Second Pathfinder Preview

[ruemere]

KaeYoss wrote:

ruemere wrote:

Why? Are you going to steal my cookies?

What? Are you on drugs? Or just antagonistic?

Quoting your words:

You can't overgeneralise things like that.

Attempts to deny one's opinion are not productive. You have received a taste of your own medicine, albeit mine denial of your opinion was less serious than yours.

KaeYoss wrote:

ruemere wrote:

All of the levels. The key term is: "equal CR".

It's not the CR. It's the fact that you state a fixed attribute value. Str 16 can be a lot, and it can be inconsequential, depending on the level.

It's like saying that a wizard with int 16 should be very capable. It might be true at 1st level, but at 20th, he cannot even use the three highest spell levels.

Please take into consideration that various settings and campaigns of d20 system assume different attribute progression while the starting attribute level is usually tied to standard method of character generation. In other words, CR is much more meaningful and attribute independent way of measuring things.

It would be pretty harsh to assign default CR to character lacking in standard abilities. Also, "16+" means "16 or more". In other words, you're arguing as if the lower endpoint of estimated interval was the only acceptable value. While it's most definitely not, it's just the lowest acceptable value.

KaeYoss wrote:

ruemere wrote:

All it took was to revise CMB formula to allow CM success chance to depend on BAB in a less linear way.

You're still screwed, since you expect your Fighter 66 with Str 16 to trip the colossal+ prismatic great wyrm with strength 73.

Might as well say "a fighter should always be able to trip a wizard, because he's a fighter". It just doesn't work that way.

And your problem actually doesn't stem from BAB, it stems from ability scores.

Tripping may also mean "hitting with great force the weakest joint". It should suffice for tripping a hulking behemoth of an opponent. You're free to assign modifiers to the roll for the said dragon being a quadruped.

Also, the formula changes only BAB derived portion of the equation. Greater size and better strength score always improve odds significantly.

KaeYoss wrote:

ruemere wrote:

It's only natural to lose proficiency in the field you do not exercise. It's natural to be able to get better by studying harder.

It's not natural to forget years of mastery and replace them with a different mastery in a couple of days.

Whatever suits you better. You would be free to extend validity period to weeks or months.

KaeYoss wrote:

ruemere wrote:

It's not like medieval swords were forged in a robotic forge, each smithed according to precisely the same measurements. Hardly.

It's not like D&D forces you to specify a specific specimen of longsword. You specify a weapon type, but nowhere does it say they're all perfect copies of each other.

But learning to fight with a longsword for dozens of years doesn't mean you can become one of the best archers in a week.

You're still thinking that the guy who can hack through walls using Power Attack conforms somehow to rules of mundane world. Fine, I do not have problems with your selective approach to game system - you're also free to restrict area of expertise to certain category of weapons.

KaeYoss wrote:

ruemere wrote:

while car drivers need to retest their driving skills from time to time.

No, they don't.

Different country, different regulations then. Though I thought it was pretty standard.

KaeYoss wrote:

ruemere wrote:

I guess that makes Rogue talents to be spells, too? How about Pahtfinder's Barbarian Rage powers?

They don't go quack, and they don't waddle.

Ok, I will call ToB maneuvers Martial Talents from now on. Your meaningful contribution aside, I'd like to add that they really work for martial characters in my campaign (in my campaign, all classes can use Martial Talents, it's just that if a PC has spell slots, he or she loses one spell slot for one maneuver she or he chooses to ready, starting from the highest spell slot and going down).

Regards,
Ruemere

[KaeYoss]

Zavarov wrote:

I like the format a lot, but I would like it even better if you'd separate feats into "feats that give combat options" and "feats that don't give combat options"

I have a better idea: Feats that give combat options are going to be mentioned in the combat sections.

