<p>I don't think that the ability of lawful neutral or neutral good, but not lawful good, to be druids, is a good argument to eliminate the moral core of the nature-supremacy ethos and its attendant class- I'd much prefer they stepped partially or all the way backwards on this. When player choice clashes with kit, I think a system designer should choose kit, but choose it in such a way that a DM can easily see how that unplugs, and write the rules such that a later designer/DM can easily overwrite that part.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Your other arguments are based on ridiculous contrafactuals. I can't even figure out what this one's supposed to mean; it's just baffling.</blockquote><p>By stamping something with an alignment- a behavior, a monster, a bloodline, a class- you give a massive tell to future storytellers and world builders about what this is supposed to be. Someone who goes against this intent does so knowing that they'll have to patch a few holes, and that's fine- the alternative was to offer essentially no direction at all. It's really good to do this where appropriate, such as druid, paladin, anti-paladin, etc.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Probably because you've never taken the <i>thirty seconds</i> it takes to realize that everything you're saying is absolute nonsense.</blockquote><p>I honestly didn't realize this stuff was hard to follow. Basically, alignment restrictions are a way to signal to people what you want this used for, what fantasy and kit are the default language that people should understand. When you remove the restriction, you make it vague and cloudy, and you remove the ability for the player to read the class and have an image. This doesn't mean it has to be that way in all possible content, but you want to set the more restrictive baseline, with the relatively straightforward and somewhat human-centric alignment, as a tool.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>In that case, why don't we solve the alignment problem and the multiclassing problem in one fell swoop by adding a third alignment axis— <i>morality cubes!</i>— and then assign each and every single class one combination of Law/Chaos, Good/Evil, and Bacon/Necktie they're allowed to follow.</blockquote><p>Bacon Chaotic Neutral is the new Kender!
<p>Honestly, you could easily sell me on this idea if you had something else that worked perpendicular to the two existing axes. The existing setup is so excellent because it maps reality closely enough to be understandable, and serves as a good creative focus. There are settings that throw it away, usually to their detriment- but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done better.</p>
<p>Establishing form in the void is the big goal of all of this. It makes for a common language, and of course it isn't going to be accurate under every filter.</p>FaerieGodfather wrote:Nonsense. Nature doesn't give a damn about alignment, including any concern for "neutrality".
Yes, correct, that's why nature is neutral. I really recommend some of the older material on this, where they kind of walk you through the reasoning for this model. It's super good. Or, uh, effective. It's super effective. Quote:Nonsense. Five out of the nine alignments, all of which are based on human morality... are somehow alien to human morality?
Only the "good" ones are...cfalcon2018-04-10T22:44:18ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: No more half way measures, go full Orc please! (TW: Rape, Sexual Assault)cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v1o3?No-more-half-way-measures-go-full-Orc-please#472018-04-26T21:27:19Z2018-04-10T20:33:01Z<p>That logic baffles me. This is fiction: someone who can't handle that is going to have a really terrible time, no matter their personal history. Gutting out what might be acceptable for stories is a terrible direction, and definitely one I would never want to see a system we're supposed to use as a baseline take.</p>
<p>It's a frightening direction. It would make all the fiction really tame and lame because it might offend someone. We'd have to tread carefully around all manner of tragedy, in a genre that is based on war, murder, extortion, rape, slavery, and many other terrible things. You'd limit the stories. It's bad news.</p>That logic baffles me. This is fiction: someone who can't handle that is going to have a really terrible time, no matter their personal history. Gutting out what might be acceptable for stories is a terrible direction, and definitely one I would never want to see a system we're supposed to use as a baseline take.
It's a frightening direction. It would make all the fiction really tame and lame because it might offend someone. We'd have to tread carefully around all manner of tragedy, in a...cfalcon2018-04-10T20:33:01ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: No more half way measures, go full Orc please! (TW: Rape, Sexual Assault)cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v1o3?No-more-half-way-measures-go-full-Orc-please#442018-04-23T01:27:41Z2018-04-10T20:04:45Z<p>"It also does imply an aspect of rapeyness that is well out of date"</p>
<p>It's not out of date. Orcs are an evil race. Rape is evil. Orcs are fecund and love rape. That's clearly one of many evils that they are all about. There's nothing "out of date" about having an evil race do evil things. Orcs should make you uncomfortable, they are vile.</p>"It also does imply an aspect of rapeyness that is well out of date"
It's not out of date. Orcs are an evil race. Rape is evil. Orcs are fecund and love rape. That's clearly one of many evils that they are all about. There's nothing "out of date" about having an evil race do evil things. Orcs should make you uncomfortable, they are vile.cfalcon2018-04-10T20:04:45ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: pf 2.0 alignmentcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyl4&page=2?pf-20-alignment#662018-04-12T23:57:09Z2018-04-10T20:00:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">FaerieGodfather wrote:</div><blockquote> Why do Druids need to be "something neutral"?</blockquote><p>Because nature is inherently neutral. Requiring druids to be partially neutral (or even true neutral, which was way better IMO) forces them into a partially alien role. They are simultaneously more enlightened in some ways than the civilizations around them and also more savage and unenlightened. They are different. The alignment provides a way to stamp that into the game in a way that everyone understands.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>It's time to stop pretending it makes sense</blockquote><p>Why does it make sense to me and everyone I've played the game with, literally ever?
<p>I'll reiterate my point though: a DM who wants to throw these restrictions out has little stopping him in the case of the paladin (he has to work out the ramifications of the alignment-based moves), and nothing stopping him in the case of the druid, monk, etc. Meanwhile, a DM trying to add them into a game has quite a bit of work to do, especially if the monsters and spells don't come tagged with alignments.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">totoro wrote:</div><blockquote>I think players should be the arbiters of PC alignment and the DM should just slap an insanity tag on the PC, if necessary, but leave PC alignment alone</blockquote><p>I just disagree. I think this is an important DM tool. It isn't irreplaceable, but it's important.FaerieGodfather wrote:Why do Druids need to be "something neutral"?
Because nature is inherently neutral. Requiring druids to be partially neutral (or even true neutral, which was way better IMO) forces them into a partially alien role. They are simultaneously more enlightened in some ways than the civilizations around them and also more savage and unenlightened. They are different. The alignment provides a way to stamp that into the game in a way that everyone understands. Quote:It's time...cfalcon2018-04-10T20:00:53ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: pf 2.0 alignmentcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyl4&page=2?pf-20-alignment#612018-04-11T20:58:58Z2018-04-10T00:36:30Z<p>I disagree with OP's premise. I like the classic alignment chart just fine. I'm not here to persuade anyone about why it is just about perfect, though: plenty of players disagree on this.</p>
<p>I will offer this, I suppose: it's a hell of a lot easier to throw out the alignment system as a houserule, than it is to shove one in.</p>I disagree with OP's premise. I like the classic alignment chart just fine. I'm not here to persuade anyone about why it is just about perfect, though: plenty of players disagree on this.
I will offer this, I suppose: it's a hell of a lot easier to throw out the alignment system as a houserule, than it is to shove one in.cfalcon2018-04-10T00:36:30ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Just how much is Paizo willing to listen?cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v18a&page=5?Just-how-much-is-Paizo-willing-to-listen#2442018-04-11T19:50:58Z2018-04-09T23:59:56Z<p>I'm sure they'll respond to feedback and produce a game that runs well and has good options and mostly decent balance. I'm not even sure what type of feedback to provide, and how much about me I have to provide to make the feedback useful. </p>
<p>Ex: I'll never use the goblins as a PC race in any game I run. They're banned out the gate. But I wouldn't shy away from a game with them, nor am I concerned about toxic goblin players in org play (and if that becomes a meme, I'll think it's adorable). As a result, I'm totally neutral on them being in the PHB as a core race. I'd have preferred if it was kitsune or something with wings (or quite a few things), but these aren't normally appropriate as core choices, and at least those two would be very very controversial. I don't have to have a use for everything in the PHB for me to want it. </p>
<p>Additionally, banning a race is super easy for me: it's the ultimate in modular, campaign dependent choices.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, when we get to weapons, I'd love to see a bigger design space on weapons, especially one with holes in the space so that I can add weapons from history or from my world. I'd like to see greater differentiation, and a reason to use historically common, or at the very least, fantasy iconic, weapons. I don't want to be told a katana is a bastard sword, or go fully universal and be told that pretty much every one handed slashing martial weapon is the same. But I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo did go this direction, and if they do, I suspect all feedback to the contrary will be ignored- because it won't be that much.</p>
<p>I also have no use for "ancestry", and will use race in my games. This is also something I don't think will get pulled out: it sounds like they spent a lot of time on this system. It will also be hella hard to pull out without balance implications, unless I miss my guess terrible much. I mean, we'll see, but unless this system is implemented with a complete lack of competence (extremely unlikely), I suspect it will go live no matter what I think, and even if a lot of players agree with me (and I have no idea if they will).</p>
<p>So that's how I'd divide it: </p>
<p>1- Stuff that interferes with balance or is hella clunky - highly responsive
<br />
2- Stuff that is easy to unplug from games - they'll go with their intuition and direction and ignore feedback. DMs that hate these pieces will simply pull them out as they always have.
