dpnorton82's page

Noticeably faster than the first gen iPad?

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?

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!

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):
DOG CR 1/3 ANIMAL/URBAN/TEMPERATE
XP 135
N Small animal
Init +1; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +8
DEFENSE
AC 13, touch 12, flat-footed 12 (+1 Dex, +1 natural, +1 size)
hp 6 (1d8+2)
Fort +4, Ref +3, Will +1
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft.
Melee bite +2 (1d4+1)
STATISTICS
Str 13, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
Base Atk +0; CMB +0; CMD 11 (15 vs. trip)
Feats Skill Focus (Perception)
Skills Acrobatics +1 (+9 jumping), Perception +8, Survival +1
(+5 scent tracking); Racial Modifiers +4 Acrobatics when
jumping, +4 Survival when tracking by scent
ECOLOGY
Environment any
Organization solitary, pair, or pack (3–12)
Treasure none

The applied template (Bestiary 1 pg. 295):
Young Creature (CR –1)
Creatures with the young template are immature specimens of the base creature. You can also use this simple template to easily create a smaller variant of a monster. This template cannot be applied to creatures that increase in power through aging or feeding (such as dragons or barghests) or creatures that are Fine-sized.
Quick Rules: +2 to all Dex-based rolls, –2 to all other rolls, –2 hp/HD.
Rebuild Rules: Size decrease by one category; AC reduce natural armor by –2 (minimum +0); Attacks decrease damage dice by 1 step; Ability Scores –4 Strength, –4 Con, +4 size bonus to Dex.

The final product:
FOX FAMILIAR
N Tiny animal
Init +3; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +8
DEFENSE
AC 15, touch 15, flat-footed 12 (+3 Dex, +0 natural, +2 size)
hp 6 (1d8+0)
Fort +4, Ref +3, Will +1
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft.
Melee bite +2 (1d4+1)
STATISTICS
Str 9, Dex 17, Con 11, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
Base Atk +0; CMB +0; CMD 11 (15 vs. trip)
Feats Skill Focus (Perception)
Skills Acrobatics +1 (+9 jumping), Perception +8, Survival +1
(+5 scent tracking); Racial Modifiers +4 Acrobatics when
jumping, +4 Survival when tracking by scent

Yes? No? Where do I reference the proper reduction of damage dice?

Many thanks in advance!