Jason, I would greatly appreciate it you would read this.


General Discussion (Prerelease)

51 to 100 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Elder Elemental Eye wrote:
Jason Beardsley wrote:


Now, we're gonna need parchment, an empty ink vial, and a quill. Make sure you fill the vial with your blood, you're not going to miss 8 ounces. I'll take care of the verbal component, while you draw up the summoning circle. I've got rope or chalk dust, whichever you prefer, if you don't have any.
Do we need something to entice Sebastian into our service? Perhaps we should present a Bella Sara Booster Pack?

We should secure more than one, just in case.

Dark Archive

Locke1520 wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:
Locke: Since the beginning of Pathfinder, people have been asking for clarification of the rules regarding wizard object familiars. We have received NO CLARIFICATION.
Pathfinder Beta wrote:
Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. These objects are always masterwork.
I think this clearly means a wand is basically a masterwork stick. Sorry no first level wand of fireballs.

Exactly...seems pretty clarified to me.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

My comment on Elemental Rage: Since the Beta does not redefine Energy Resistance, it can be assumed that resistance works as it does in the SRD.

d20srd.org wrote:

Resistance To Energy

A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type each round, but it does not have total immunity.

So, yeah, it does matter with iterativate attacks.

Scarab Sages

Psychic_Robot wrote:


1. +4d6 damage is only if all the attacks hit. Given that the +10/+5 attacks are a joke, they're probably not going to hit, which means a whopping +2d6 damage. And that's awful. While some high level monsters don't have energy resistance, a LOT of them do. In addition, the barbarian is probably going to have to metagame to make his ability useful, as it's doubtful that the average barbarian knows the weaknesses of glabrezu.

But his companions could help him with some hints. Acid and cold are good standbys regardless. +2d6 damage is awful? Does that mean a greatsword is awful? A level 3 rogues sneak attack is awful? I must point out that the rage powers are an ADDITION to the barbarian's rage, a side benefit to gain a slight edge for an already potent class.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
2. DR 3/- is useless. I'm sorry that you don't feel that way, but it is. Monsters don't care. Critical hits in particular don't care about DR 3/-. If it were DR 3/- for the entire encounter, I would say it would be more worth it.

Using critical hits to justify the usefullness of a minor class power is a bit extreme. By that logic, d12 HD is useless since critical hits often cut right through it. You dismiss DR. If a barbarian gets hit 10 times for 30 points of damage, that is 30 hit points that he has kept in reserve. That saves the party a cure critical wounds. DR is a trickle-down effect.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
3. Not my fault that you leaped to conclusions.

Again, I apologize.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
4. What kind of barbarian wastes his rage points out of combat? Think about this. The barbarian has to enter a rage and then sustain that rage while using a power that uses rage points in order to heal himself. It's worthless if it doesn't scale. (1 rage point to enter rage, 7 rage points per round for healing.)

One who has a bunch of rage points left? One who only has a bard or druid for a party healer (or perhaps not even those)? One who wants to sacrifice some of his daily resources to ease the burden on the party cleric?

Psychic_Robot wrote:
5. A fifth-level member of a class shouldn't out-do nifty rage powers.

But rage powers are a minor side benefit - the real effect of rage are the normal 3.5 bonuses. A 5th level wizard giving up one of their two 3rd level spells to buff the entire party has the right to outshine the barbarian.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
6. Yes, I could. Personally, I would turn the rage powers into passive abilities that one gets while raging.

That's a start. Why not offer that before? But where to go now? How many should they get to choose from and when?

Psychic_Robot wrote:
7. The problem is that it's a lot to keep track of on top of everything else--particularly bonuses from raging and the 1-round rage effects.

But if you are concerned with book-keeping, then you can select rage feats that are simpler to manage. I believe Jason has suggested he is willing to add more as well.


Jason Beardsley wrote:
Elder Elemental Eye wrote:
Jason Beardsley wrote:


Now, we're gonna need parchment, an empty ink vial, and a quill. Make sure you fill the vial with your blood, you're not going to miss 8 ounces. I'll take care of the verbal component, while you draw up the summoning circle. I've got rope or chalk dust, whichever you prefer, if you don't have any.
Do we need something to entice Sebastian into our service? Perhaps we should present a Bella Sara Booster Pack?
We should secure more than one, just in case.

I shall use my connections with the alter-ego of a certain Mr. Bulmahn to obtain them for us.

The Exchange

Heathansson wrote:

I gotta quit reading these things.

