I just want to make sure I have the rules-as-written right on one point. (I don’t care to discuss RAI.) From my understanding of the rules as written, natural attacks can’t deal non-lethal damage (even with a -4 attack penalty). Is that right?
My reasoning to get to that conclusion is that (a) natural attacks are attacks made without weapons, (b) you can’t deal non-lethal damage unless that possibility is specifically called out, and (c) that possibility is never called out for attacks without weapons in general.
Notice that (b) can be used to generate the conclusion that ranged weapons also cannot deal non-lethal damage, because (d) the possibility of dealing non-lethal damage is never called out for ranged weapons too. Does that seem right too?
Anyway, I suspect this is an oversight for natural attacks (but probably not for ranged weapons?), but again I’m just interested in RAW at this point, not RAI.
If I’m wrong, maybe it’s because (b) is false, and something like its opposite is true:
(Anti-b) you can always deal non-lethal damage with no penalty unless that possibility is specifically restricted.
If (anti-b) is correct, then both natural attacks and ranged weapons can deal non-lethal damage with no penalty.
Which one is correct, or do the written rules fail to cover this issue? Thanks!
I remember reading that the revamped Pathfinder modules would come with poster maps, but none of the recent ones have any. Is that no longer happening, or is it still in the future? (I also can't seem to find the post that stated this. Can anyone provide the link?)
Any information would be appreciated. Thanks.
To be clear: the "brand-new poster map of the region explored in the Pathfinder comic" is not meant for tactical combat, with a 1" grid, right? (I'm trying to collect those; indeed it's the main reason I subscribe to the comic!) Instead, it'll be a regional map with a much larger scale, right?
Thanks. I kicked in today.
Can we get differently colored bases? That can help to organize PCs versus NPCs versus monsters, or different types of monster, or different individual monsters all of the same type. ("The blue and green goblins are in the blast radius, but the red goblin isn't.")
Also, can anyone verify whether Pathfinder pawns will fit into Gale Force 9's magnetic slotted bases?
This looks really exciting, but I'd like to make a humble request. I use only Macs, and I don't want to mess with Boot Camp or other Windows installations. Can one of the stretch goals be native Mac support? Pretty please?
I've read the FAQ on the Kickstarter that basically says you'll get to it when you can, and I know you've probably budgeted the entire $1M of the initial goal to go to things other than Mac support. What I'm asking is for a stretch goal beyond $1M that includes Mac support.
Right now I really hope the Kickstarter makes it, but only so that there might be a future possibility of Mac support. It makes no sense for me to donate right now, because I won't ever be able to play the game. I'd love to play, though. Mac support would make that possible, and then I'll happily give you lots of money to help the Kickstarter along.
Keep up the good work, and thanks for listening.
Thanks for highlighting these great minis.
I have like 8x of each type of tentacle, and I can confirm that they are on 1" round bases. Their plastic is about as brittle as the Pathfinder minis (they kind of clink when you hold them together in your hand), much harder than the soft bendy D&D miniatures.
It's unfortunate that this publicity came a bit too late for the company's recently failed kickstarter campaigns. Oh well.
I love this series; thanks for sharing all this behind-the-scenes stuff.
Lisa Stevens said wrote:
Some things that we thought were downright obvious weren't, while other innovations we had come up with in our iterative process proved to work very well.
Can you give examples of this, both positive and negative? I'm curious.
Judy Bauer said wrote:
I threw myself into my work, offered to take on more when I could, and even moderated my hard-line stance on commas to better match Paizo's style.
I'm curious: what hard-line stance on commas? Is it really comma splices, as Feros's comment above suggests?
Also, strong work Paizo.
Ask yourself or them whether they enjoy feeling so powerful that everything is easy. If they honestly enjoy that more than overcoming genuine challenges, then maybe everything is fine. Of course, if *you* don't enjoy it, that's also relevant, but just be careful not to assume that there's only one right way to play the game--namely, where everything is challenging. Some people enjoy feeling powerful all the time, and that's fine too. ('Munchkin' is a pejorative label for this style of gaming; I'm trying to say that it's a legitimate way to have fun and so doesn't deserve pejorative labels.)