<br />
3- Stuff that they have spent a lot of effort building, even if it is hard to pull out - about as responsive as they can be.</p>
<p>The thing is, I'm pretty happy with PF1. If PF2 is just inspiration, then that's fine. If it's something I can jostle everything into position for, then that's fine too. A game doesn't need to grow forever to have players, and PF1 has grown tons over the years- it is truly vast.</p>I'm sure they'll respond to feedback and produce a game that runs well and has good options and mostly decent balance. I'm not even sure what type of feedback to provide, and how much about me I have to provide to make the feedback useful.
Ex: I'll never use the goblins as a PC race in any game I run. They're banned out the gate. But I wouldn't shy away from a game with them, nor am I concerned about toxic goblin players in org play (and if that becomes a meme, I'll think it's adorable). As...cfalcon2018-04-09T23:59:56ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Time Mystery Revelation - Time Sightcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2myhy?Time-Mystery-Revelation-Time-Sight#132018-04-08T14:02:29Z2018-04-08T09:07:28Z<p>While I'm sad this didn't get bumped in 2013 or 2016, I'm bumping this for 2018 because we still don't know what the heck happens with Time Sight as you level.</p>
<p>For the numerologists out there, we expect this thread to not be bumped in 2019, via extrapolation.</p>
<p>This ability is also interesting because there's three interpretations of this (literal- newer replaces the older, which is no longer available; additive- all apply when activated; selection- you choose when activating). Three interpretations, every third year doesn't have any bumps... Illuminati most obviously confirmed.</p>While I'm sad this didn't get bumped in 2013 or 2016, I'm bumping this for 2018 because we still don't know what the heck happens with Time Sight as you level.
For the numerologists out there, we expect this thread to not be bumped in 2019, via extrapolation.
This ability is also interesting because there's three interpretations of this (literal- newer replaces the older, which is no longer available; additive- all apply when activated; selection- you choose when activating). Three...cfalcon2018-04-08T09:07:28ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Thank you Paizo developers, for replacing race with ancestrycfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v1cf&page=2?Thank-you-Paizo-developers-for-replacing-race#682018-04-12T03:24:51Z2018-04-05T18:06:37Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DiscoJer wrote:</div><blockquote>If you want to replace race, replace it with species.</blockquote><p>I'll second this. It's more accurate, and ancestry could be another thing. I'm sure they are really far along and all, but saying your species is elf and your ancestry is whatever, that's way hella better than just dropping ancestry on top of race and walking away, leaving a sack of +2 bonuses spilled all over the ground.DiscoJer wrote:If you want to replace race, replace it with species.
I'll second this. It's more accurate, and ancestry could be another thing. I'm sure they are really far along and all, but saying your species is elf and your ancestry is whatever, that's way hella better than just dropping ancestry on top of race and walking away, leaving a sack of +2 bonuses spilled all over the ground.cfalcon2018-04-05T18:06:37ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Thank you Paizo developers, for replacing race with ancestrycfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v1cf?Thank-you-Paizo-developers-for-replacing-race#112018-04-12T03:15:35Z2018-04-04T22:09:45Z<p>I mean, I'm opposed to every aspect of it. It's going to make certain backgrounds "correct" for a given character, meaning that instead of feeling you need to play some set of whatever races (usually a pretty big percent of races) to be playing "optimally", you'll instead need some set with a specific background. </p>
<p>The other part I'm opposed to is what it means to races. My game worlds don't have whatever this ancestry concept is, as races don't have this level of crossfertility, so out the gate I'd have to houserule away core concepts of character creation. At least I assume that's what's going on. I'm not even clear on that yet, but if it is something about nurture versus nature, that's probably even worse IMO.</p>
<p>It's very likely that PF2 is just not something I can ever run, so unless the remainder of the rules are absolutely perfect, it will just become something I use for inspiration. Obviously, it's too early for me to make any calls, but I don't want ancestries, I want races.</p>I mean, I'm opposed to every aspect of it. It's going to make certain backgrounds "correct" for a given character, meaning that instead of feeling you need to play some set of whatever races (usually a pretty big percent of races) to be playing "optimally", you'll instead need some set with a specific background.
The other part I'm opposed to is what it means to races. My game worlds don't have whatever this ancestry concept is, as races don't have this level of crossfertility, so out the...cfalcon2018-04-04T22:09:45ZRe: Forums: Advice: (New DM) Did I make the right ruling? (Unorthadox magic and item usage)cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v1aw#102018-04-05T05:38:09Z2018-04-04T20:55:23Z<p>"female orc skald in our party and was facing off against the captain of these pirates, a large gnoll barbarian with a cyborg cannonball cannon arm"</p>
<p>This is so metal that reading it made my eyes spark irl</p>
<p>I think you made the right call. It's totally reasonable not to have these arrows ignite from the mage hand, and honestly, probably not even from the shaking. The mage hand can move something up to 30 feet a round (if you use your move and standard to move it). The mage hand can't pick up something that is magic (you might handwave and rule away this rule: it's probably in there to prevent some possible abuse of the spell that you may or may not run into).</p>
<p>So lets assume you ignore the bit about not picking up magical items. At the point where you are levitating a flaming object at someone, your brave orcess faces a new challenge- it's too slow to actually make an attack roll with. She could hurl it at someone, like a torch, and at least in 3.X that could deal 1d3 fire damage, but with mage hand she doesn't have the velocity to hit the guy if he's aware and reacting. If he's not aware, he'll become away when a fire is brought close to him- I'd probably rule something on the spot like, 1d3 damage, some basic reflex save for half, but properly, I don't think she can attack someone with mage hand. You need to do a lot of house rules with mage hand to actually get it to be any manner of weapon with something as simple as a flaming stick. By rules, you could probably find a way to levitate over some type of bomb or grenade (notice it has to be a mundane bomb or grenade), at which point it would lazily duplicate rules for throwing a splash weapon at a square.</p>"female orc skald in our party and was facing off against the captain of these pirates, a large gnoll barbarian with a cyborg cannonball cannon arm"
This is so metal that reading it made my eyes spark irl
I think you made the right call. It's totally reasonable not to have these arrows ignite from the mage hand, and honestly, probably not even from the shaking. The mage hand can move something up to 30 feet a round (if you use your move and standard to move it). The mage hand can't pick up...cfalcon2018-04-04T20:55:23ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Sooo any chance of including metres in this one?cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyyv&page=6?Sooo-any-chance-of-including-metres-in-this-one#2842018-03-31T14:33:35Z2018-03-30T21:47:58Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Arakhor wrote:</div><blockquote> How exactly is the official foot/yard defined again?</blockquote><p>In terms of meters. Our government did this in the 50s, and everyone was sure we'd be a metric nation real soon. They also said that in the 60s, the 70s, paused briefly to blame Reagan in the 80s, back to about to change in the 90s, 00s...