I gotta get a hobby.
I think I....
I think I should shred my scalp with a cheese grater, then pour the liquid from a bottle of jalapeno peppers on it.
Yeah, that'd be more fun.

Yeah, I just keep watching to see the dude get banned. It's funny, society is producing a whole mess of rude, self-righteous, self-important people who just can't seem to figure out how to talk to another person and express their opinion in a semi-polite manner. Once again I think the facelessness of the internet seems to make some people feel like they can just lay into their fellow people with no repercussions.

The sad part is that some of the points actually had merit but the entirety of the post is invalidated as an immature attempt to garner attention by acting out.
I ain't reading anymore of this thread though, it's got into an "Idiot! How could you not agree with me! Here is my version of proof!" mode that I find too annoying.

Scarab Sages

Fake Healer wrote:


I ain't reading anymore of this thread though, it's got into an "Idiot! How could you not agree with me! Here is my version of proof!" mode that I find too annoying.

I'm guilty of that, sorry. Part of me is just riled up by the impetuous nature of the OP. Another part just dislikes people posting opinions and claiming them to be fact, without math or playtesting experience to back them up.

At this point, I'm backing off since I've think I have made enough effort to point this out to the OP. Besides, Lethal Weapon 2 is on.


Psychic_Robot wrote:
<snip>

Good job! I agree with everything you said and dearly hope Jason and crew are listening.


Fake Healer wrote:
The sad part is that some of the points actually had merit but the entirety of the post is invalidated as an immature attempt to garner attention by acting out.

I don't understand this ideology that a lot of people have. As I said, I don't agree with his tone and wording, but that doesn't mean I ignore everything else. I don't agree with the guy who cuts me off on the highway, but that doesn't mean I ignore his car and speed up thinking I won't run into him.

The current culture of "politically correct BS" is that no one is allowed to offend someone else, and if they are offending then what they are saying isn't worth listening too. That is closed minded and childish in my opinion...

Scarab Sages

Brett Blackwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
The sad part is that some of the points actually had merit but the entirety of the post is invalidated as an immature attempt to garner attention by acting out.

I don't understand this ideology that a lot of people have. As I said, I don't agree with his tone and wording, but that doesn't mean I ignore everything else. I don't agree with the guy who cuts me off on the highway, but that doesn't mean I ignore his car and speed up thinking I won't run into him.

But if we ignore rude people, we don't risk running into them and dying. We only risk them getting upset and leaving, and quite frankly if someone is persistently rude and obnoxious, I would not care if they chose to alienate themselves.

Sort of a wierd opinion to have: it is okay to be rude and forceful with people, but the polite and considerate people who do not tolerate rudeness are the ones being irrational?

The Exchange

Jal Dorak wrote:
Brett Blackwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
The sad part is that some of the points actually had merit but the entirety of the post is invalidated as an immature attempt to garner attention by acting out.

I don't understand this ideology that a lot of people have. As I said, I don't agree with his tone and wording, but that doesn't mean I ignore everything else. I don't agree with the guy who cuts me off on the highway, but that doesn't mean I ignore his car and speed up thinking I won't run into him.

But if we ignore rude people, we don't risk running into them and dying. We only risk them getting upset and leaving, and quite frankly if someone is persistently rude and obnoxious, I would not care if they chose to alienate themselves.

Sort of a wierd opinion to have: it is okay to be rude and forceful with people, but the polite and considerate people who do not tolerate rudeness are the ones being irrational?

Don't you DARE infer that I am in any way 'polite and considerate'!

;p
But yeah, I caught the irony too. Have you noticed yet some posters from The Den are migrating over to try to lend credence to their 'leader'?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Brett Blackwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
The sad part is that some of the points actually had merit but the entirety of the post is invalidated as an immature attempt to garner attention by acting out.

I don't understand this ideology that a lot of people have. As I said, I don't agree with his tone and wording, but that doesn't mean I ignore everything else. I don't agree with the guy who cuts me off on the highway, but that doesn't mean I ignore his car and speed up thinking I won't run into him.

The current culture of "politically correct BS" is that no one is allowed to offend someone else, and if they are offending then what they are saying isn't worth listening too. That is closed minded and childish in my opinion...

If my two year old son throws a tantrum in the middle of the shopping centre because he wants me to buy him a toy, I’m not going to buy it for him; all that does is reinforce that his negative behaviour gets him results.

If he asks for it nicely, he might just get that toy.