Like
Defense
AC...
Saves..
Defensive options: Dodge (swift; +1 dodge AC), Parry (...), Combat Expertise (-4 at +4 AC)

Offense:
Attacks...
Attack options: Power Attack (-4 at +8 dmg), Smite Evil (...)
Spell like abilities..

[Asgetrion]

KaeYoss wrote:

Zavarov wrote:

I like the format a lot, but I would like it even better if you'd separate feats into "feats that give combat options" and "feats that don't give combat options"

I have a better idea: Feats that give combat options are going to be mentioned in the combat sections.

Like
Defense
AC...
Saves..
Defensive options: Dodge (swift; +1 dodge AC), Parry (...), Combat Expertise (-4 at +4 AC)

Offense:
Attacks...
Attack options: Power Attack (-4 at +8 dmg), Smite Evil (...)
Spell like abilities..

I agree; this would make the stat block even easier to read as you're running combats.

[Zavarov]

Asgetrion wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Zavarov wrote:

I like the format a lot, but I would like it even better if you'd separate feats into "feats that give combat options" and "feats that don't give combat options"

I have a better idea: Feats that give combat options are going to be mentioned in the combat sections.

Like
Defense
AC...
Saves..
Defensive options: Dodge (swift; +1 dodge AC), Parry (...), Combat Expertise (-4 at +4 AC)

Offense:
Attacks...
Attack options: Power Attack (-4 at +8 dmg), Smite Evil (...)
Spell like abilities..

I agree; this would make the stat block even easier to read as you're running combats.

Yep, this would defo be the way to go imho.

[KaeYoss]

Which settles it: I rule. :D

[Slime]

Zavarov wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Zavarov wrote:

I like the format a lot, but I would like it even better if you'd separate feats into "feats that give combat options" and "feats that don't give combat options"

I have a better idea: Feats that give combat options are going to be mentioned in the combat sections.

Like
Defense
AC...
Saves..
Defensive options: Dodge (swift; +1 dodge AC), Parry (...), Combat Expertise (-4 at +4 AC)

Offense:
Attacks...
Attack options: Power Attack (-4 at +8 dmg), Smite Evil (...)
Spell like abilities..

I agree; this would make the stat block even easier to read as you're running combats.

Yep, this would defo be the way to go imho.

Could be very helpful, but I'm not sure about the layout/word count. Maybe spliting the feat list into "Active" and "Passive" feats.

[Asgetrion]

KaeYoss wrote:

Which settles it: I rule. :D

Well, you're *CHELISH*, man... of course you rule! ;)

[KaeYoss]

Asgetrion wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Which settles it: I rule. :D

Well, you're *CHELISH*, man... of course you rule! ;)

Chelxian. I'm not a thing.

[vagrant-poet]

KaeYoss wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Which settles it: I rule. :D

Well, you're *CHELISH*, man... of course you rule! ;)

Chelxian. I'm not a thing.

But a g-string?

On a chicken wing!!!???

[TAMorrison]

Did the new rules update NPC classes? Other than their hit dice, they haven't changed since 3.0 and are now in serious need of revision. If the Pathfinder Powers That Be still want or need the material, I wrote a nine-page piece on NPC classes to bring NPC classes fully into the Pathfinder realm.

[KaeYoss]

vagrant-poet wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Which settles it: I rule. :D

Well, you're *CHELISH*, man... of course you rule! ;)

Chelxian. I'm not a thing.

But a g-string?

On a chicken wing!!!???

Hail to the king

Revealed by I Ching

While Crossing

River Ling

Savour the Sting

[KaeYoss]

TAMorrison wrote:

Did the new rules update NPC classes?

Probably not. Because they're fine the way they are.

I know they're boring. They're supposed to be boring. No need for shiny new abilities - 20 dead levels is spot on for an NPC. If you want exciting, get a proper class.

[Galnörag]

KaeYoss wrote:

Revealed by I Ching

A suffusion of yellow?