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>It's almost certainly with a shrinky stick or a melty metal or other stupid term you've invented because... reasons. </blockquote><p>No, technically all the customary units are defined in terms of the metric system these days. Checking on wikipedia, a foot is technically .3048 meters, etc.Arakhor wrote:How exactly is the official foot/yard defined again?
In terms of meters. Our government did this in the 50s, and everyone was sure we'd be a metric nation real soon. They also said that in the 60s, the 70s, paused briefly to blame Reagan in the 80s, back to about to change in the 90s, 00s... Quote:It's almost certainly with a shrinky stick or a melty metal or other stupid term you've invented because... reasons.
No, technically all the customary units are defined in terms of...cfalcon2018-03-30T21:47:58ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Sooo any chance of including metres in this one?cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyyv&page=6?Sooo-any-chance-of-including-metres-in-this-one#2692018-03-30T12:09:28Z2018-03-30T07:03:17Z<p>It's a human-based system of unit. The foot is about as big as your foot. The inch is about your thumb knuckle to tip. The mile is a thousand paces of your left foot hitting the ground. 100 degrees Fahrenheit is roughly human body temperature. </p>
<p>By contrast, the metric system really is closer to "randomly selected units", being that they are all defined (and frequently redefined) in terms of wacky science things and universal constants several orders of magnitude removed from life of any scale on Earth. It's entire shtick is that some arithmetic is easier, should you be without a calculator or a phone or a computer or a pen and paper or a stick and dirt.</p>It's a human-based system of unit. The foot is about as big as your foot. The inch is about your thumb knuckle to tip. The mile is a thousand paces of your left foot hitting the ground. 100 degrees Fahrenheit is roughly human body temperature.
By contrast, the metric system really is closer to "randomly selected units", being that they are all defined (and frequently redefined) in terms of wacky science things and universal constants several orders of magnitude removed from life of any scale...cfalcon2018-03-30T07:03:17ZRe: Forums: Advice: First time DM with alot of questions.cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v0rf?First-time-DM-with-alot-of-questions#82018-03-30T06:05:03Z2018-03-30T03:59:16Z<p>https://vineris.deviantart.com/art/Alot-of-Questions-167259856 </p>
<p>Looks like CR 6 probably?</p>https://vineris.deviantart.com/art/Alot-of-Questions-167259856
Looks like CR 6 probably?cfalcon2018-03-30T03:59:16ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Can we finally ditch 1st Edition D&D's weird weapon/armor names?cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uy7v?Can-we-finally-ditch-1st-Edition-DDs-weird#482018-03-30T15:23:31Z2018-03-29T20:03:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:</div><blockquote>Ditch Longsword and just call it Sword.</blockquote><p>You can't call it "sword", that's not specific enough for a system that spans cultures and technology levels. If you are looking for a better name for this weapon, "Arming Sword" would be specific enough and historically correct.Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:Ditch Longsword and just call it Sword.
You can't call it "sword", that's not specific enough for a system that spans cultures and technology levels. If you are looking for a better name for this weapon, "Arming Sword" would be specific enough and historically correct.cfalcon2018-03-29T20:03:10ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: There's Nothing in the Rules that says a Gith Can't Play Sportsballcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uykw?Theres-Nothing-in-the-Rules-that-says-a-Gith#112018-03-29T15:25:09Z2018-03-28T21:56:00Z<p>I mean, America just called soccer the same thing it was called in England- soccer, originally an abbreviation. Football is just a broad category for a game played on foot, not mounted or whatever, and it is regionally used to refer to a specific type of football. Obviously, the British are free to ignore the abbreviation that they originated, but it doesn't mean Americans have to.</p>I mean, America just called soccer the same thing it was called in England- soccer, originally an abbreviation. Football is just a broad category for a game played on foot, not mounted or whatever, and it is regionally used to refer to a specific type of football. Obviously, the British are free to ignore the abbreviation that they originated, but it doesn't mean Americans have to.cfalcon2018-03-28T21:56:00ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Let's take this opportunity to ditch some baggage with East Asian weapons and classescfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzok&page=3?Lets-take-this-opportunity-to-ditch-some#1082018-03-28T20:46:45Z2018-03-27T00:03:16Z<p>"There wasn't enough difference between most weapons"</p>
<p>The d20 fully-compatible space is really tight on this. You generally have to add specials which come up rarely to distinguish these things. If we had weapon versus armor tables, we'd probably be better off than trying to remember that you get a +2 versus being disarmed in a certain fashion.</p>
<p>If a weapon is a one-handed martial weapon, then you know it starts with 1d6 and 20x2 crit, and it has to spend two things, basically. The overall assumption is that it spends at least one thing on EITHER crit, or bludgeoning damage, becoming one of (B), "20x3" or "19-20x2" in the process, and then it spends another thing on one of crit, damage die, or obscurely useful special, becoming almost any of the weapons on the table.</p>
<p>I'm saying, this isn't enough design space if you want a book of weapons. You can argue that all weapons are pretty same-y, in which case you don't need to distinguish a longsword from a scimitar, and maybe not even from a one-handed axe, or you can go the route of making each weapon reasonably unique and trying to model enough about them to be interesting, possibly even deciding (hopefully with research) that some weapons are better than others and get more budget (the safest way to do this is to make some of the older weapons have the lower budget- this is the most realistic anyway). But if you are using the 3.0 inherited template, you don't have that much design space.</p>"There wasn't enough difference between most weapons"
The d20 fully-compatible space is really tight on this. You generally have to add specials which come up rarely to distinguish these things. If we had weapon versus armor tables, we'd probably be better off than trying to remember that you get a +2 versus being disarmed in a certain fashion.
If a weapon is a one-handed martial weapon, then you know it starts with 1d6 and 20x2 crit, and it has to spend two things, basically. The overall...cfalcon2018-03-27T00:03:16ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: No more feets like Alertness and all the rest of the +2 to +2 skillscfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v0dm?No-more-feets-like-Alertness-and-all-the-rest#212018-03-26T22:46:05Z2018-03-26T22:42:51Z<p>"We only need one feat for that."</p>
<p>On topic, I'll argue we need zero feats for that, or about as many as we have. Skill Focus manages to be one feat, and if you bring something like that around it is maybe ok (maybe not depending on if you are changing how skills work enough). The idea behind the "+2 to this, +2 to that" stuff is that the two are related, and by choosing a feat with a descriptive name, you are also achieving the goal of describing your character, both in the game rules and outside of them. If you have "take +2 to your two favorite skills", it becomes "1 point better than skill focus, but to your top two skills instead of your most important one". That loses the flavor and becomes a degree of math I'd like to not need, if we are losing the small amount of depth provided by "Alertness", etc.</p>"We only need one feat for that."
On topic, I'll argue we need zero feats for that, or about as many as we have. Skill Focus manages to be one feat, and if you bring something like that around it is maybe ok (maybe not depending on if you are changing how skills work enough). The idea behind the "+2 to this, +2 to that" stuff is that the two are related, and by choosing a feat with a descriptive name, you are also achieving the goal of describing your character, both in the game rules and...cfalcon2018-03-26T22:42:51ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Can we not have trap options, please?cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz63&page=3?Can-we-not-have-trap-options-please#1032018-03-27T05:03:07Z2018-03-26T21:11:48Z<p>Trap options doesn't imply malice, but it does imply some small amount of incompetence. In a video game, this is a pretty great way of looking at the world- you didn't playtest enough, you provided an option that looked playable without system mastery, and with system mastery, it is garbage.</p>
<p>In an RPG, this is not exactly the same comparison though. What is a suboptimal feat in your game might be great in mine, and what LOOKS optimal in your game (but is really a trap option) might both look and be great in mine. And that's all before you get to house rules.</p>
<p>In any event, the best possible designers could only eliminate trap options for some set of games, and they would (being the theoretical best possible designers) choose the largest set of games to eliminate or minimize trap options. But there will always be someone who ends up being poorly served by any decision.</p>Trap options doesn't imply malice, but it does imply some small amount of incompetence. In a video game, this is a pretty great way of looking at the world- you didn't playtest enough, you provided an option that looked playable without system mastery, and with system mastery, it is garbage.