Brett Blackwell wrote:

I don't understand this ideology that a lot of people have. As I said, I don't agree with his tone and wording, but that doesn't mean I ignore everything else. I don't agree with the guy who cuts me off on the highway, but that doesn't mean I ignore his car and speed up thinking I won't run into him.

The current culture of "politically correct BS" is that no one is allowed to offend someone else, and if they are offending then what they are saying isn't worth listening too. That is closed minded and childish in my opinion...

Its not political correctness, its effective communication. If 50% of the post is condescending rant, it makes it harder to find the worthwhile parts of the post, and consequently, easier to assume that the rest of the post isn't worthwhile.


Dal Jorak:

1. +2d6 damage at the level at which the barbarian gains access to it is pathetic. Also, barbarians are so-so as far as classes go.

2. Yes. But 10 hits at high levels = huge pain. It might save the part a cure wounds, but it's not going to make a big difference overall.

3. The healing is still really lame for what it offers. It needs to scale. While it's true that the barbarian could do such a thing, it's just not very practical.

4. Assuming no Int bonuses or scrolls or anything. And that haste spell is still going to be there at level 20.

5. I didn't offer it because Jason and Co. have seemed reticent to make any drastic changes to their conceived designs in the past. It doesn't matter if I offer a positively brilliant system in exchange--I suspect they'll still use the "active rage points" system.

6. But that punishes players who want to be effective without getting headaches.

Liberty's Edge

Brett Blackwell wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
The sad part is that some of the points actually had merit but the entirety of the post is invalidated as an immature attempt to garner attention by acting out.

I don't understand this ideology that a lot of people have. As I said, I don't agree with his tone and wording, but that doesn't mean I ignore everything else. I don't agree with the guy who cuts me off on the highway, but that doesn't mean I ignore his car and speed up thinking I won't run into him.

The current culture of "politically correct BS" is that no one is allowed to offend someone else, and if they are offending then what they are saying isn't worth listening too. That is closed minded and childish in my opinion...

This isn't "politically correct BS." This is a response to a whiny tirade. If he can't stand the heat, he not only can get out of the kitchen, he didn't have to turn on the oven in the first place. I don't think it's too much to ask somebody to be considerate of their damn readers. I don't think it's childish to be disgusted by the AIDS statement. I don't think it's childish to say, "I'm disgusted by your whiny poo-flinging exhibition, and I'm not going to tolerate it."

Paizo Employee Creative Director

It's worth pointing this out again.

The Alpha to Beta transition was never intended to be the point where we make extensive changes.

Alpha: The first iteration of the rules in small chunks, with some REALLY crazy ideas thrown in to see what kind of reactions they'd get.

Beta: The second iteration of the rules in a complete set. This is the version of the rules that needs the most playtesting (we're giving it nearly a year) and the stage at which the changes will be made.

Final: The final iteration of the rules (barring errata, of course!).

Those worried that we aren't going to change the rules in the final game to reflect the findings of the playtests based solely on the fact that we didn't make extensive changes between the Alpha and the Beta are misunderstanding the way things work.

The SIGNIFICANT playtest period just began about a week ago, and it'll be about another week before "Jason and Co." are done rolling the Beta out at conventions and will be ready to roll up their sleeves and really get to work on things.

For the record, I'm not a big fan of barbarian rage points either, and they may or may not make it to the final rules... but we've got MONTHS to figure that out. So in the meantime, please don't get overwrought and insulting; that doesn't help anything and just makes the whole process of finalizing the Pathfinder RPG rules more difficult than it already is.

Scarab Sages

James Jacobs wrote:

It's worth pointing this out again.

The Alpha to Beta transition was never intended to be the point where we make extensive changes.

Alpha: The first iteration of the rules in small chunks, with some REALLY crazy ideas thrown in to see what kind of reactions they'd get.

Beta: The second iteration of the rules in a complete set. This is the version of the rules that needs the most playtesting (we're giving it nearly a year) and the stage at which the changes will be made.

Final: The final iteration of the rules (barring errata, of course!).

Those worried that we aren't going to change the rules in the final game to reflect the findings of the playtests based solely on the fact that we didn't make extensive changes between the Alpha and the Beta are misunderstanding the way things work.

The SIGNIFICANT playtest period just began about a week ago, and it'll be about another week before "Jason and Co." are done rolling the Beta out at conventions and will be ready to roll up their sleeves and really get to work on things.

For the record, I'm not a big fan of barbarian rage points either, and they may or may not make it to the final rules... but we've got MONTHS to figure that out. So in the meantime, please don't get overwrought and insulting; that doesn't help anything and just makes the whole process of finalizing the Pathfinder RPG rules more difficult than it already is.

