swoosh's page

1,711 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,711 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Helmic wrote:
I'm dead serious when I say it took my players hours to create level 1 characters for Doomsday Dawn, while I'm consistently able to help rush out level 5 martial characters in 20 minutes or less in 5e.

20 minutes sounds really slow for a first level 5e character. Really slow.

Midnightoker wrote:
It's not a matter of lack of experience, or even a fault in the system. We take our time, we joke and catch up, we rummage for feats and concepts.

Well yeah, but there's a serious difference between it taking someone two hours to make a character and someone spending two hours making a character because they're talking over concepts and hanging out with their friends.

I've spent hours talking character ideas in a simple d6 game before. That doesn't mean simple d6 is a game that takes hours to make a character in, however.

You're basically talking two entirely different activities.


I'm trying to figure out what the OP wants out of this thread. It's ostensibly an advice thread about a character with a really high attack bonus causing problems, but almost all of his replies just seem to be dismissive or mocking toward pretty much everything anyone else in the thread has suggested or thought. What was the goal here?

Hell, maybe the root problem here isn't the OP's houserules or the player's attempts to optimize or core failings of the systems, but this general attitude as a whole.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

In the first half of your post you argue that someone specialized and optimized will have a decent chance of succeeding at a task while someone who isn't has almost nonexistent chances of succeeding at 'genuine challenges'.

In the last half of your post you argue 5e is better at allowing experimentation because you have a decent chance to succeed at tasks you aren't actually optimized or built to handle.

So which is it?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Trigger Loaded wrote:

Are you assuming that there are developers and writers that deliberately make an option crappy? What do you assume, that they cackle to themselves, thinking about how this will punish those foolish players that don't take the game as seriously as they do? I'm curious as to what you think their motives are.

As everyone has said, I am quite certain that nobody sets out to make a crappy character option.

I mean, there are people on this very forum who argue that certain things should intentionally be weaker for flavor or technical reasons. Why would we assume that it's impossible for designers to ever feel the same?

When PF was new, crossbow feat support was intentionally inferior to bows because crossbows simply weren't supposed to be your primary weapon.

There are archetypes built with NPCs in mind that appear to intentionally be limiting to discourage PCs from using it themselves.

All the way back in OD&D the magic user was intentionally designed to be weak and unfun at lower levels to create a sort of rite of passage for eventual power later on.

I'm not sure why you think it's so impossible some people might still think that way.

Do you just assume that all this stuff is just the product of incompetence? If so that's pretty insulting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:


They're basic common sense to anyone that spent 5 minutes looking up things on google and doesn't base their knowledge of weapons and armor on RPGs.

And if you spend more than 5 minutes you'll realize the OP isn't even right on some of his complaints. Terms like 'arming sword' and 'longsword' were frankly pretty historically diverse in what they've been used to describe. The term 'long sword' has even been used to describe weapons like rapiers.

The ironic thing is that for all of the OP's complaining about sword names being applied arbitrarily or incorrectly, modern sword nomenclature is pretty much just that to begin with.


Making conversions easy would be nice, but being too concerned about backwards compatibility is what gave us the most broken and messy book Paizo has ever printed: The CRB.

So hopefully Paizo doesn't get scared away from innovation too easily.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

OP's not wrong, per JJ's own quote. If someone has issues with alignment. The 'right solution' is to stop using alignment. Trying to tell them that they're wrong or argue to the contrary is not 'responsible and mature' as 'the only person who gets to decide if something is insulting is the person being insulted by it.'

And well, the OP alone qualifies as at least one person insulted by Pathfinder's alignment system.

That's as much an argument for JJ's position being absurd and draconian than one in favor of the OP, but JJ's the creative lead for this game.


whew wrote:
The 3-actions-per-turn part looks more like the "revised action economy" in Pathfinder Unchained than Starfinder.

That Starfinder did nothing about action economy is probably my least favorite thing about this system.


Samy wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Posting in a discussion thread when you don't actually want to discuss things is pretty goofy tho.
No it's not when the thread specifically asked you to answer a question.

Sure it is, but more power to you if that's how you want to do things.


There are a lot of things I wouldn't mind being imported from SF as long as they weren't replacing things from PF.