In an RPG, this is not exactly the same comparison though. What is a suboptimal feat in your game might be great in mine, and what LOOKS optimal in your game (but is really a trap option) might both look...cfalcon2018-03-26T21:11:48ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: No more feets like Alertness and all the rest of the +2 to +2 skillscfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v0dm?No-more-feets-like-Alertness-and-all-the-rest#192018-03-26T21:17:39Z2018-03-26T20:58:59Z<p>There's a few ways to do Dex-to-damage "correctly", but just adding it as a feat is too cheap unless Dex is getting heavily nerfed. The solutions I've seen that I like a great deal normally involve a character investing in an agile build in some fashion- picking a class or archetype or something- and then the template prevents it from being some "and now of course dump strength because that sucks". </p>
<p>The Dex-builds seem to be "player killer" builds in my experience, in that they tend to offer (and I don't know how much of this will make its way to Pathfinder): </p>
<p>1- Boosts to skills such as stealth, allowing for a tactical option against PCs or NPCs
<br />
2- An AC bonus high enough to justify lighter armor, which preserves a lot of combat options. These characters often have the benefits of heavy armor without any of the costs.
<br />
3- A massive bonus to initiative, which obviously is impactful even in one encounter.
<br />
4- Effortless access to a bunch of feats that require varying sizes of Dex to be good.
<br />
5- A touch AC bonus which frequently makes a huge difference.
<br />
6- Extra reflex saves, which sometimes makes a difference.</p>
<p>Once you also start applying Dex to hit and to damage, you end up with a one-stop shop, and the usual cost you pay is that your Dex stuff turns off sometimes. Maybe it doesn't work against some monsters, or something. Regardless, the combination of ubiquitous point-buy has yielded a world where being able to overload a combat stat is hugely beneficial.</p>
<p>Anyway, I want that to be costly, or restricted to archetypes that are balanced around the idea of what is going on. Physical characters should, barring exception circumstances, value dexterity and strength in some measure, and if one is worth more than the other, that is fine. But making the difference between Arya Stark and Conan a flavor choice is garbage thinking, and in that kind of game you would do way better with pokemon stats. Physical attack, physical defense, magical attack, magical defense, stamina.</p>There's a few ways to do Dex-to-damage "correctly", but just adding it as a feat is too cheap unless Dex is getting heavily nerfed. The solutions I've seen that I like a great deal normally involve a character investing in an agile build in some fashion- picking a class or archetype or something- and then the template prevents it from being some "and now of course dump strength because that sucks".
The Dex-builds seem to be "player killer" builds in my experience, in that they tend to offer...cfalcon2018-03-26T20:58:59ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Caster-Martial Disparity in 2ecfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzzb&page=3?CasterMartial-Disparity-in-2e#1122018-03-25T14:31:17Z2018-03-22T23:40:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Lady Firebird wrote:</div><blockquote>Let's see: magic destroys simulationism.</blockquote><p>No it doesn't. You're simulating a magical reality, where everything obeys real world stuff except magic.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Lady Firebird wrote:</div><blockquote>Your high-level Wizard can fall 100 feet and not die without ever using magic</blockquote><p>I mean, this guy fell straight out of an airplane at like 20,000 feet and lived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Chisov
<p>Falling from high heights could be made a bit more deadly, and already involves a chance to die from death from massive damage (DC 15, but at least failable), but the idea that a high level character has more luck to spare is inherent to the hit point idea.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Lady Firebird wrote:</div><blockquote>or survive getting bitten by a dragon. </blockquote><p>You're surviving an attack roll, not literally being cleft in twain by a tooth the size of your leg. All of these points were well answered in the 80s, and probably the 70s.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Lady Firebird wrote:</div><blockquote>Every spell or magical item flies in the face of simulationism. </blockquote><p>You are simulating a reality that has magic in it. By definition, magic doesn't break simulationism. Magic is the thing that is allowed to break the rules of reality.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Lady Firebird wrote:</div><blockquote>Heck, the rules don't govern exactly how often you need to use the facilities to go with the deprivation rules, do they?</blockquote><p>No, but generally something like this could deal attribute damage. A DM faced with the unhappy reality of running this has plenty of rules to use as templates.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Lady Firebird wrote:</div><blockquote>Do they govern proper levels of fatigue, or can your Wizard force march all day without having to track stuff like that?</blockquote><p>I'm not sure of your point here. The rules for forced march are in the core rulebook, and barring a spell, fatigue can happen.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Lady Firebird wrote:</div><blockquote>The rules must surely track time in real-time, though, right?</blockquote><p>This has never been part of simulationism. You track in real-time when you must, and usually when the party is together, this is not necessary.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Lady Firebird wrote:</div><blockquote>Rather than narrative measurements, certainly. Otherwise it's not much of a simulation. </blockquote><p>Simulation of a magical reality is not injured by pace of play being the same as it has for decades, and you know this.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Lady Firebird wrote:</div><blockquote>Or there's the possibility that "simulationist" is code for "I like this particular style of high-powered play but not yours, so I will dimiss it as them fancy Japanese superheroics or whatever."</blockquote><p>I'm surprised you got this far without relying on ad hominem. I'm sorry you have no other arguments besides attacking me for having a different playstyle.Lady Firebird wrote:Let's see: magic destroys simulationism.
No it doesn't. You're simulating a magical reality, where everything obeys real world stuff except magic. Lady Firebird wrote:Your high-level Wizard can fall 100 feet and not die without ever using magic
I mean, this guy fell straight out of an airplane at like 20,000 feet and lived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Chisov Falling from high heights could be made a bit more deadly, and already involves a chance to die from death...cfalcon2018-03-22T23:40:04ZRe: Forums: Product Discussion: Yup, It's time for Pathfinder 2.0cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rdq2&page=6?Yup-Its-time-for-Pathfinder-20#2792014-08-25T15:49:48Z2014-08-24T09:19:49Z<p>I just dislike when a thread starts with "I think the game is too big, lets reset".</p>
<p>I'm not sure how I feel about the Advanced Class guide tbh- it seems too much. But the solution isn't "ban everything but core". If anything, it would be "ban the ACG".</p>
<p>More importantly, I'm SICK of games that press the reset button. Such a cash grab. Oh look, we lose the ninja. Again. Super.</p>
<p>Screw all that noise. If you like those games, play them. If you like this game, play this. But don't try to burn the rest of us.</p>I just dislike when a thread starts with "I think the game is too big, lets reset".
I'm not sure how I feel about the Advanced Class guide tbh- it seems too much. But the solution isn't "ban everything but core". If anything, it would be "ban the ACG".
More importantly, I'm SICK of games that press the reset button. Such a cash grab. Oh look, we lose the ninja. Again. Super.
Screw all that noise. If you like those games, play them. If you like this game, play this. But don't try to burn...cfalcon2014-08-24T09:19:49ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why is a Wakazashi exotic?cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o9mh&page=2?Why-is-a-Wakazashi-exotic#742012-06-14T01:43:31Z2012-06-13T20:31:32Z<p>"The Katana, essentially a bastard sword with a curved well made blade"</p>
<p>Good grief</p>"The Katana, essentially a bastard sword with a curved well made blade"
Good griefcfalcon2012-06-13T20:31:32ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Can the GM do this?cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ni8x&page=2?Can-the-GM-do-this#812012-01-28T16:07:12Z2012-01-27T19:33:35Z<p>I can't justify why such a wide group of folks would have all taken that feat.</p>
<p>I could buy a crack team of specially trained operatives, and I could buy some creche-bourne alien types, but just a random bunch of bandits?</p>
<p>That's just odd.</p>I can't justify why such a wide group of folks would have all taken that feat.
I could buy a crack team of specially trained operatives, and I could buy some creche-bourne alien types, but just a random bunch of bandits?
