kewlpack's page

When you have a whole thread of everyone in unison saying it doesn't work like you say, chances are extremely high it doesn't work like you think.

Understood. I agree. But it comes down to the authority of the available answers. A primary source will always be given more authority than a secondary, tertiary, or quarternary source. Thus, when a designer or specialist (being a primary source) does give a clear answer, it helps so much to alleviate the frustrating debates over varied interpretations that suck the life and fun out of the game session.

We were simply trying to find the definitive statement, and thankfully, we did.

Thanks again folks.

That's kind of insulting to the countless playtesters and designers who were a part of the playtesting. Don't think yourself to be superior. Nobody's perfect.

I agree, Nefreet. No dis or insult intended in any way. I was trying to give an encouraging word to those among us who care about such things, but didn't take the time to participate in the playtesting. We should have jumped in if we really cared that much about it.

Perhaps a future version will have more clear language defining Vital Strike as a standard action.

This is where those of us who are willing to do the deep dive on rules wording and interpretation really need to be a part of the playtesting!

Now - take all that and houserule what you want - if you try to run a game 100% RAW you will go insane. Take what you think makes the most sense and fun - and then go for it - don't be afraid to scale back if you find it's overpowering.

This is kinda where I'm at - focus on what makes the session exciting, interesting, and fun. Running a game well is a balancing act, and every DM and Player will find different things "do it" for them. It's up to those of us who DM to identify what those motivations and gratifications are - and drive the game to those. :)

'ARE' - THANK YOU for pointing us to J.Buhlman's official answer. That's exactly what we needed to know.

Thanks to everyone, including my friend of almost 30 years, Muidnepmoc, for helping to dig the answer(s) up and dive into several interesting ancillary points on game systems in general.

The more powerful and flexible any system is, the more complex it gets (that's the nature of the beast). Complexity will always introduce the chance for conflicts, issues, and misinterpretation... again, nature of the beast.

Appreciate all the interest and effort in helping us find the answers. Posted again here, for those who don't want to wade through the middle of the discussion:

Official Answer on Vital Strike feat

Thanks gang. I appreciate the help.

Hi all -

I'm in a 30-yr long running campaign and we converted to PF a couple of years ago. Now that the gang is getting more familiar with the PF game system, we're running into some problems with some of the wording in the feat, ability, spell descriptions and it's causing some unnecessary conflict. So I'm looking for clear answers if I can find them.

I've trudged through the rules and lots of threads here and elsewhere regarding things like Vital Strike, Attack/Standard actions, action substitution, etc. and players seem to interpret some of these "as-read" rules in very very different ways. In our case, we have players who are getting confused, but do want to abide by a fair interpretation of the rule(s).

It would help SO much if we could get an official Paizo/Pathfinder clarification on at least two things (for now):

1. Take a feat like Vital Attack which reads, "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack..." The language isn't really specific (to some) and can be interpreted at least two ways:

1.a. This Vital Strike is in ADDITION TO the normal available attacks during an attack action.

1.b. This Vital Strike is INSTEAD OF the normal available attacks during an attack action.

Personally, I read it to be as 1.b above: It is one attack INSTEAD OF the normal attacks. It uses up your standard/attack action to accomplish. The character is basically winding up for the biggest smack down possible in a single blow.

However, a couple of others in the group, including the current DM, feels the language is loose enough to mean 1.a above: The attack is IN ADDITION TO the normal attacks. The character hauls off and BOOM, then gets the normal bevy of attacks.

So what's the actual, official intent of that rule wording?

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing with the DM if they want to let me have an extra big attack in front of my normal attacks... but I think that's probably stretching the spirit of the feat's rule/description.

Please advise.

Yeah - if any DM needs to they can probably extrapolate from something like that pretty easily.

I'm still waiting for B4 to arrive at my local game store... On a positive note, I did get the Gargantuan Green Dragon (from LoG mini set) - last one anywhere around here. w00t!

Yeah - Jeager/Jager are colossal robot/mecha. I suppose you could use Clockwork construct rules to get there.

In our 30-year old campaign we have something just like this that we created in the early 80's "The Mighty Servant of Leuk-O" which took 2 people to run it. Once inside, you were trapped there forever and had to control the machine.

Nasty... devastating... and impossible to "kill".

I'd cast a vote for an intermediate volume dedicated to the wide array of dragons... (yes, a "Draconomicon", or "Encyclopedia Draconum", or "Ultimate Dragons") and taking the iconic monster a little further with ready-to-use dragons at 5, 10, 15, 20, and Epic levels for every known type as well as variants or subtypes and templates. Include sections on lairs, lore, and legends. Etc.

Just ideas and examples of course.

I already love the variety of dragons we have in the various core bestiaries now, but it would be soooo handy to have it all in one volume.

I admit... I'm a total sucker for all things dragon.

Got my three PDFs just fine.

See - told ya they'd have the lights back on soon. I didn't expect five minutes later! But hey - I'll take it. :)

Hey ya Paizo!

I also ordered $40+ worth of various PDF downloads last night, and was gonna read up on some monster-ish stuff for an upcoming campaign. Surprise, the downloads site was down. I said to myself, "Hmmm... bummer. Must be an outage. I'll just check back tomorrow."

Checked a few minutes ago, and obviously it's down. From what you guys have posted, this is a nasty outage

You know what... it doesn't bother me at all. I'm a tech lead and senior developer - and have had to deal with fixing chaos just like this. I know all too well what you're going through... and appreciate it.

I know you guys will get 'er up and runnin' soon. This stuff takes time and CAREFUL attention to detail so you don't have to rebuild things more than once. I'd rather you take the time to get it right.

Besides, it's unlikely anyone's campaign or session is genuinely in jeopardy while we wait for our PDFs. In the meantime, we can always refer to my favorite rule which basically says "when in doubt, improvise".

Love the PF RPG products and all the ways you've revived the d20 system for us old timers.

FWIW, I'm involved with a 30+ year long campaign (been going since 1979), and about a year ago I moved the whole group to Pathfinder! w00t. I just finished redrawing our 30 year old world maps in full color (Photoshop). They were all simple pencil-drawn maps and needed a full re-imagining. I set 'em up online so we wouldn't lose 'em to old age! If ya wanna see (World of Timnath Map).

Sorry for blathering! Looking forward to much much more from Paizo! When things go sideways - as they are likely to do - we know you'll take care of it.

-KP