Dang it James, why'd you have to go and be the voice of reason?!

My biggest problem thus far is that they favor the NPCs, as with any point-based system, allowing them to expend their most powerful abilities with no concern, while players have to cautiously ration out their points (often not convinced enough to whip out the big guns). Also, a good deal of the rage abilities are only available to higher level characters, but I think mid-level barbarians need the most help in the excitement department (after Uncanny Dodge they wait for DR 1).

Also, I want to point out that I did like psychic_robot's suggestion to just have one (or more) rage powers, and just have one constantly active during a rage (similar to the Dragon Shaman auras, but only when raging). Maybe 1 rage power at 1st level and another one known every 3 levels afterwards (4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th). A bit more elegant, and does eliminate the extra book-keeping for barbarians (I don't find it too much, but if a better system can be found I'm all for it).


James Jacobs wrote:

It's worth pointing this out again.

The Alpha to Beta transition was never intended to be the point where we make extensive changes.

Alpha: The first iteration of the rules in small chunks, with some REALLY crazy ideas thrown in to see what kind of reactions they'd get.

Beta: The second iteration of the rules in a complete set. This is the version of the rules that needs the most playtesting (we're giving it nearly a year) and the stage at which the changes will be made.

Final: The final iteration of the rules (barring errata, of course!).

Those worried that we aren't going to change the rules in the final game to reflect the findings of the playtests based solely on the fact that we didn't make extensive changes between the Alpha and the Beta are misunderstanding the way things work.

The SIGNIFICANT playtest period just began about a week ago, and it'll be about another week before "Jason and Co." are done rolling the Beta out at conventions and will be ready to roll up their sleeves and really get to work on things.

For the record, I'm not a big fan of barbarian rage points either, and they may or may not make it to the final rules... but we've got MONTHS to figure that out. So in the meantime, please don't get overwrought and insulting; that doesn't help anything and just makes the whole process of finalizing the Pathfinder RPG rules more difficult than it already is.

Excellent news. Then I shall, perhaps, refine my post.


Fake Healer wrote:

But yeah, I caught the irony too. Have you noticed yet some posters from The Den are migrating over to try to lend credence to their 'leader'?

I hope that this wasn't directed at me, since I've never been to "The Den" and this is the only RPG board I've frequented on a regular basis since 4e was announced. If it was directed at me, then I take offense at being considered a "follower" of any sort...

As to the rudeness/crassness/etc. Working in the Healthcare IT field, if I ignored every rude or beligerant employee, I'd have been fired a long time ago. I've had to learn to tune out that aspect of many people and still listen to their complaints, requests, recommendations, etc. The administrative assistant who hasn't been able to get into her computer for 2 hours and needs information for a director's meeting in 5 minutes is unlikely to be polite and considerate to me, but yet I have to filter out the information I need to process to perform my job and fix her problem. Sure, I'd love to smile and say "Your being rude so I don't have to help you" and walk out of the office, but in the real world that doesn't work.

It isn't a matter of letting the rude person get away with anything, it is taking the information as a whole, disecting it and filtering out the irrelevant parts, and processing the information that is needed to understand the issue/complaint/recommendation/etc. Obviously, too many people just see something they don't like and flip the off switch to their brains.


Brett Blackwell wrote:


It isn't a matter of letting the rude person get away with anything, it is taking the information as a whole, disecting it and filtering out the irrelevant parts, and processing the information that is needed to understand the issue/complaint/recommendation/etc. Obviously, too many people just see something they don't like and flip the off switch to their brains.

But, in your work field, you are dealing with people's lives or at least their quality of life. This is our hobby. I don't have any moral or ethical responsibility to listen to someone that is being rude and condescending about my hobby.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Brett Blackwell wrote:


I hope that this wasn't directed at me, since I've never been to "The Den" and this is the only RPG board I've frequented on a regular basis since 4e was announced. If it was directed at me, then I take offense at being considered a "follower" of any sort...

I don’t think it was directed at you; or at least there are a couple of more obvious candidates that I assume it was directed at.

Brett Blackwell wrote:


Stuff about work.

Wow, you get paid for reading messageboard posts here? How do I get a piece of that action?