That's just odd.cfalcon2012-01-27T19:33:35ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: My feelings about 5E D&Dcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nffy&page=3?My-feelings-about-5E-DD#1162012-02-13T05:29:07Z2012-01-14T00:13:59Z<p>Oh good, I get to agree with Scott on some stuff:
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote><p>I prefer cardboard, full-color tokens for a number of reasons.</p>
<p>1. They adequately represent the monster being used, just as minis do.</p>
<p>2. They are affordable enough that I can literally own a cardboard token of every monster in the books, and multiple copies of many of them.</p>
<p>3. They are extremely easy to store and transport.</blockquote><p>Agreed. When I was young, I banned minis (and would almost never use any manner of maps except on "fights that mattered"). As DM, I would describe the round-by-round play of things once I had all the inputs from the players and monsters.
<p>In 3.X, we kept the minis banned. It was obvious to me that I needed a better map than the tiny ones I saw, and so I made a table spanning hexmat, and a couple smaller ones, and would write on them with dry-erase. For the most part, I still use this today.</p>
<p>Currently, the markers we use really just show size. However, I've seen and used the cardboard ones at other tables, and they work just fine. I definitely never liked it when DMs would feel guilty not making the encounter they really WANTED. The minis put a social limitation on that. I'm sure minis will still be available, and I'm sure people will still use the standard size grid more than custom made hex maps, and that will continue to limit the encounters that can happen (and by that standard, where you can stand). But the markers are a BIG step forward. They are also very easy to transport. Minis, while awesome looking, are bulky, at times fragile, are expensive by the standards of many players and, at their trough, were only available randomly.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>However, to pretend that your editions of the game experience anything like the constant bashing that 4e and its fans experience is really kind of bewildering. You don't really perceive a need to defend your favorite games. That's fine. But people feel a need to attack 4e and the company responsible for it, often for reasons that have little or no basis in reality. We choose to correct that when we see it.</blockquote><p>I honestly think that the 4ed fans are still eating the blowback from the marketing and presentation of 4ed. First, of course, is the fact that 4ed, while a <i>radical</i> departure from D&D (you can convert a 1ed character to 3.5 or Pathfinder- in 4th, that guy will be rebuilt), it retains the name. The implication is that you should 'upgrade', despite the fact that 4ed doesn't do the same things 3.X does, not really. I was really taken aback by the announcement, from the very moment they kicked me out of the Three Dragon Ante room because they needed it to announce the silly thing.
<p>So, as a player, I felt on the defensive <i>right away</i>. It didn't take me long at all to realize I wouldn't be porting any of my worlds to 4ed, and it didn't take me much longer to realize that I would rather play other systems as well- and yet, the message WotC was sending was that this was <i>the only</i> way to go. If 4ed had been marketed differently, or if 3.X material had continued to come out, I wouldn't have been nearly as hostile to it.</p>
<p>Oh, and I'm also a pretty big open source advocate. Seeing how LUDICROUSLY STUNNINGLY the OGL worked- looking at all the extra movement that the 3pps drummed up for WotC, and how big the market got- and then to see the attitude be "no totally, this should all be OUR pie to eat" was ludicrous. It would be like if Red Hat decided that THEY WERE LINUX and suddenly made some closed source OS that did everything differently and called it the new Red Hat. I can be persuaded about a lot of things- that some DMs don't want to tell the stories I do, or create worlds, or have a simulationist system. I can buy that some players want stuff differently, and things that I like might not be important to others. That all makes sense to me. But the OGL is flat out political. When WotC went back on that, it was obvious that something was broken. The OGL also worked like crazy, by the way- 3.X was more successful than 2ed.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Let's be clear: WoW isn't falling to SW:tOR. If WoW is losing subscriptions, it's because it will soon be eight years old. It's ancient by video game standards, and it's miraculous that they're holding onto millions and millions of subscriptions this long. The Old Republic is a great game, but it's not killing WoW. It will benefit from WoW's slow decline, but it won't be responsible for killing it. </blockquote><p>WoW also has changed what they are a lot. They've done this to try to keep current, but inevitably many people will be alienated. But overall, you are correct: the WoW game is considered stale by a lot of the players. I just lost some great guildies to TOR, but they were going to hop on ANY strong MMO that came along next. WoW is still the most massively dominant MMO by some huge margin (an order of magnitude about), so talking about it dying is like talking about fencing dying- it doesn't even make sense. And there's a lot more WoW players than fencers.
<p>Ultimately, 5ed likely has too many people to appeal to. I could be sold on a system without Vancian casting, but I would want SOME FORM of casting, a resource system besides cooldowns. I want the system to not shy away from "at the DM's discretion". I want guidance for better situational bonuses and ideas for cool obstacles and such. I want characters to have different resources. Hard to balance that? Good. That means when it DOES get balanced, that you've done a good job of game design. I want the game to be able to simulate two peasant boys with sticks, and also simulate two gods-a-rumblin, and I want it to be able to do it with less than a million billion die rolls. I want the weapons to be inspired by history, but not somehow make wacky claims- no uber-Falcatas or gods-forbidden spiked chains.</p>
<p>4ed DID ACTUALLY address some of the VERY REAL issue 3.X had. But, to me, the solution was to just shred the system. People asked for a way to balance D&D more than it was, and the only answer that WotC could come up with was a total redesign? Unimpressed!</p>
<p>So I don't know what 5th will do. From the way they are talking, it will probably be much more appealing to me than 4ed. But can it top 3.X? For me, the answer is •probably• going to be no. 3.X and Pathfinder have a bunch of history and such, but there's also the fact that the things Pathfinder have added have been... clever. For instance, look at that Pathfinder Ninja. I think that's the best ninja <i>I have ever seen in any game</i>. And I'm pretty sure Paizo won't ignore their ninja, and release 5 more ninjas inside of a three year period. Even if 5th is a great game, I know they will go back to wizard/cleric/fighter/rogue, and then years later I'll get something else. Maybe. Impress me? Make a game with all the base classes you see yourself needing for three years, from all different cultures, so that everyone knows what the hell you are talking about when you say you are a Whatever of the Black Dragon Clan, or a Psion. I'll have a hard time going to any system without a Pathfinder Summoner available- summoners are now just a thing. They dropped right into three of my worlds, they are amazing.</p>
<p>The "splat reset" always begins with folks telling me that a Wu-Jen is a wizard, a ninja is a rogue, a viking is a fighter, and then within two years everything is different, because those things aren't the same.</p>
<p>But good luck to them on 5th. I'll certainly be watching closely.</p>Oh good, I get to agree with Scott on some stuff:
Quote:I prefer cardboard, full-color tokens for a number of reasons.
1. They adequately represent the monster being used, just as minis do.
2. They are affordable enough that I can literally own a cardboard token of every monster in the books, and multiple copies of many of them.
3. They are extremely easy to store and transport.
Agreed. When I was young, I banned minis (and would almost never use any manner of maps except on "fights that...cfalcon2012-01-14T00:13:59ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: My feelings about 5E D&Dcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nffy&page=3?My-feelings-about-5E-DD#1112012-02-13T05:15:54Z2012-01-13T22:28:24Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Scott Betts wrote:</div><blockquote><p>And it's just totally inconceivable that choosing to draw some inspiration from popular MMORPGs like WoW (which have, of course, drawn their own inspiration from D&D) was a decision made by people working on D&D at <i>WotC</i>?</p>
<p>That strikes you as totally implausible?</blockquote><p>Yes. Or, rather, the clear profit drive removes the agency from anyone at WotC who made that call. When you HAVE to do something, it's not really a decision, and this smells a hell of a lot like that.