Universal archetypes would be okay in a world where regular archetypes don't go away, for instance.

Bulk sucks though.

I'm not a huge fan of the way SF does equipment either. Trading in your gun every other level for a newer model doesn't feel right. PF's Christmas tree and piles of similar-yet-inferior options aren't much better though.

I'd like to see a system that better promotes or at least allows for personalized equipment. In fiction a lot of characters will have 'their' weapon that they stick to or only replace maybe once or twice across an adventure and it'd be nice if you could pull that off too.

Samy wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Why?
I'm not interested in getting into a debate. That's what I want, and I'm not interested in playing verbal dueling to justify what I want. I answered the question posed by this thread.

Posting in a discussion thread when you don't actually want to discuss things is pretty goofy tho.

technarken wrote:


2. For the love of God don't pare weapons down to a handful of weapons that are all basically the same, just with more dice tacked on.

As opposed to PF's system where you have dozens of weapons that are all just worse versions of the one everyone uses?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Thing From Another World wrote:

The first I will probably never take especially if I don't have access to either or skill. The second is not tied to any skill and worth taking for everyone.

Not really though, since feats are a huge premium in 5e and for most of your character's life your 'quality' options are pretty much already set in stone.

And that's assuming you even get to take them at all.


Lady-J wrote:
readied actions are preping for a thing you think might happen but isn't necessarily going to happen its different then knowing out of character some one will do something because their player said that was their action then actively taking steps in game to counter act the action that hasn't taken place yet just because some one stated their intent to do a thing

So your assertion here is that the only thing you need to do to earn a surprise round in Pathfinder is to declare an action before anyone else does?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YogoZuno wrote:
No...the only part of the combo that is covered by that ruling is combining spikes and bashing.

Which is what was being discussed in the section I referenced.

Quote:
And even if THEY don't combine

There's no if. They don't combine.


The debate about complexity has ramped up but it's certainly not THAT new.

What I find interesting though is the way the bar has shifted. D&D/PF for the longest time was often considered toward the middle or even on the easy end of tabletops in terms of one's ability to pick up and play.

But in the last couple years this sentiment that it's unapproachably complex has suddenly started to take hold instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YogoZuno wrote:


Honestly, I'd be happiest if this was ruled to NOT work, as it breaks adventures to have a guy doing so much damage on top of static modifiers, with a flurry, for such a small cost.

It was ruled not to work. Literally second post of this thread links to an FAQ that says it doesn't work.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
but at the very least you're going to have connections to other people in the organization just from taking levels in the class.

Potentially, but there's nothing in the PrC that really guarantees that any more or less than anyone else playing any other class.

So that's not really a boon for the PrC at all.


Gallant Armor wrote:
The requirement to interact with the spell makes this clear that you don't get a save just by hearing the sound.

If that were true this thread wouldn't exist.


graystone wrote:

Shattered Star Players Guide

Pathfinder Chronicles: Faction Guide

Sort of an interesting situation here.

Are there any other examples of PFS directing players to ignore reprints? Usually if a rule gets updated in a new book that supersedes the previous version.


Andrew Phillips wrote:
Yes, Archives of Nethys is that much better.

Except when it goes radio silence on updates, which it has a tendency to do.

Seriously took them over a year to get the vigilante up.

Also can be pretty clunky to search through.


outshyn wrote:
I think an argument could be made that since the caster hadn't yet had his turn, anyone ahead of him in initiative shouldn't have had anything to react to.

That is sort of the weirdness with this scenario. If the spellcaster trying to cast Charm is the start of combat, what are the people who beat his initiative score reacting to?

And if as a hypothetical the spellcaster goes last and when his turn comes around decides that since he's surrounded by enemies he'll instead take the withdraw action to run away, then what started combat in the first place?

Not arguing with your interpretation, as it seems like you were pretty fair about the whole thing, but this scenario is just something the rules handle a little bit awkwardly. They expect traditional surprise rounds or fights to start neutrally.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cool. So another otherwise neat ability driven into the ground in an attempt to clarify a rules ambiguity no one needed clarifying in the first place.

Go us.