Scarab Sages

KnightErrantJR wrote:
Brett Blackwell wrote:


It isn't a matter of letting the rude person get away with anything, it is taking the information as a whole, disecting it and filtering out the irrelevant parts, and processing the information that is needed to understand the issue/complaint/recommendation/etc. Obviously, too many people just see something they don't like and flip the off switch to their brains.
But, in your work field, you are dealing with people's lives or at least their quality of life. This is our hobby. I don't have any moral or ethical responsibility to listen to someone that is being rude and condescending about my hobby.

Alternatively, if someone is being excessively rude or beligerent, that might even be cause for an official reprimand from your employer. Also, in your particular case, you can take their complaints and fix the problem, but would also be within your rights (as you are here) to call that rude person going to a meeting on their BS.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Brett Blackwell wrote:
The current culture of "politically correct BS" is that no one is allowed to offend someone else, and if they are offending then what they are saying isn't worth listening too. That is closed minded and childish in my opinion...

I'm curious about something Brett. When you use the words "politically correct" does it imply a left-leaning perspective? I'm not sure what these words mean anymore as they are applied to any case in which someone has suggested there might be a better way to phrase something and not just attempts by feminists and anti-racists to eliminate sexist and racist. I am really asking. Has the meaning of these words changed? Help me out here.

Second, I think the general tone of the responses here hasn't been 'you are not allowed to offend others' but 'why do you need to use such venomous speech in order to make your points'.

I believe in light moderation of these boards and would only support it in a case where the speech has been hateful. The OP comes close and yet few of the respondents have called for banning. I think that says a lot.

Liberty's Edge

No, don't ban him.
And seriously, don't complain to me about work. I really don't want to go there, but I would bet important body parts that I have you beat.
When is the last time you got b%*&*slapped by somebody who weighs 250 lbs. and is mentally 4 years old?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Brett Blackwell wrote:
Working in the Healthcare IT field, if I ignored every rude or beligerant employee, I'd have been fired a long time ago. ...

Ah-hah! So we are getting paid for this. I THOUGHT so!

...

Okay, actually, I didn't THINK so, but I HOPED so.

...

James, I'll take my pay in product please.


Tarren Dei wrote:


I'm curious about something Brett. When you use the words "politically correct" does it imply a left-leaning perspective? I'm not sure what these words mean anymore as they are applied to any case in which someone has suggested there might be a better way to phrase something and not just attempts by feminists and anti-racists to eliminate sexist and racist. I am really asking. Has the meaning of these words changed? Help me out here.

Not sure what most people use it for, but I interpret it as anytime someone wants to restrict what someone else says or writes on the basis of not wanting to offend anyone else. You can't make everyone happy all the time, and people are going to get offended on occasion. Racism and sexist commments don't fall under this category, IMO. Those are generally more related to either hatred or ignorance.

As to all the comments about work vs. hobby... ok it wasn't the best example, I'll concede that. We're not getting paid to help try to make this a better game. Of course, the Paizo staff are, in a round about way, so it would be within their best interest to read all the material and take the important parts. Of course I'm sure they are anyways, as has been proven by their activity on these boards and even in this thread, so kudos to you Paizo!!!

However, my viewpoint still stands that I have just as much right to think less of someone who isn't willing to take the time to read and digest information that they may find offensive or beligerent, as compared to your right to think less of someone who includes that type of material in their posts.

And no, we can't all get along :) Humans don't work that way....

Liberty's Edge

Nevermind. I'm wasting my time.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Heathansson wrote:
Nevermind. I'm wasting my time.

Ayup.

Looks that way.


Get over it. It was a joke. (Cue "I thought jokes were supposed to be funny" posts.) I don't really care if you got offended by it.

Silver Crusade

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Get over it. It was a joke. (Cue "I thought jokes were supposed to be funny" posts.) I don't really care if you got offended by it.

"It's not my fault for being offensive, it's your fault for being offended!"

So, stick-a-fork-in-it-it's-done time yet? Any nutrients to be had here have long been sucked out, and the compost has too much ammonia to actually grow anything anew.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Brett Blackwell wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:


I'm curious about something Brett. When you use the words "politically correct" does it imply a left-leaning perspective? I'm not sure what these words mean anymore as they are applied to any case in which someone has suggested there might be a better way to phrase something and not just attempts by feminists and anti-racists to eliminate sexist and racist. I am really asking. Has the meaning of these words changed? Help me out here.

Not sure what most people use it for, but I interpret it as anytime someone wants to restrict what someone else says or writes on the basis of not wanting to offend anyone else. You can't make everyone happy all the time, and people are going to get offended on occasion. Racism and sexist commments don't fall under this category, IMO. Those are generally more related to either hatred or ignorance.

