hazardjsimpson's page

Wraithstrike, I understand your frustration. In fact, I know which thread you're talking about.

I feel your pain, and I want you to know that I'm here for you.

/brofist

I'm right there along with you both, I started reading that mess over on EN before it migrated here. My face has a permanent palm print on it now, I swear.

Hey there folks,

I want to come out and state something here. We are putting out a fair amount of rules content and I think its safe to say that not every piece is going to suit every player or GM. That is only natural. To say that we should not spend time on a system that you don't like though is a bit short sighted.

We need to explore the rules, to push boundaries and to look in new directions. If you just want more of what you already have, you will not be disappointed. You are going to get new spells and feats and class options. As Lead Designer, I have decided that a part of each of our books is going to be spent exploring new ground. This is important for the game to grow and evolve. You are not going to fall in love with every one of these expansions, but its your game and that's ok. You can choose not to use it.

Lets just not get upset about a system that not taking up a huge footprint in this book.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I totally agree, either you like it and use it or don't - don't hate on the designers for trying something new-ish with the system. You guys put a LOT of work into Pathfinder, and I for one am thankful. The d20 system has really come a long way with Paizo, and it's never looked or run better, IMO.

On the flip side, I personally would have preferred to see a Spell Point system come into play, because mechanically it fits the system better. GURPS has used a 'word based' magic system for about 20 years now (GURPS Magic book has exensive rules on it) and it fit REALLY well...in GURPS. I think it's ballsy to try this in what is really a fairly rigid system (d20) and I'm interested in seeing how well it pulls off. So far, the rules seem really kludgy, which I would expect when trying to fit such levels of customization into the d20 template, but this egg ain't done cooking yet, ;)

Kudos on your good work guys, keep it up.

I just want to say that as a roleplayer of over 20+ years, this discussion frankly amazes me. If you're such a giant rules lawyer that you're not willing to buy product because of ERRATA, please - leave the room, and quickly. You're not the kind of customer who will EVER be happy, and will ALWAYS find something to b#&%~ about, because that's the kind of person you are. 20+ years of RPG experience and over 15+ in IT/Support has proven that factoid time and time again - some people just can't be pleased.

The 'rule' of RPG games is common sense. That's spelled out in most RPG books, many websites, forums, etc. 'These rules are a guideline' sound familiar? More of my rules systems than not have NEVER been errata'd , faq'd, or whatever. yet, we always managed to make it work. Funny that.

As mentioned before, for a world-wide living play system, yes, there needs to be consistency in rules, etc. But most of you on here whining aren't playing that way, so it's a straw man mostly.

Go back to the days when RPG books were often shoddy, went thru multiple revisions, and when there was no internet to FAQ or errata or product. If you're incapable of playing without those resources, you're a crappy player, DM, or whatever - but you're flat out missing the proper mental tools for this kind of game anyway. If a type on a chart or mis-spelling or vague rules are your bane, go back to Warcraft or Settlers of Catan.

I love pathfinder, and the books are consistently better than anything else I've played across decades. I don't expect perfection, being bad-ass is enough for me. :)

Just reading amulet of Mighty Fists...

`This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.`

So basically if I bought a Holy , Flaming, Frost, Shock (+5) amulet, and then I cast Greater Magic Fang, would the two stack (thus giving me a +5 enchant bonus and all of the benefits of the amulet)

Thanks guys!

Umm, can I go out on a limb and say probably? :D

The problem I've found with MF or GMF is that it requires you to specify what 'natural weapon' you're casting it on. It specifically in the spell description says 'fists' as an example - indicating that casting the spell would require you to specify whether you get the bonuses to your Fists, Feet, Head, Elbows, etc.

Argument that the Improved Unarmed feat would make the whole body a weapon is offset by the fact that Improved Unarmed moves your strikes away from the 'natural attack' category.

Any thoughts on this? I personally feel that the limited in GMF to specifying each weapon you cast it on to be both accurate (in the case of claw / bite / tail attacks) and incredibly stupid (in the case of a Monk say, who uses their whole body as a weapon as a matter of training). The problem is that this limitation re-introduces the whole 'which attack in my Flurry am I using for my bonuses' question.

It also lends to the question of 'Why should Monks / Martial Artists have to pay to enchant hands / feed / head seperately at huge costs when Magic Weapons are cheaper?'

It seems that the elegant solution would be to say that MF and GMF add their bonuses to one TYPE of attack -- i.e. Bite, Claw, Unarmed, etc. This also overcomes the problem where I've seen people argue that you need to cast GMF on each CLAW in cases where it lists 2 claw attacks, etc. That's just not right -- NATURAL attack for an animal is to use it's CLAWS, right? I doubt a bear for example thinks in terms of Left and Right Claw being different attacks.

Anyway.... /rant. :) Any thoughts?