[hogarth]

TAMorrison wrote:

Did the new rules update NPC classes? Other than their hit dice, they haven't changed since 3.0 and are now in serious need of revision. If the Pathfinder Powers That Be still want or need the material, I wrote a nine-page piece on NPC classes to bring NPC classes fully into the Pathfinder realm.

The Pathfinder Beta rules updated the NPC classes slightly (but not much); for instance, hit dice are now d6/d8/d10, corresponding to poor/medium/good BAB.

[TAMorrison]

KaeYoss wrote:

TAMorrison wrote:

Did the new rules update NPC classes?

Probably not. Because they're fine the way they are.

I know they're boring. They're supposed to be boring. No need for shiny new abilities - 20 dead levels is spot on for an NPC. If you want exciting, get a proper class.

True, NPC classes are supposed to be inferior to PC classes, because that is their role - to be all the people we adventurers don't want to be. However, I disagree with the idea that they're fine as they are. As allies and opponents, NPC classes don't hold their CRs' worth at higher levels. Also, other than the expert, they don't fit the roles they're meant to fill. For example, most town guards are warriors, yet Perception and Sense Motive are cross-class skills for them, making them almost useless as watchmen and population control. Evil adepts have no inflict spells. Knowledge (local) is a cross-class skill for the local commoners. The list goes on.

That's why I wrote a piece on NPCs, to show one way Pathfinder can make them relevant without turning them into PC-worthy people. I posted the point paper in one of the other forums; I can post it here if anyone is interested.

[Majuba]

ruemere wrote:

Majuba wrote:

[...]

Taking the Valeros preview, if his Str and Dex were swapped (or he had Agile Maneuvers), he would have +20 vs. 34, needing a 14 (35% chance), without using any of his myriad feats for another +2.

If you were to fight your own self, what chance, do you think, you'd have to accomplish a maneuver? 35%? Or closer to 50%?

Without considering too much, I'd say 25% actually. 25% chance of succeeding, 50% chance of being dead even, and 25% chance of having it reversed makes quite a bit of logical sense.

That said, a 10% advantage to the initiator of an even exchange seems quite reasonable. So 35% success, 15% reverse. No?

[Gorbacz]

As much as I love Paizo and their products, the Valeros preview was a big mistake. It's a giant "HIT ME !" sticker for 4e and Den crowds. A casual person looking for PFRPG info on rpg.net is going to be hit with a 55-page post where a bunch of aforementioned anti-PF folks pick Valeros apart, mocking his Will save and lack of buffs to the fighter class.

If I were a casual gamer, and saw Pathfinder take so much flak, I would think twice. Luckily I won't, but it hurts me when I think how much PR damage was done by a crap Will save and some sub-optimal feat choices.

Granted, it all might change when we get the final rules and suddenly discover that you can, say, make a full attack after moving or Fighters get to re-roll Will saves or whatever, but for now, it's a feast for crows.

[Gamer Girrl]

I think it very, very sad if anyone makes their decision on anything based on the opinions of others. This is bad in gaming and life -- if you let others do your thinking for you, you will find yourself living with poor choices.

My personal gripes against 4E I can state clearly and concisely, but I don't dislike the game itself, and feel that for many people it could be a good way to begin gaming, but I do let folks know it is not the game I am playing nor one I plan to support.

People can look at a preview, pick it apart all the want, and spout their joy or bile ... but until the final product is out, all that speech is so much hot air, and folks need to look at the reality of the product, not the vagueries of pundits.

[KaeYoss]

Gorbacz wrote:

As much as I love Paizo and their products, the Valeros preview was a big mistake. It's a giant "HIT ME !" sticker for 4e and Den crowds. A casual person looking for PFRPG info on rpg.net is going to be hit with a 55-page post where a bunch of aforementioned anti-PF folks pick Valeros apart, mocking his Will save and lack of buffs to the fighter class.

If I were a casual gamer, and saw Pathfinder take so much flak, I would think twice. Luckily I won't, but it hurts me when I think how much PR damage was done by a crap Will save and some sub-optimal feat choices.