Thanks for the clarification. I think perhaps this is a term that has changed in meaning since I first heard it used as humourous self-critique amongst those in radical activist groups 20 plus years ago.

Maybe my terminology maby be outdated then, because I don't see the complaints here being born from a desire for 'political correctness' as much as for 'politeness'.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Brett Blackwell wrote:
And no, we can't all get along :) Humans don't work that way....

Actually they do work that way. ... They work very well when they get along. Most primates show high levels of cooperation and cohesiveness.

EDIT: References, lest you think I made that up.

Another reference, and a cute picture of monkeys.

"Anyone who says peace is not part of human nature knows too little about primates, including ourselves". The author concludes we can all get along ... or we can be complete dickwads.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Hey there all,

I am not going to post comments on the specific feedback on this thread because this is not yet the time to discuss classes and I am in the middle of packing for GenCon UK.

However, I am going to post a bit about politeness on these forums. I really need everyone here to understand a few things. First off, don't think you can post up rude comments and abrasive posts to get noticed. With a playtest of this size, I see the same comments numerous times across many threads. As such, if you are rude and condesending, I can usually ignore you and get the exact same feedback from a poster that is polite and reasonable. Second, do not think that the excuse of "I don't have time to be polite" is sufficient to excuse rude behavior. It does not take any additional time to be polite than it does to be rude. Third, please understand that there are literally thousands of posts generated here every week. While I can read the majority of them, I cannot respond to all of them. You do not need to post over and over again until you get a response. I know this means you must have faith that you are being heard instead of demanding proof, but that is the only way this process is going to work.

That is all for now. I will be posting occassionally from the road. Until I get back, lets all keep it simple or I am sure James will be on here to drop the hammer.

One last thing. This is not directed specifically at the OP per se, but is a notice to everyone. Lets all play nice and this whole process will go smoother for everyone.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Pretty much everything the OP says is right on. The tendency around here to get offended at anything phrased even remotely strongly and ignore the actual points (and get insulting in response while pretending not to--if you guys like politeness, you should practice it even in response to something you find strongly phrased) is counterproductive.
I understand the desire for politeness, but people do get frustrated when actual analysis gets ignored.

The OP also failed to mention Devastating Blow, which attempts to "fix" melee characters by allowing them to splatter anything non-crit-immune in melee with a scythe. This doesn't make the game more balanced; it just adds one broken thing. This was already possible in 3.5 with Shock Trooper + Leap Attack. It's a bug, not a feature.
Making standard-action attacks do double damage at level, say, 8, and triple damage at level, say, 15 would do what this feat is trying to accomplish, without enormously favoring x4-crit, two-handed weapons and making the feat useless against crit-immune creatures. All the feat does now is let melee characters treat non-crit-immune melee enemies like spellcasters can treat low-Will-save enemies.

The Exchange

The OP probably has many good points to make. I have some issues with the Alpha and the Beta and, while I take the mathematical analyses with a pinch of salt, they contain stuff which often requires at least consideration, if not actual fixing.

However, he has also been rude and insulting to me personally (and, on another site, been extremely rude) and as a consequence I pretty much discount everything he has to say. What he considers bluntness is just juvenile stupidity and a refusal to accept that not everyone is hanging on his every word like they are nuggets of gold. Unfortunately, a number of people who have popped up who fail to realise that simply because they are expressing a point of view, it doesn't abjure them from normal responsibility to be polite, just because "it's the internet"?.

The net effect isn't that their point of view will be accepted, warts and all. Instead, there will be a tendency for them to be ignored. Life it too short to spend your life reading annoying posts that just might contain something useful. Maybe the OPs frustration has more to do with the way his message was delivered than the message itself.

In response to LogicNinja... Yeah, this place is more aggressive than it used to be. It's a genuine shame, but there were some nasty times a few months back and some of us are less inclined to be accepting these days (since it was thrown back at our faces by, among others, the OP). I don't know if you were around when the magazines were still going, but things were much calmer then. There has been a lot of change since then and it has coarsened the quality of some of the debate.

Dark Archive

LogicNinja wrote:

Pretty much everything the OP says is right on. The tendency around here to get offended at anything phrased even remotely strongly and ignore the actual points (and get insulting in response while pretending not to--if you guys like politeness, you should practice it even in response to something you find strongly phrased) is counterproductive.

I understand the desire for politeness, but people do get frustrated when actual analysis gets ignored.

