nthrun5000's page

14 posts (57 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS


Deadmanwalking wrote:

nthrun5000:

I think the issue is that you're comparing being trans* to things like, oh, necrophilia. Which is not a flattering comparison in the least, especially given the fact that actual necrophilia is highly immoral by most reasonable moral codes in almost all cases (which is not true at all of being trans*). And necrophilia being a sexual kink/orientation (more or less)...which being trans* is rather definitively not. Now, I didn't see all your other posts, but if the compared being trans* to similar things, it's no wonder people were less than thrilled.

In short, being trans* really isn't comparable to at least some of the things you're comparing it to, and doing so misrepresents being trans* in an extremely unpleasant and inaccurate fashion. Not all minority groups are equal or readily comparable. So please stop doing that kind of comparison between those that aren't.

I can understand how it could be perceived as offensive. It is not my intention to belittle trans* people.

Whether necrophilia is immoral or not is beside the point when concerning the game. Characters and NPCs can be of nine different alignments, 3 of them evil.Expanding the game to include a larger variety of real world culture makes the game more interesting. I love digging through history, anthropology and ethnography to add new cultures and people to my game.

Isn't it funny that starting in 3.0 we had man-to-dragon prestige classes and now, over 15 years later, a designer posts rules for male-to-female alchemical items?


I'm really happy that Paizo is representing trans* people in its game and stories. I hope that in the future Paizo will widen its thinking and embrace other life styles too.

The Human Being is an extreme and vast thing. Does any species on our planet have more variation? Why wouldn't we want our roleplaying games to incorporate this vastness of human culture?

The Pathfinder roleplaying game (and 3.5 before it), embraced a large number of transitional paths. Man to Machine/Plant/Dragon/Undead/Fairy/Unicorn and probably some other prcs I'm forgetting.

I was really surprised to see the extreme nature in some recent books, like Occult Mysteries including body dysmorphia options through the Agonizing Obedience feat. Or even the Demonic Obedience to Orcus requiring a character to perform necrophilia (Perhaps we'll get non-evil necrophilia content in the future).

I am all for the inclusion of extreme, unusual or out of the ordinary lifestyles being a part of the game.

I do not mean to offend anyone by comparing these things to transgenderism. I would hope trans* people, given all the discrimination they face, would be willing to support other marginalized communities too. Marginalized communities that must remain unnamed, apparently.

I am not trolling.


Komoda wrote:

Can a mount ready actions? Do you tell it to wait until a specific trigger happens? Can the mount even tell what that trigger is? If not, how could the mount ever ready an action that you describe?

For instance, "I ready a charge to attack the first dwarf that comes through the door." Wouldn't it basically be impossible to identify, ready, dwarf and door to the mount without actually talking to it?

I think it is completely illogical to believe that the mount does anything other than what you tell it to, when you tell it to do so. This would then make it impossible for the mount to ready an action that you describe. Which would make it impossible for the Rhino Charge to take place on your command, if the mount was required to have declared the ready action, which finally, makes the need for the mount to have the ability/feet pointless.

Yeah, getting around a mounts limited intelligence is easy enough, just boost its intelligence when it reaches 4HD. This also gets around any need to use Handle Animal, which is nice.

As for what you can and can't specify as a trigger for a readied action. For example, lets say the mount has Rhino's Charge. Can the trigger be "when my rider whistles" or "when my rider says charge"


my two cents on the topic:

1. Make a new weapons by size chart, make it thorough, from Fine to Colossal. Do not allow dice sizes to exceed the chart. Have it cap off. Size increases, shapeshifting, it can get pretty absurd, pretty quickly.

2. Change Improved Natural Attack to be identical to the new size chart. Don't have INA and the size chart in contradiction like they are in 3.5


Maybe it also affects Bloatmages and their capstone to gain Bloodlines? Would a bard/bloatmage no longer gain new spells known, unless they were already on the Bard list?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the FAQ ruling affects the Rage Prophet PRC

"At 2nd level and every even level thereafter, a rage prophet learns an additional spell from his spirit guide. These spells are in addition to those listed in Table: Oracle Spells Known. Like spells from an oracle’s mystery, the rage prophet cannot exchange these spells for different spells at higher levels. The rage prophet must be able to cast oracle spells of the listed level to learn one of these spells from his spirit guide. The rage prophet treats the spell as an oracle spell of the listed level. The possible spells are arcane eye (4th), augury (2nd), divination (4th), dream (5th), find the path (6th), helping hand (3rd), see invisibility (2nd), shadow walk (6th), speak with dead (3rd), spectral hand (2nd), spiritual weapon (2nd), unseen servant (1st), vision (7th), and whispering wind (2nd)."