<p>There's no reason to make Pen and Paper like MMOs. Hell, MMOs are the knockoffs. Not dissing them, I probably play more MMO than 90% of the folks reading this, but simply put, all the strange MMO rules are in place in an MMO because things HAVE to be specific. You need dust from enchanting, because you can't just specify that someone, somewhere, has the magical stuff you need, etc.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Again, it doesn't strike you that there are legitimate reasons to want to move apps to a web-based platform?</blockquote><p>No.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Totally implausible? I just want to get a sense of whether you considered the possibility before I tell you how it actually is.</blockquote><p>I don't think there is any motivation besides controlling users. An open solution with the best interest of customers (and the community as a whole) would look a hell of a lot different, and would not be tied to servers that will have a vanishingly small chance of lasting out the decade. Tying creative things to crap like that is just a way of trying to make ideas expire, by saddling them with all manner of disgusting baggage.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Except for, y'know, when they shut down their miniatures line and started producing very affordable full-color cardboard tokens instead, right?</blockquote><p>Shutting off a profit-driven product that isn't making profit doesn't make them noble.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>And all this from your magic crystal ball. </blockquote><p>Hey, if fifth rules, then I'll buy it. I bought some 4ed products before it was obvious that it wasn't for me as a DM at all (and is not really for me as a player either, but the mismatch isn't as severe). But I have every reason to believe that Hasbro has shaped and molded the strange shape of 4ed, and not much contrary besides some words about the future. Don't forget those edgy marketing campaigns crapping on everyone with a gnome PC that they actually like, because I guess they had to divide the community to conquer the section that they could? I still don't know what the hell those things were about.
<p>A creative venture can't be answerable to just absolutely everyone. It ends up having the edges filed off, and while you can't accidentally cut yourself by bumping into it, you also can't use it as a tool to shear through the veil of normalcy as easily.</p>
<p>So yea, crystal ball or just paying attention. Look, if they start to make great creative stuff again, then super, Paizo could use some competition :P. There's no reason a big corporation •can't• do that. It's just that many of them won't, don't know how to hold the reins right.</p>Scott Betts wrote:And it's just totally inconceivable that choosing to draw some inspiration from popular MMORPGs like WoW (which have, of course, drawn their own inspiration from D&D) was a decision made by people working on D&D at WotC?
That strikes you as totally implausible?
Yes. Or, rather, the clear profit drive removes the agency from anyone at WotC who made that call. When you HAVE to do something, it's not really a decision, and this smells a hell of a lot like that. There's no...cfalcon2012-01-13T22:28:24ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: My feelings about 5E D&Dcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nffy&page=3?My-feelings-about-5E-DD#1092012-02-13T05:14:38Z2012-01-13T21:48:15Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Scott Betts wrote:</div><blockquote> Good lord, is <i>everyone</i> convinced that Hasbro decides how D&D is played? </blockquote><p>I certainly am. 4ed copied way too much from commercially successful games such as WoW. I'm surprised they don't all have three talent trees. It's too formulaic, too well put together to meet a goal that is arcane. I don't feel that 4ed simulates historical combat, ancestral conditions, or literary fantastical conditions. Way too many MMO concepts to make any sense otherwise. That combined with all manner of weasly performance with online products and server-pushed stuff instead of offline applications, plus the continued push on miniatures (I use little hex grids: our miniatures are sequins from Wal•Mart with smaller sequins on top, and when I draw an outside map, long range is visibly different than medium). So, every profiteering trend that started or was made worse with 3rd continued in 4th, plus tons more.
<p>I am absolutely convinced that Hasbro's presence results in the actual rules minutia being tweaked. The devs over there have metaphorical guns to their heads, and Paizo is still making stuff that is rock and roll and rainbow penis demons. Hell, I took a shot when I saw the incubus got published.</p>Scott Betts wrote:Good lord, is everyone convinced that Hasbro decides how D&D is played?
I certainly am. 4ed copied way too much from commercially successful games such as WoW. I'm surprised they don't all have three talent trees. It's too formulaic, too well put together to meet a goal that is arcane. I don't feel that 4ed simulates historical combat, ancestral conditions, or literary fantastical conditions. Way too many MMO concepts to make any sense otherwise. That combined with all...cfalcon2012-01-13T21:48:15ZRe: Forums: 4th Edition: D&D 5th Editioncfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nefn&page=7?DD-5th-Edition#3482012-01-13T20:46:43Z2012-01-12T18:26:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">bugleyman wrote:</div><blockquote>Ahhh.no. I'm 6' tall, 270lb, and out of shape, but I'd happily bet $10,000 that there is no 3' tall person on the planet that can kick my ass. ;-) </blockquote><p>A compelling case against halfling monks, I'll grant. But if you and some 3 foot tall man were armed with guns? Bows? While size and reach are huge advantages in swordsmanship, I'm betting you wouldn't want to put your life on the line versus some fencing master midget armed with a rapier, even if yours was longer.
<p>I did feel taken aback by 4ed's marketing campaign. Essentially, a lot of the videos <i>told me my games were absurd</i>. That struck me as a damned crazy way to sell a product. Not "this new product rules because" but instead "here's why the old product sucks". It reeked of them realizing that 3.X (which you can transplant anything from 1ed and 2ed directly into, as it's really a revised version of old school stuff- WotC not supporting it isn't important, because a +3 Sword from 1988 still makes sense today) was an actual product of the community, and so they decided to poop on the community to sell you their new closed source product <i>by trying to convince you that the version you are playing has issues</i>.</p>
<p>To top it off, they didn't address any of the things that I wanted them to, and took the game in what was to me, the completely opposite direction. I want more realism faster, not to be told that simulationism isn't the focus. Well, ok, if that's the case it's obviously not a game I'll build a world with. And those spells and cooldowns on martial classes never made a damned lick of sense to me- at least the overpowered 9swords was obviously pulling on a supernatural source of SOMETHING for a lot of its trickery.</p>bugleyman wrote:Ahhh.no. I'm 6' tall, 270lb, and out of shape, but I'd happily bet $10,000 that there is no 3' tall person on the planet that can kick my ass. ;-)
A compelling case against halfling monks, I'll grant. But if you and some 3 foot tall man were armed with guns? Bows? While size and reach are huge advantages in swordsmanship, I'm betting you wouldn't want to put your life on the line versus some fencing master midget armed with a rapier, even if yours was longer. I did feel taken...cfalcon2012-01-12T18:26:33ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: CHArisma is not beautycfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ms7x&page=4?CHArisma-is-not-beauty#1592011-09-03T15:37:38Z2011-09-02T18:30:48Z<p>I don't think anyone is arguing that Charisma straight up implies attractiveness, merely that it is part of it. I would never describe a Cha 6 character as "attractive", and it would be very rare for a Cha 18 character to be "unattractive". Monsters and animals clearly play by their own rules- you aren't going to be sexually attracted to a kraken or a donkey, nor will you find either to be particularly awesome looking depending.</p>
<p>The thing going on here is that physical attractiveness, along with force of personality, the conceptualization of distinguishing yourself from the rest of reality, and a sense of uniqueness, are all wrapped up in this statistic. That's fine, but what I'm seeing here is a lot of "take out the first one, because I want to dump Cha". No. It doesn't work like that.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>How is that any different than "dump Str and Wis if you are a wizard" ?</blockquote><p>It isn't. When a wizard dumps strength, he doesn't have huge muscles, because his Str is low. He can't carry much stuff. He sucks in melee. These are things you might actually LIKE your wizard to not be saddled with, but if you dumping the stat, you are paying the price. Taking attractiveness out of Charisma contrary to the rules lets you have a stat that says "this stat is used to manipulate people and to cast spells if you are some class you are not" to the majority of everyone- an ideal dump stat. Put "oh also if you have an 8 in this stat and you can't look like Cloud" and suddenly people are like, hey, maybe I shouldn't dump that. Much like everyone has to deal with for Con, Str, Dex, Wis, and Int.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>So really, you're just punishing them for having a dump stat. </blockquote><p>Yes. Because everyone is punished for having a dump stat, and this is intended. Cha isn't supposed to be a safe place to dump, just as Wis is not, nor any of the others. You put your score low, you are saying you are less of a person in that area. That might not matter much, but it still matters.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>The problem is your players, and maybe even you if your players see Cha as so subpar as to not use it for anything other than appearance. </blockquote><p>Neither me nor my players has any sort of problem.