The OP also failed to mention Devastating Blow, which attempts to "fix" melee characters by allowing them to splatter anything non-crit-immune in melee with a scythe. This doesn't make the game more balanced; it just adds one broken thing. This was already possible in 3.5 with Shock Trooper + Leap Attack. It's a bug, not a feature.
Making standard-action attacks do double damage at level, say, 8, and triple damage at level, say, 15 would do what this feat is trying to accomplish, without enormously favoring x4-crit, two-handed weapons and making the feat useless against crit-immune creatures. All the feat does now is let melee characters treat non-crit-immune melee enemies like spellcasters can treat low-Will-save enemies.

The sensitivity issue when it comes to the beta is partly due to Frank; he left a bad taste in most people's mouths. There is less sensitivity once you are on the other topics. The board is still somewhat sensitive but makes some sense once you realize that there is no mods outside the staff, making self moderation important to the board. Complicating the issue is they're half right and half wrong- ignoring a message based on how it is conveyed is a fallacy but OTOH overly aggressive wording and insults offset the the reader and hinder communication (which is already hindered over a forum anyway).

A request/suggestion to Jason: I think part of the issue here is that there is very little feedback from you to us. While there is a lot of feedback from us to you, we don't hear a lot about why you make certain changes or why you don't implement others. Now, I'm not asking you to answer to every little question or request, but some form of feedback from you. It would better enable playtesters while engaging them (important because if they don't feel engaged, they quit). Further, some explanation of what you're thinking on various changes (or why certain changes aren't made) would help greatly. I know that you're busy, but a weekly thread covering the big issues raised within the would suffice. It would also greatly improve feedback as we can stop endlessly debating our fellow posters and debate your reasoning; the only reasoning that matters.


In my experience communicating via the written word can be very prone to misunderstandings, especially when not writing in your native language. So mostly I try to be lenient in my interpretation of the others intentions. But there are exceptions, anyone who seems more interested in feeding his ego and/or is incapable of accepting a different position is most likely ignored by me.
Always remember: "Don't wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig actually likes it."

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well its nice to see what Frank thinks about me

Frank trollman wrote:

See I think that it says a lot about the culture of testing over there that they actually keep track of people who are skeptical of individual designers and seriously call them out personally as skeptics as if that was in any way relevant to their findings.

I don't really think that anyone can make any progress as long as groupthink enforcers like Kevin Mack are part of the process. The fact that that kind of extremely hurtful anti-participation and witch-hunting hasn't been mercilessly shouted down by the developers themselves indicates that they are way too bought into the allure of sycophants to actually care what answers analyses actually point to.

-Frank

For the record Im not a group think enforcer however I was taught that if your going to say something you at least have the nerve to say it to there face. Also since im sure mister Trollman is reading this isent he the one that hunted down details of another poster from this forum (his Amazon profile I believe and try and use that against him?) Yet when I do it im a groupthink enforcer? Men in glass houses should not throw stones.

The Exchange

Don't let Trollman get you down. If he hadn't been such a hysterically aggressive idiot on these boards he'd probably be having a lot of influence (though anything other than total control is probably insufficient for him). On the plus side, he is obviously still taking an interest from the sidelines, a bit like the kid who flounced off and discovered that everyone is still having fun without him. More to be pitied than reviled.

Oh - hi, Frank!


"This guy insulted us! Let's sneer about how superior we are to him and how we think he's pitiful!"

Come on, guys. If you want politeness, cut the bull and the passive-agressive behavior.

Frank understands 3.5 a lot better than the vast majority of the people here, and you guys chased him away. Let's not pretend you didn't hurt Pathfinder by doing that... or that, since you chased him away, he shouldn't be commenting in other places. This is not an inviolate sanctum. People can and do talk about these boards (and where I've seen it happen, the opinion is generally not positive).

Dark Archive

delabarre wrote:
Callum Finlayson wrote:
Probably the best idea is to avoid design-by-committee.

This comment is way off the mark.

PFRPG is hardly being designed by a committee. It's being designed by Jason. He is bouncing questions and ideas off his coworkers, Monte Cook, and others, and he is asking for constructive feedback from the Paizo player community...but ultimately he's designing the game himself.

And I speak as someone who has literally spent months of time in design committee meetings... :-P

I regret that you feel my comment was off the mark, and that you think that it was aimed at the Paizo staff as it certainly wasn't, and I regret that this seems not to have been obvious from my first post.

There seems to be a presumption by a lot of people on these forums that just because Paizo invite feedback from the community that they should then take up the thoughts/rants/opinions/delusions of each and every person with something to say -- that's the belief in design-by-committee that seems to be prevalent here.