Whether or not proficiency is an effect altering a weapon I guess can be argued both ways, but even if you assume it to be true there's also a question of how granular weapon proficiency is. In the context of the hornbow, longbows and shortbows is meaningfully distinct from longbows and shortbows, after all.

Regardless, the real takeaway here is that if you're ever designing a ruleset, please future proof your work.

outshyn wrote:


So bards and ninjas are now equipping hornbows at no penalty, with no feat taken. Was this the intention?

Regardless of how you fall around these questions however, there's no argument to be made that Bards and Ninjas have proficiency. There's no need to ask whether or not it's the intention because it's not remotely consistent with the rules anyways.


graystone wrote:
o I have to agree with how Hero Lab ruled it.

Hero lab is apparently giving it out to everyone though. The example class mentioned is Bard, which has shortbow proficiency but not longbow proficiency.

Even the loosest reading of the text can't justify that being RAW.


Melkiador wrote:


She already ignored the question when she posted earlier, so it seems pretty clear it's the kind of thing she doesn't want to answer. "Intention" is a funny word. There probably wasn't an intention to give so many free proficiency, but there wasn't actually an intention to prevent it either. Designers are only human and can't think about every given side-effect of what they write.

I mean, the answer isn't really one that needs to be called out either. It's pretty self evident that it's not intentional to give free EWP to everyone.

Moreover it's not even consisting with the rules as written. Shortbow proficiency is not an ability that effects both longbows and shortbows.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Like it's clear how to take a 3/4 BAB class with 6-level spellcasting and do something with them

Is it though? The worst thing about the spiritualist is how directionless the core of the class is. You can swing a scythe around, but you're a 3/4th BAB class with no combat boosters. The spell list is mostly utility so you can't rely on that in combat and while there are some debuffs there the 6th level caster chassis has issues with save granting spells.

It feels like they were so busy cramming in all these flavor class features like calm spirit that Paizo just forgot to give them their secondary class feature. It's like a hunter without teamwork feats and aspects or a magus without the arcane pool.

The phantom by comparison is easy. Grab weapon finesse if you aren't anger and have it smack people and scout for you.

Incidentally, Summoners have a similar issue with the core character not having anything special going on. They can get away with it though because the eidolon and summoning SLAs are powerful enough to carry the class. Phantoms aren't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Moonheart wrote:
I said... there is no hope trying to convaince people who set their mind even before your start your first word.

That's an ironic accusation to be throwing around given how belligerent you've been over people disagreeing with you and how little effort you've been willing to put into actually discussing your build.

As far as I can tell you've never even tried to convince people in a good faith manner. You just said your build was better and then passive aggressively mocked anyone who questioned that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Player Killer wrote:
At the risk of sounding ignorant, what is the difference between a scaling level and a "regular" level and their relation to the current dead levels in the shifter. I don't understand and haven't encountered those terms before.

Basically while not truly 'dead' in the traditional sense, a level where you gain +1 damage with claws or +1 AC still isn't very exciting.

People started bringing it up because classes like the Monk put their scaling bonuses in a separate column and if you do that to the Shifter there's a ton of empty space.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I just hope that the Shifter ends up in a place where people aren't bothered by "there is a class I don't want to play because it's not particularly strong" and leave the class to the people who like it enough to be more interested in figuring out how to make it work rather than complaining.

I don't see why anyone should have to 'leave the class to the people who like it'. If someone was excited for the Shifter and let down by its execution they absolutely shouldn't stay quiet about it.


Y'know, with the new ability to make iteratives a flame elemental shifter could actually probably get away decently with fighting in elemental form, assuming you houserule fix the DCs of burn.

Still not amazing, but at least playable unlike the last version.


I always thought it was sort of an intentional feature that Good was weaker than Evil. To sort of counterbalance, in a fluff sense, how inherently self destructive and uncoordinated they tend to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Justus wrote:
It is a deed, and takes panache, so while it is an extraordinary ability that in no way means it is mundane and simple.

In fact that's kind of the exact opposite of what extraordinary means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracoknight wrote:
Is the whole argument against this just that one disgruntled GM that dont want the barbarian to dual whield large weapons?