Granted, it all might change when we get the final rules and suddenly discover that you can, say, make a full attack after moving or Fighters get to re-roll Will saves or whatever, but for now, it's a feast for crows.

If it were that easy, I'd gather a couple hundred 4e haters together and we'd destroy the game in under 10 minutes.

[Charles Evans 25]

KaeYoss wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Which settles it: I rule. :D

Well, you're *CHELISH*, man... of course you rule! ;)

Chelxian. I'm not a thing.

We had this discussion a while back on the Campaign Setting Thread. Officially now, Chelaxian is just the racial type, and Chelish is almost everything and everyone that comes from Cheliax.

[Asgetrion]

KaeYoss wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Which settles it: I rule. :D

Well, you're *CHELISH*, man... of course you rule! ;)

Chelxian. I'm not a thing.

Yes, you are -- we're all playthings to Mighty Asmodeus and his infernal servants! (and when you have an erinyes secretary, this can be a good thing... ;))

[KaeYoss]

Asgetrion wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Which settles it: I rule. :D

Well, you're *CHELISH*, man... of course you rule! ;)

Chelxian. I'm not a thing.

Yes, you are -- we're all playthings to Mighty Asmodeus and his infernal servants! (and when you have an erinyes secretary, this can be a good thing... ;))

Nah. I'm a free contractor. We have an understanding.

I do get an erinyes ...secretary (that's her actual job title: "...secretary").

[Majuba]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Which settles it: I rule. :D

Well, you're *CHELISH*, man... of course you rule! ;)

Chelxian. I'm not a thing.

We had this discussion a while back on the Campaign Setting Thread. Officially now, Chelaxian is just the racial type, and Chelish is almost everything and everyone that comes from Cheliax.

Not to greatly contradict, but:

Pathfinder Society Guide wrote:

People from Cheliax are known as Chelaxians, use Chelish items, and speak Common.

[Asgetrion]

Majuba wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Which settles it: I rule. :D

Well, you're *CHELISH*, man... of course you rule! ;)

Chelxian. I'm not a thing.

We had this discussion a while back on the Campaign Setting Thread. Officially now, Chelaxian is just the racial type, and Chelish is almost everything and everyone that comes from Cheliax.

Not to greatly contradict, but:

Pathfinder Society Guide wrote:

People from Cheliax are known as Chelaxians, use Chelish items, and speak Common.

Look, Beetle Boy, it's simple: we're all simply irrelevant *things* before the might of the beloved Asmodeus! Get rid of that nasty bug and join the the only *true* Empire on Golarion; you'll get your personal dev... er, servants plus other nice perks! There are no unhappy souls in majestic Cheliax... er, let me rephrase that: there are no unhappy, living persons in majestic Cheliax! ;P

[Chaine "The Butcher" Alazario]

[ic]Chelaxian pompous dandy officer bastards... the only way they can hold on to power and authority is by being in bed with devils. Hopefully the people will rise against their rotten upper crust at one point, and give them the aristocrat-clown bloodbath they so deserve...[/ic]

Check my backstory by clicking on my profile/avatar name! :{)

[Jarod Darkblade]

Chaine 'The Butcher' Alazario wrote:

[ic]Chelaxian pompous dandy officer bastards... the only way they can hold on to power and authority is by being in bed with devils. Hopefully the people will rise against their rotten upper crust at one point,

Yeah. I hope they do it soon: We get to throw them a couple of the more inept nobles, and then we get to get rid of some excess population. And the devils get a night out.

Oh, and before you bash being in bed with devils, take an erinyes to bed. Hell of a ride. Literally. Sure, you'll have to get used to the weals, but if you're a wuss, you don't matter, anyway.

[Jarod Darkblade]

Chaine 'The Butcher' Alazario wrote:

Check my backstory by clicking on my profile/avatar name! :{)

I'm not reading all that. I'll just go with wuss.