If you've "literally spent months of time in design committee meetings" then you should probably know that one of the surest ways to derail a project is giving too much influence over it to people not closely enough involved.

I'm not criticising Jason, and I'm not even criticising Paizo involving the community in the playtesting; and I would rather you not imply such. What I will criticise is how some people -- a small but vocal number -- have responded to their opinions being solicited.

The Exchange

LogicNinja wrote:

"This guy insulted us! Let's sneer about how superior we are to him and how we think he's pitiful!"

Come on, guys. If you want politeness, cut the bull and the passive-agressive behavior.

Frank understands 3.5 a lot better than the vast majority of the people here, and you guys chased him away. Let's not pretend you didn't hurt Pathfinder by doing that... or that, since you chased him away, he shouldn't be commenting in other places. This is not an inviolate sanctum. People can and do talk about these boards (and where I've seen it happen, the opinion is generally not positive).

Ah, I thought I had seen you around. We didn't chase him away - we disagreed with him. He couldn't handle that. But, frankly, if this is going to turn into one of those boring "I hate Frank" "Frank is great" threads, let's not bother.

Did I hurt Pathfinder? I doubt that very much - Frank is hardly the only guy who knows about 3.5, and he had very specific views based on a specific style of play (he made a comment once along the lines that a combat that lasts more than one round is boring - sorry, I can't sepcifically source it). That actually turns me off some of his views, since I see a fun combat as laster longer than that. To be honest, I was perfectly happy with 3.5. Maybe I haven't pored over it as much as some, but I suspect I'm actually in the majority.


Psychic_Robot wrote:

I'm going to go through here and tell everyone what is wrong with Pathfinder. I'm going to be blunt. Tact requires a great deal of work that I don’t feel like devoting. I refuse to sugarcoat my words for problems that have yet to be solved despite my bringing them up time and time again.

As a teacher, I have to tell you that this is the least effective way to make your ideas persuasive. If you want to rant, this is a great introduction. If you want anyone to listen to what you have to say, however, the general form is to look for positive feedback as well as negative, to take into account the perspective of your audience rather than just what makes you happy, and to make suggestions rather than to issue demands. Your missive fails on all three accounts.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LogicNinja wrote:

"This guy insulted us! Let's sneer about how superior we are to him and how we think he's pitiful!"

Well to be fair he's been doing the exact same thing on the gamer den forums.


Psychic_Robot wrote:
No, the original copy of what I was going to post was a rant. This is a well-thought out criticism of the system that involves ideas for the developer team to use.

It's still a rant, and it's still terribly off-putting. You ever heard the phrase, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"?

But that doesn't justify the backlash. These boards are particularly bad for that sort of thing.


LogicNinja wrote:
Frank understands 3.5 a lot better than the vast majority of the people here, and you guys chased him away. Let's not pretend you didn't hurt Pathfinder by doing that... or that, since you chased him away, he shouldn't be commenting in other places.

Well now that's patently ridiculous. His behavior got him a 1 week time out. He chose not to return. Let's turn the hyperbole off, shall we?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Aww, it's nice to see Kevin Mack being hypocritical, harping on Frank's off-forum 'back-talk' when he himself doesn't post his issues with Frank on the Den. Same goes for Aubrey saying Frank's disrespect is unforgivable, while also being incredibly disrespectful of him and seemingly of anyone who defends him.

And now for something actually productive...

I need to agree with Psychic_Robot on healing. Once you get past the very low levels, healing a couple d6 with noticeable resources is truly a dissapointment. Proportionally, a CLW at 1st level is well over half a character's HP, yet this goes downhill incredibly fast. I'm not saying it should remain at that exact ratio, but it needs to be better than what it is for the effort expended.

As for DR, the only time I see it matter beyond the low levels against monsters is when it's 10 or 15. The sheer power of a single attack makes a 3 or 5 point reduction effectively meaningless. Almost any melee monster can take out the tank within three full-round round actions (if not two). Considering the HP I see on tanks, DR 3/- basically means an extra 15 to 20 hit points in a fight, which is up there with a slightly improved healing surge from the barbarian or monk, which is already something that needs more than a 'slight improvement'.


LogicNinja - Please avoid using sexually explicit speech when posting. I have suppressed your post. If you wish to repost minus the sexually explicit speech, please feel free to do so.

And for everyone: CALM DOWN. Consider this a warning.

51 to 100 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Jason, I would greatly appreciate it you would read this. All Messageboards