That seems to be the long and short of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if the working conditions surrounding UW might explain why the class feels so derivative. Its core class features are hunter aspects, monk AC, scaling claws that seem to have shades of monk unarmed and wild shape, though the latter does admittedly have a fairly unique spin to it. Its tertiary class features are all taken straight from the druid and ranger too.

The ACG literally marketed itself on combining existing classes and yet most of them still managed to push the envelope farther.

Not really a huge deal and not necessarily balance concerns but it struck me as one of the odder things about the class.

Rysky wrote:
The Ooze form spells and Oozemorph were made by different authors independent of each other.

While true and kind of understandable in this specific instance, it does maybe speak to another issue Paizo might have with design being too compartmentalized. Though obviously I can't say whether that's a UW specific problem because of the working conditions or a more general one.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, the parts of Ultimate Wilderness unrelated to the Shifter compare favorably to other recent RPG line books

Ish. There's still a number of questionable features, changes and choices. It's less that the rest of the book is amazing and more that the Shifter stands out so much it draws all the attention. Granted, every book has its problems, but one can't help but wonder if stuff like the Ice Chemist might not have slipped through the cracks as is if conditions had been different.


Pizza Lord wrote:
There is no indication that LR grants a buffer to sleep.

There isn't because there's no concept of a buffer in the first place.

You don't sleep, you get fatigued. Then you cure the fatigue. That's it.

Quote:
Now, if in your game you let them cast lesser restoration an hour before they become fatigued and you let them reset the rest timer, that's fair. There's nothing that indicates that, however.

There's also no one who even suggested that.

Quote:
For the sake of argument, let's say someone will become fatigued in the next 8 hours. 4 hours later they take some ability damage from a giant spider and use lesser restoration to clear it. By your ruling, they would be 'immune' to the fatigue from lack of rest for an extra 4 hours. That's fine if you want to do it that way, but I don't think it's implied or intended.

Seriously, why do you think literally making up arguments and pretending that's what the other person said actually adds any value to your position? The actual posts people who disagree with you are making aren't exactly that far away and anyone could just go... look over there and see you're blatantly BSing. It's not even subtle.

Are you planning on showing your posts in isolation to someone else so they can't have any context to your argument or something?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
2bz2p wrote:
You don't get 24 hours refreshment from casting LR.

If you really find people not sleeping to be abusive this could be an interesting house rule, but the rules just say you can march 8 hours in a day. There's nothing to really suggest a day suddenly stops being a day if you have some way to circumvent the need to sleep and putting that forward as if it were fact is a bit disingenuous for the rules forum.

If someone is using LR to ignore fatigue and marches for 24 hours straight, yeah, that's 16 hours of forced march.

But if someone marches for four hours a day every day there's nothing to support the idea that they should get hit with forced marched penalties on the third day.


Rhaleroad wrote:
There is a reason Furyborn has a cap, for a +2 Effect it can only get +4/+4 Better at best.

There's also a reason why Furyborn is largely forgotten about though, too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
2bz2p wrote:
The effects of a LR are not ongoing.

No, but it is instantaneous. You cast the spell and the condition is gone.

This notion of treating the condition as if it's still there after the fact is kind of an odd one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
Trox are one of those races with no-its-not-really-LA +2, i.e. a trox shifter 18 is supposed to be equivalent to a human shifter 20. Just make your rageshaper an orc or something.

Don't wanna derail but just as a correction, the suggested APL modifiers for strong races lessen as levels increase. i.e. trox shifter 1 might be compared to a human shifter 3, but trox shifter 10 is compared to a human shifter 11 and by 20 the numbers don't matter enough to really be counted anymore.


It's not on the table but your major form gets upgraded at 8 and 15.

They range in excitement from two rage powers at 8 (for wolverine) to +4 to acrobatics only while jumping (for stag), but I wouldn't call those dead spots either.


Moonclanger wrote:


I think the Monk should have an ability similar to the Unchained Rogue's Finesse Training, albeit one that works with unarmed strikes and monk weapons, and that uses his WIS bonus.

This would make STR mostly redundant and enable monks to focus on WIS and DEX.

Why do we need to kill Str at all? That some people want to build strength focused monks instead of dex focused ones doesn't seem like a bad thing.

Ravingdork wrote:


You got a back up plan, should you ever lose your agile clawblades?

