I purchased the iPad 2 today (yay!) and loaded up the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. iBooks renders the pages of the PDF considerably faster than version 1, and the viewing quality is clearer -- which I hadn't anticipated. Loading the chaptered version of the book (multiple PDFs) adds to the speed of loading also. Call me a happy gamer. :-)
Shadow_of_death wrote: everything your suggesting is what the rogue class is doing, obviously ninja needs its own ruleset to really be a concept If it had it's own ruleset, that completely fleshed out and supported the fact that it is a straight up "Ninja", I'd be all for it; but, as is, I'm being presented something that is evocative in very specific ways yet is intended to be open-ended and applicable to all. It's niche; recognize it as such, address it as such and run with it. Otherwise, don't invite the stigma of predetermined view without a truly compelling reason for doing so. If the class was named something... I don't want to say, "more appropriate", but that's what I mean... then there would be much more fruitful discussion about the balance, mechanics and implementation as opposed to the discourse regarding Japanese-ness and all of the ridiculousness thereof. Honestly, those conversations will never end (and they could have been/can be wholly avoided).
Shadow_of_death wrote: okay so instead of having people pretend their class is a ninja, why not oh idk pretend the ninja is something else? It's a majority thing... are most people going to be pretending their Ninja is "something else" or pretending that their [insert less-connotative class name here] is a "Ninja"? Quote: you claim its because of pre-conceived notions, but if people already have such fantastical views on ninjas then why wouldn't they be put into a fantasy game? I'm simply stating that, in my opinion, utilization of the term "ninja" seems to be more trouble than it's worth; forever being a point of contention in the game. Quote: At a point being generic doesn't net good enough results. What good results are netted by the specificity of Ninja as opposed to the openendedness of something else?
I see LOT'S of discussion and dissent regarding the names chosen for the new classes in UC, especially the Ninja. I tend to agree with the dissent, Ninja is just odd and too connotative for most people's games (my own included). Should just be called Skulk, or something equally evocative of someone who works from the shadows. The class could be a "ninja" in every manner but name; would be easier to swallow (if not widely received with open arms and a welcoming party). I've seen many attempts to assuage the resistance, but I wonder why the powers that be insist upon fighting such an uphill battle. If it looks like a Ninja, acts like a Ninja and fills the role of a Ninja, I don't think that those who have desperate need for a Ninja will mind using a class with a different moniker. Many are quick to say "we already have that archetype covered" when people request specifics, but these seem to be the same people that are so avidly defending the Ninja despite its specificity. The vast majority of gamers have no knowledge or previous understanding of what a Paladin was in history, or what role a Bard truly played, etc. The archetype of these classes is solely shaped by the game, and they are loose enough that the imagination of character creation is afforded a tremendous amount of breathing room. With the name Ninja, there is an unbelievable amount of baggage and pre-existing belief systems surrounding the term. Why insist upon trying to change those understandings for the sake of pastime? Who wants to play the class and constantly defend why it is that their character isn't a "Ninja" as is understood by the general populace? I've already seen statement by a Paizo official in another thread that lucidly explained that the name Ninja is here to stay, despite the feelings of those that support the game, so I digress. I dunno though, perhaps it's just the fact that Ninja and Samurai are appearing in the same expansion? Too much, too soon? Can we not be polled on the matter?
I'm simply not engaged by the concept. It doesn't do anything special, doesn't really bring anything to the game that was previously lacking, and feels like a re-hash of stuff we've already seen with a different color paint job (that isn't particularly shiny or new). Like Kegluneq said, it does what it proposes it does; and that's about it. Overall... meh.
Having recently stumbled into the awesomeness that is Pathfinder, I wish to express my unsolicited opinion on the inevitable addition of psionic capabilities to the ruleset. Please, please, PLEASE do not do "that thing" where psionics are their own variant experience that piggybacks on the core mechanic of the game. I'm not opposed to psionics, though I'm not a huge fan, but I'd find the concept much more palatable if it didn't include some clunky/odd rules addition to the 500+ page rulebook I've already endeavored to master. As an aside, if psionics could be addressed with a medieval-ish flavor that would be greatly appreciated. The pseudo-science textbook treatment it was given in D&D editions of the past really distracted from the fantasy of my games. Given that Pathfinder is a fresh and new take, I urge the powers that be to do something fresh and new with the possibilities. Powers and flavor that resemble mysterious, if not alien magics and an execution that does not deviate from the established mechanic. ... Yeah, I'd buy it!
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree!
Set wrote:
My own typo. I caught the modifier change and reduction in hp, I just failed to update the hp part. :-P Quote: PFRPG (the core book) p 145 has a weapon damage chart that modifies die types for larger or smaller weapons, and that's what I use for creature damage types when they change sizes as well. 1d4 at size Small would turn to 1d3 at size Tiny. Note that the Str bonus becomes a Str penalty, so the bite is for 1d3-1. I see it now. Quote:
This is where I get lost...
HaraldKlak wrote:
Quick reply! Thanks. :) I guess I'm just missing where to reference the baseline for the stats so I could see how the template would impose itself upon CMB, CMD and the skills...
I'm excited! I'm preparing to play a Witch in my first Pathfinder campaign and I'd like to get a second opinion on the math I performed while converting the Dog in Bestiary 1 to a Fox familiar (as per the instructions given in the Advanced Player's Guide pg. 70). The original Dog (Bestiary 1 pg. 87):
The applied template (Bestiary 1 pg. 295):
The final product:
Yes? No? Where do I reference the proper reduction of damage dice? Many thanks in advance! |