Note that it never uses the term "spell list". It also doesn't fall under the category of a class modifying its own spells known, since the Rage Prophet PRC modifies the Oracle list. Most of the spells are already on the Oracle list, but Spectral Hand isn't.

There could be other PRCs out there that have similar problems.


Yes! Yes! Yes! FAQ! FAQ! FAQ!

Some dissenters might say "Pathfinder is oriented around medium PCs, you shouldn't need charts beyond that!"

Rebuttals
1. DUNGEON MASTERS NEED IT
2. Druids and Animal Companions need this clarification
3. Wizards/Sorcerers need it for a wide variety of Polymorphing spells
4. Summoners can have huge Eidolons before buffing, these eidolons can sometimes wield weapons.
5. Melee classes can choose to use inappropriately sized weapons at penalty.
6. Telekensis
7. The Impact Weapon Quality
8. Improved Natural Attack


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stome wrote:

I am really getting tired of this over use of extremely vague terms like "niche" "concept" "not distinct enough" and so on without even trying to attempt to define the terms you us.

Its a common tactic used when someone is trying to push their opinion as fact and its pretty easy to see though.

You don't like it that's fine. Don't buy/use it. But trying to pretend that you not liking it makes it factually bad/wrong/poor is low brow at best.

Ah, that's a fair point. I work as an art critic for a newspaper and I'm in the habit of writing my subjective opinions as objective descriptions (as a matter of the newspapers' style guidelines). I tend to cut out "It's my opinion" or "I think that" or other such phrases that would indicate I understand my opinion to be subjective and not fact.

But I think my examples in regards to niches and concepts are clear enough. A rogue and slayer overlap the same niche. As a matter of design principle, I think adding fewer classes and supporting the existing classes is a better way to provide options. These classes have portions that are backwards and forwards compatible with non-hybrid classes (spell lists, most importantly!). But in the end, they will undoubtedly get less support than non-hybrid classes. A future supplement writer designing an archetpye will be way more likely to write a Rogue or Ranger archetype than a Slayer archetype.

3.5 had a bunch of base classes that received little to no support beyond their initial publications (Hex Blade, Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Healer, Spirit Shaman, Marshal, etc). Because of that, many of them rarely see use (if they do, its likely a dip). If Sorcerer's and Bloodrager's select from the same set of Bloodlines, I bet the Bloodrager will see more use and therefore be a better product (in my opinion).


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading the playtest, here's my initial responses- broken into 3 main topics.

Fail to Create new Niches: Other new classes in PF have offered unique niches not filled by existing classes (Bombs for the Alchemist, Summoners with their single bound unique monster, Magus combining fighting and casting into a smooth system). These new classes extrapolate on existing classes and fail to fit into their own unique spots. In a campaign, an NPC slayer won't seem too different than an npc rogue. The only class which seems to have a unique niche in the playtest is the bloodrager. This leads me into the next problem.

Unnecessarily Reiterating Old Content: A slayer doesn't seem to different than a rogue or ranger because it reprints a ton of existing material. The biggest offender though are the slightly adjusted and reprinted Bloodrager Bloodlines, Shaman Spirits and War Priest Blessings. These classes reprint a ton of existing content, in a slightly new package. Take a look at "Slayer's Finesse", Slayer's can select Weapon Finesse as a Talent. What a waste of text space! Just indicate a bonus feat list, quickly and cleanly.

Diluting Support for other Base Classes: Many of the new base classes (I'm thinking Oracle, Witch, Cavalier, Summoner) are under supported when compared to the original base classes in the Core Rule Book. There are way more Cleric Domains than Witch Patrons for example. It's a shame these new hybrid classes aren't "backwards compatible" offering new options to the classes they hybridize. More disappointing the new hybrid classes aren't "forwards compatible", meaning that if a future book publishes a new Sorcerer Bloodline, it won't be compatible with the Bloodrager, unless a special blood rager variant is also presented.