Doing slightly less damage until you get them back or replace them? That seems like kind of a weird question to ask.


Dragon78 wrote:
Well with the changes, levels 6th and 18th are dead levels. Even more if consider that the monk class's AC bonus is not list among it's many class abilities but is listed like BA and saves. So you could add 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th as well. Also the claw increase could be listed the same way like a monk's unarmed strike and AC. So then you would have empty levels at 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th-13th, and 16th-19th.

4 gives you wild shape and that's your main feature and 8 is your first wildshape upgrade. Definitely not dead.

Though if you want crazy dead levels, if you discount scaling bonuses to defenses and claws, the Weretouched shifter has 13 of them!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Necrodemus wrote:
he still feels (as do I) that if the game doesn't support a primary healer, then why do they a) include it as a main feature for a class, and b) don't explain that feature better, as to how that role fits within the overall mechanics of the game.

This feels like kind of an unfair point to make. A arguably makes more sense reversed: Your healing is only one class feature of several, so why would you expect it to be intended for a character to hyperfocus on it to the exclusion of everything else?

Would you be just as defensive about a Mystic who only wanted to shoot guns? Or an Operative who only wanted to make skill checks and never fight?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't find ways to accomodate players or that the concept is fundamentally bad, but it's a bit silly to continuously insist it's some massive failing of the system that it doesn't bend over backwards to accommodate super niche and weird playstyle choices and I'm not really sure how constantly taking jabs at the game actually helps you here.


Gray Warden wrote:
So far, the various guides to optimised blasters I've read have been focusing almost entirely on Fireball or, if feeling fancy, on Fire Snake.

I thought battering blast shenanigans was the flavor of choice for damage these days.


ryric wrote:

I'd start levelling insanity-type penalties on top of fatigue if this went on a long time, but that's definitely a houserule. It's really bad for your mental state to go without sleep for days at a time.

In real life.

Where we don't have heroes with godlike fortitude and magical spells that cure the downsides to not sleeping.

I'm not sure I really see a need to invent extra penalties here. It's not exactly a great use of a second level spell slot and the main issue the OP has is kind of tangential to that anyways.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roivan wrote:
Having more uses might be good thing; but reducing the time to be in those forms by this amount is going to relegate them to being almost nothing but a combat class.

Having less total shifting time is unfortunate, but this conclusion is pretty backwards. More uses makes flexing into noncombat forms significantly more viable. Really the whole impetus for the change was that it was too easy at low-mid levels to get 'stuck' in form because you had so few total uses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Your players chose not to value Dexterity and the way their characters perform reflects that.

I'm not really seeing the issue here. If someone wants to build the sort of monk you described, they can build a dex focused one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tomppa wrote:


They can have 1 minor form at level 1, and they get wild shape (major form) at level 4 - they can have both forms at the same time. I think the description is pretty accurate, and starting at level 9 they get the ability to have two (and later three) minor forms active.

While you're describing their abilities correctly mechanically, I'm not sure it's entirely honest to call turning into a bear with a bonus to stealth checks "the ability to turn into an amalgamation of animal forms."

It's a serious stretch.


Phantom Blade does punching pretty well, but the main draw of the esoteric here is the ability to fuel your arcane pool skills much more easily than a traditional magus. Phantom Blade pretty much goes in the opposite direction and has a very limited pool that you can't expand much at all.


Not sure I really agree. They're a solid all around race, but not having a stat penalty isn't that big of a deal and they don't really have all that much more going for them. Resistances can be situationally really nice, but the SLAs are pretty forgettable.

Simply by their nature they're never a bad choice, but for nearly any concept I can come up with there's usually a better choice too.

In that regard they're sort of like humans, only less overbearing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mechanically abusive is a bit of a stretch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
I literally already answered every bit of this. I don't understand why you would think this is a persuasive response?

You seem more interested in sneering at people rather than being persuaded anyways, so I'm not sure that's a real problem.

And you didn't address those issues so much as unilaterally declare those things don't matter. There's a difference and the latter isn't really persuasive or useful either.

What's this worst case scenario you're worried about that makes you so angry over people wanting more clarity in rules?

1 to 50 of 1,711 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>