<p>The issue is this: if you strip appearance entirely out of Charisma, you are now saying, "this stat is useless unless you intend to roll skill checks with it or cast spells with it". Since every group normally has someone who does one of these things, it's a safe dump stat with no actual meaning for pretty much everyone else. That's silly- no other stat is like that. Thankfully, Charisma ISN'T like that, per, you know, the rules.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Proper social interactions can easily fix that.</blockquote><p>Not if the bard does the talking or what have you. I'm saying, you are looking to remove the one thing Charisma has that you find desirable, such that you can dump it and build a min/maxxed guy. There is simply no way that this is intended.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Considering the lowest you can possibly roll is a 3 and the highest is an 18, I have to question how you represent those scores...</blockquote><p>Bell curve man. Bell curve. You deviate from the average and things get better or worse for you. A 3 Intelligence is definitely retarded. A 3 Charisma is pretty horrible too.
<p>I will say that under 3.5, the "bell curve" portion to the RIGHT of the 10.5 tends to get smooshed out. In 2ed, an 18 Int would be genius, top of human capability- but in 3.5, that same level of intelligence would probably be modelled by a 28 or something. But the 3 is still the same 3.</p>I don't think anyone is arguing that Charisma straight up implies attractiveness, merely that it is part of it. I would never describe a Cha 6 character as "attractive", and it would be very rare for a Cha 18 character to be "unattractive". Monsters and animals clearly play by their own rules- you aren't going to be sexually attracted to a kraken or a donkey, nor will you find either to be particularly awesome looking depending.
The thing going on here is that physical attractiveness, along...cfalcon2011-09-02T18:30:48ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Monks: What is their "role?"cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mqig&page=3?Monks-What-is-their-role#1202011-08-22T23:35:40Z2011-08-22T21:47:26Z<p>Monks punch things in the ding-ding.</p>Monks punch things in the ding-ding.cfalcon2011-08-22T21:47:26ZRe: Forums: Website Feedback: Flag It, Don't Brag Itcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mpz8?Flag-It-Dont-Brag-It#162011-08-18T02:37:24Z2011-08-17T22:28:49Z<p>Threads don't go away, search engines secret them like it's their preciousssss.</p>
<p>I will post in threads that I disagree with- my goal isn't to convince the OP, but it is to show an opposing argument for future readers of the thread. Everyone seems to assume this is a conversation, this internet. That is very far from the truth. This data will likely outlive you- but even if no one cares about it then, over the course of the next months and years, people will find the thread via search engine.</p>
<p>Instead of a conversation, picture that you are talking with a friend at Gencon, only you are speaking over a con-wide intercom, and someone is transcribing it all. That's what this is.</p>
<p>So by all means, disagree publicly instead of pretending something will "die". "Stuff I see at the top of the forum" is relatively transient and unimportant, but the conversation remains etched in digital stone.</p>Threads don't go away, search engines secret them like it's their preciousssss.
I will post in threads that I disagree with- my goal isn't to convince the OP, but it is to show an opposing argument for future readers of the thread. Everyone seems to assume this is a conversation, this internet. That is very far from the truth. This data will likely outlive you- but even if no one cares about it then, over the course of the next months and years, people will find the thread via search
...cfalcon2011-08-17T22:28:49ZRe: Forums: Advice: Holding Threatcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mcmq?Holding-Threat#162011-06-07T06:16:08Z2011-06-06T17:43:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mynameisjake wrote:</div><blockquote>How exactly do you reach the conclusion that the DM ran the encounter appropriately? The OP didn't say what type of creature or creatures were involved, much less how intelligent they were. It seems just as likely that he's trying to deal with a poor DM, as it is that he's dealing with a good one. </blockquote><p>The DM can run the monsters how he likes. OP stated that his issue was not just one encounter, but a recurring thing.
<p>Pretty much anything intelligent will attack AC 14 versus 22, and this should be obvious to any thinking creature, even something at Int 6. I'd agree with you if they are fighting like animals or something and they all go for the easier to hit target unerringly, but we really have no reason to suspect that.</p>
<p>AC 16 boy should probably grab some better armor soonish. AC 16 is a pretty poor AC for anything in the front line, you can get better with just mundane stuff, but these guys are likely really low level and can't get, say, full plate yet.</p>
<p>As an actual tactical suggestion to the OP:</p>
<p>Your friend can delay his action until after both YOU and the TARGET have gone. So YOU get in and attack the target with a charge (or just a move + attack). The target then can move (and take an AoO) to try to reach your AC 16 friend not in melee, or he can just sit and full attack your face. Either option is great for team You. Then, your buddy charges after that attack is gone for the round. It won't help on subsequent rounds, but skirmishes aren't that long.</p>Mynameisjake wrote:How exactly do you reach the conclusion that the DM ran the encounter appropriately? The OP didn't say what type of creature or creatures were involved, much less how intelligent they were. It seems just as likely that he's trying to deal with a poor DM, as it is that he's dealing with a good one.
The DM can run the monsters how he likes. OP stated that his issue was not just one encounter, but a recurring thing. Pretty much anything intelligent will attack AC 14 versus...cfalcon2011-06-06T17:43:10ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What are some things about the Pathfinder rules that you think most people do not know?cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mcmk&page=5?What-are-some-things-about-the-Pathfinder#2372013-09-15T12:36:20Z2011-06-04T09:25:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">wraithstrike wrote:</div><blockquote>1. What does that have to do with cover?</blockquote><p>Cover is meant to indicate something that you are, accidentally or on purpose, hiding behind. Much as someone engaged is a swordfight isn't wildly hacking their buddies, it should be assumed that there are some openings in time during which you can fire at the target and not hit his less important ally in the face.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>2. That is different. The -4 for firing into melee represents you trying to make sure you don't hit your body. The +4 soft cover AC bonus is there to not hit anything between yourself and the target.</blockquote><p>Which might, in fact, be your buddy, so he's counting twice. The person only counts for archery, somehow- he's not there when targetting a spell, or doing anything else. Additionally, you don't actually have a chance to hit this person (be it your friend on an enemy), even if you'd be totally fine with that (line of orcs, for instance).
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>3.Spells that target don't work off of AC so there is no way for cover to affect them. You don't aim the spell unless it calls for an attack roll. You just choose a target creature. </blockquote><p>Yes, of course. But the point is you still need line of sight for most spells, and line of effect, and this is the same logic being used to deny the archer his attack- that sometimes, the person in front of him might block line of sight, or line of effect. Again, it's intended to be a nod to reality, but it's double dipping a penalty on archery, and it mysteriously doesn't apply to anything else you would rationally think that it would.wraithstrike wrote:1. What does that have to do with cover?
Cover is meant to indicate something that you are, accidentally or on purpose, hiding behind. Much as someone engaged is a swordfight isn't wildly hacking their buddies, it should be assumed that there are some openings in time during which you can fire at the target and not hit his less important ally in the face. Quote:2. That is different. The -4 for firing into melee represents you trying to make sure you don't hit your body....cfalcon2011-06-04T09:25:10ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What are some things about the Pathfinder rules that you think most people do not know?cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mcmk&page=4?What-are-some-things-about-the-Pathfinder#1612017-06-21T21:40:19Z2011-06-03T22:04:59Z<p>Force cage has reflex negates.</p>
<p>But by rules, it doesn't negate anything, or affect any creature in the area in any way.</p>
<p>No one knows what happens if you pass the save. Does the spell fail? Can you pass through it? Did you jump out of the way? Where the hell are you on the map now? Can you get that kind of free not-an-action-out-of-turn movement for anything else? If enough casters cast forcecage and you pass every save, can you go faster than light as you chain hop away? It's the Supercasting Supercollider, that accelerates adventurons to arbitrary speeds!</p>Force cage has reflex negates.
But by rules, it doesn't negate anything, or affect any creature in the area in any way.