Good to see the errata, with no save the ability is too powerful. Unfortunately with a save on it, it becomes fairly lack luster. You've spent a discovery for something Wizards and Sorcerer's get as a spell. Anyway, better to err on the weaker side than the more powerful one.


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I'm making this thread in hopes that we can get an official ruling on weapon size damage. Dozens of threads have pointed out the inconsistency between the Bestiary's natural attack by size chart and the Improved Natural Attack feat. No chart for weapons for huge and bigger creatures exists in general. Here are the two charts for natural attacks.

Universal Monster Rules Natural Attack Chart
1>1d2>1d3>1d4>1d6>1d8>2d6>2d8>4d6

Improved Natural Attack Feat
d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
And
1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

Now the inconsistencies are from 2d6 to either 2d8 or 3d6. And then 2d8 either increases 4d6 or 3d8.

Before anyone says "Use both, depending on where the damage step comes from", there is a problem with order of operations, which increases to apply first. Example: Form of the Dragon III gives a 2d8 bite. If I've got Improved Natural Attack, but also the Impact weapon quality, the bite either deals 6d6 or 4d8 depending on the order of application.

Solution? Make a single chart to handle all weapon damage increases, put it in the Errata. Alternatively, indicate an order of operations, which would make things clear but more convoluted.


BYC wrote:
Mechanically speaking, it's stronger to start a grapple but not to maintain it. The grappled foes can't fight at full effectiveness, if they actually break, it uses up it's standard action, leaving only a move. Next round, the eidolon repeats. In effect, the eidolon is applying a strong debuff every round in addition to the damage dealt.

Yeah, I guess i found it alarming to my 3.5 sensibilities that I would voluntarily give up my grapple. I think it can still be effective, if i really want to lock down an opponent I could move to pin on the second round.

At higher levels (Assuming i took these feats/evolutions) i could do something like the following. (Lets assume I've got 3 heads, 3 bites)

Round 1
-Standard Attack Bite+Grab+Constrict
-Move Action Greater Grapple to Pin+Constrict
-Swift Action to Rapid Grapple to Tie Up with rope+Constrict
Round 2
-Free Action? Swallow Whole+Constrict
-Repeat Round 1

Or if I was wanting to hit lots of foes I could do this.
Round 1
-Full Attack+Grab+Constrict
Round 2
-Free Action drop Grapple
-Full Attack+Grab+Constrict

Or I could do this.
Round 1
-Full Attack+Grab+Constrict
Round 2
-Free Action Swallow Whole+Constrict all Grabbed creatures.
-Any number of other things.

Do these 3 scenarios seem right?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

These feats need some Errata.

1. Final Embrace is a redundant feat for any creature which already has constrict (as the Universal Grab ability works on creatures of the same size as of Bestiary2). I suggest the next two feats in the chain have their prereqs adjusted so as to not make Final Embrace a prereq when it is redundant for the creature (3.0 this would be legal, under Sword and Fists idea of Virtual Feats)

2. Final Horror should state whether you can stack this effect, moving up the chain of fear conditions shaken/frightened/panicked. I assume currently you can with RAW.

3. Final Embrace Horror and Final Embrace master both require Ability Focus(Constrict). Constrict isn't a legal option for Ability Focus, since it does not have a DC. If this was meant as a "feat tax" as suggested in another thread, it should at least be a legal feat option.

Am I missing anything here? Or has there been any ruling on these matters?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alright, I've searched the boards and I see this has been talked over a few times, with different results.

Lets say my eidolon has 3 bite attacks, and the Grab quality. My eidolon full attacks, and grabs 3 different enemies. On its next turn, can it as a standard action, maintain those 3 grapples? Or would it only be allowed to continue the grapple on a single opponent(the grapple rules would seem to indicate this). Does the option to "simply to use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty" allow it to grab/grapple multiple opponents.

What does seem clear is that it could full attack, grab multiple enemies, and then at the beginning of its next action, drop the grapples as a free action, full attack/grab and repeat this each round.

Any official consensus on this?