No one knows what happens if you pass the save. Does the spell fail? Can you pass through it? Did you jump out of the way? Where the hell are you on the map now? Can you get that kind of free not-an-action-out-of-turn movement for anything else? If enough casters cast forcecage and you pass every save, can you go faster than light as you chain hop away? It's the...cfalcon2011-06-03T22:04:59ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Overpowered classes?cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mc6l&page=2?Overpowered-classes#682011-06-04T21:41:02Z2011-06-03T15:24:09Z<p>Since there's a lot of GM-hostility, I'll say this:</p>
<p>Including optional classes like the alchemist, summoner, and magus is a call each GM should make on their own. Most GMs want their players to have a choice of cool options, but allowing stuff outside of core allows for:</p>
<p>1)- Specialties that did not exist in core (definitely in issue is Pathfinder)
<br />
2)- Power creep (not exactly an issue)
<br />
3)- Unfamiliarity with newer abilities
<br />
4)- Broken feats / spells / abilities that need to be houseruled (very much an issue with first printings of Paizo products, but they usually errata them).</p>
<p>If your GM doesn't want you playing a Magus, then that is fine. However, since he already let you PLAY the Magus and the Alchemist, the issue he's mostly running into is not reading the parts of the class that would muck up his game. For instance, if he replaced the alchemy trick that lets you throw multiple bombs in a round with one that let you take a full round action to throw a double strength bomb, he would have made a change that would probably fit better in his game: that would actually reduce the alchemist's top end dpr, while increasing his total damage per day (this is a change I'm considering if I allow the alchemist in my current game world: as he sits, he's really strong versus some of what's supposed to be challenging stuff).</p>
<p>The idea that you are entitled to anything is silly- it's his game world, and if he can't be arsed to design encounters around new things that's his business.</p>
<p>The alchemist has a new niche that we haven't seen before. He has a LOT of bombs, but he also has the ability to blow through them fast, and the bombs aren't limited by anything but energy resistance and maybe being a high level monk with an amazing touch AC, or magic that obscures sight. Since magic that obscures sight is pretty great against every damned thing, I don't know if that enters the discussion. This niche is not everything in the world: the fighter can punch stuff all day long, the wizard can nova with more than just damage, etc.</p>
<p>The fact that the Magus is "MAD" isn't really a downside if your campaign gives you enough actual stats beyond the official 20 point buy. A 25 point buy, or a variant build totally (such as I run) definitely allows him to be great at his three to four stats. However, that's not the strength of the Magus. He has a lot of ability to wail on stuff, but a lot of it is dependent on him actually getting a critical hit. To my mind, that's pretty fair, because plenty of times, the crit won't happen. The Magus fills the fighter-mage roll pretty well, and I'm just not seeing how he's that overpowered compared to a fighter- the fighter hits more, and hits harder when he isn't depositing a spell, is generally harder to hit... I mean, a 3/4 BAB class versus a full BAB class. However, if you only have one encounter a day, yes, the Magus will seem pretty broken, because now he's a fighter and a wizard every round, usually unloading his most powerful spells with every attack. However, he still has weaknesses: out of melee, he's just a wizard with odd spell choices, and in melee he's still very vulnerable to stunts like Disruptive and Step Up.</p>
<p>I would suggest talking with your GM, and try to figure out what he doesn't like about the classes. If your average adventure day is one encounter and rest, then both of these guys (and of course, all the full casters) are going to appear to be a lot stronger than they are designed for- at least, if that encounter is a short one.</p>Since there's a lot of GM-hostility, I'll say this:
Including optional classes like the alchemist, summoner, and magus is a call each GM should make on their own. Most GMs want their players to have a choice of cool options, but allowing stuff outside of core allows for:
1)- Specialties that did not exist in core (definitely in issue is Pathfinder)
2)- Power creep (not exactly an issue)
3)- Unfamiliarity with newer abilities
4)- Broken feats / spells / abilities that need to be houseruled...cfalcon2011-06-03T15:24:09ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Summoner's Eidoloncfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mb2m?Summoners-Eidolon#172014-07-14T20:52:41Z2011-05-28T06:33:17Z<p>This has been answered several times, but it's still a common question.</p>
<p>Augment Summoning <i>emphatically does not</i> boost an Eidolon that is present due to the normal ritual.</p>
<p>Augment Summoning <i>does</i> work for an Eidolon brought out with the Summon Eidolon spell. That's a spell that summons a creature. Note that the Eidolon is much more similar to a normally summoned creature in this case.</p>
<p>Augment Summoning <i>does</i> work with the Summon Monster SLA that Summoners get. Note that in most cases, this is exclusive with the Eidolon (or is intended to be), such that you can only have one out (and the Eidolon is almost always the better choice).</p>
<p>Augment Summoning <i>of course</i> works with the <i>summon monster</i> spells that you can learn as a summoner.</p>
<p>As for houserules, your call. I think the Summoner does not need that sort of help, and it locks up two feats, and scales poorly in the endgame. It's too good at level 1, and pretty lame later for the Eidolon. Note that Spell Focus Conjuration is unusually poor for the Summoner.</p>This has been answered several times, but it's still a common question.
Augment Summoning emphatically does not boost an Eidolon that is present due to the normal ritual.
Augment Summoning does work for an Eidolon brought out with the Summon Eidolon spell. That's a spell that summons a creature. Note that the Eidolon is much more similar to a normally summoned creature in this case.
Augment Summoning does work with the Summon Monster SLA that Summoners get. Note that in most cases, this is...cfalcon2011-05-28T06:33:17ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Ultimate Magic Antagonize featcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8us&page=10?Ultimate-Magic-Antagonize-feat#4612012-05-24T03:36:27Z2011-05-26T15:53:25Z<p>Ok, dismissing Cartigan as a troll, because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>You just know that the 18th level Wizard's contingency is going to be "when antagonized a transformation spell goes off."</blockquote><p>If this feat "goes live", so to speak, with anything close to this intent, then the wizard is going to be one of the ones to push his taunt check as high as he can go. His contingency would be more likely to cast blindness on <i>himself</i> so that he can no longer fulfill the requirements of the feat, but every character worth taunting would find a way to be deaf anyway, based, I can assure you, on survival of the fittest- long term, races on Golarion would not even have ears any more, just a smooth line on their face, a final desperate defense versus this most horrible motif-of-harmful-sensation. Those few that didn't would find themselves sucked off of hidden cliffs and bouncing around like ping-pong balls.
<p>We can keep chattering like this, and I'm sure we will, but we'll probably see a fix within three-ish week, or at least stated intent to fix.</p>
<p>The thread highlights for me have personally been the ability to taunt an unarmed wizard, who runs forward, gets AoOed, then eats a full attack and tripped, then provokes another AoO crawling forward and then eats another full attack, then provokes a final AoO (if not already dead), from the ground, with an unarmed attack. That's great imagery. And it totally compares to +1 to hit with a weapon.</p>
<p>I also really liked the expounding of the cops-and-robbers example above, that's also great.</p>Ok, dismissing Cartigan as a troll, because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
Quote:You just know that the 18th level Wizard's contingency is going to be "when antagonized a transformation spell goes off."
If this feat "goes live", so to speak, with anything close to this intent, then the wizard is going to be one of the ones to push his taunt check as high as he can go. His contingency would be more likely to cast blindness on himself so that he can no longer fulfill the...cfalcon2011-05-26T15:53:25ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Oathbow: Who has to kill the target?cfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2laj7?Oathbow-Who-has-to-kill-the-target#72020-03-14T11:04:15Z2010-09-19T11:38:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kais86 wrote:</div><blockquote> You don't have to be angsty to really want someone dead.</blockquote><p>I KNOOOWwwww but the bow shouts SWIFT DEATH TO THOSE WHO HAVE WRONGED ME in elven when you turn on its feature power, and that bow is TOTALLY in high school.Kais86 wrote:You don't have to be angsty to really want someone dead.
I KNOOOWwwww but the bow shouts SWIFT DEATH TO THOSE WHO HAVE WRONGED ME in elven when you turn on its feature power, and that bow is TOTALLY in high school.cfalcon2010-09-19T11:38:09ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Prestidigitationcfalconhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l99d?Prestidigitation#142012-08-10T08:28:18Z2010-09-09T23:51:46Z<p>Per the rules, you can do exactly what you say in your example. There is no need for consensus.</p>
<p>You can houserule it differently if you don't like prestidigitation. But you don't need to shout or gesture or do anything like that.</p>Per the rules, you can do exactly what you say in your example. There is no need for consensus.
You can houserule it differently if you don't like prestidigitation. But you don't need to shout or gesture or do anything like that.cfalcon2010-09-09T23:51:46Z