But Alazario rings a bell. Any of your relatives been killed by a Chelaxian assassin, by any chance?

[Majuba]

Sits back happily, letting the impatient northerners slaughter each other.

[Jarod Darkblade]

Majuba wrote:

Sits back happily, letting the impatient northerners slaughter each other.

Of course.

By the way, some man-eating apes asked for your whereabouts. I told them.

Was that wrong?

[Charles Evans 25]

Majuba wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Which settles it: I rule. :D

Well, you're *CHELISH*, man... of course you rule! ;)

Chelxian. I'm not a thing.

We had this discussion a while back on the Campaign Setting Thread. Officially now, Chelaxian is just the racial type, and Chelish is almost everything and everyone that comes from Cheliax.

Not to greatly contradict, but:

Pathfinder Society Guide wrote:

People from Cheliax are known as Chelaxians, use Chelish items, and speak Common.

Hmm. I recalled that in the Campaign Setting in the case of Chelaxian warships, it was reversed to Chelish, and I had misremembered/assumed it was in the case of a description of non-racial residency, but double-checking I find that officially:

James Jacobs wrote:

Cheliax: The name of the country.

Chelaxian: A person who is from Cheliax, or a person of that ethnicity. Chelaxian is a noun, not an adjective.
Chelish: The adjective form of the word for anything from Cheliax.

Therefore, a Chelaxian is from Cheliax, and he has a Chelish accent. The Chelaxian favors the use of Chelish weapons and prefers to drink Chelish wine.

So you are correct and I was in error in my earlier post here. :)

[Chaine "The Butcher" Alazario]

Jarod Darkblade wrote:

Yeah. I hope they do it soon: We get to throw them a couple of the more inept nobles, and then we get to get rid of some excess population. And the devils get a night out.

Oh, and before you bash being in bed with devils, take an erinyes to bed. Hell of a ride. Literally. Sure, you'll have to get used to the weals, but if you're a wuss, you don't matter, anyway.

Sorry, I don't do inter-species, freak. Go take a bath clown, you reek of rintintin, by the way.

Oh, and *after* your devils are done thinning out your numbers, we'll be right there to give you a lesson on how population excess can be organized into military assets. I just ran out of clown meat anyhow...(gotta feed the barracudas in our tanks/moats/torture chambers and such) so let us know when you're done killing each other and I can set the meat cleaver to work to fill out some orders...

[Chaine "The Butcher" Alazario]

Jarod Darkblade wrote:

Chaine 'The Butcher' Alazario wrote:

Check my backstory by clicking on my profile/avatar name! :{)

I'm not reading all that. I'll just go with wuss.

But Alazario rings a bell. Any of your relatives been killed by a Chelaxian assassin, by any chance?

That was OOC freak. You're takin' it to poodles AND color blind too?

[KaeYoss]

Tone, Purple Dragon Knight. An alias only excuses so much.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

Of course, I would not dare speaking to you in such tones! :) You were in-character calling my character a wuss, and since my character was tortured / beaten by Hellknights for the better part of about two years, he's not very gentle with Chelaxians! (all in good fun! please *do* read my PC's bio though; as a Chelaxian, you will have a laugh! :P)

[Theodric de LaMontagne]

Ah! how quaint!

It is refreshing to see that this good old colonial spirit is still alive!

Ah! one humble servant of Taldor can only dream that one day, the colonies will cease to waste energies in pointless warring, and unite in friendship in service for the Emperor!

Resume your friendly hugging lad; verbal sparring is unbecoming of you both, but your bulging oiled muscles engaged in healthy physical wrestling would please this bard's eyes very much! I have hard candies for the victor! :D

[LazarX]

Thurgon wrote:

My players know if they want to have access to all kinds of magic items they don't find in an adventure there are a set of item creation feats they can take. That's why they are there.

I remember Erick Wujick taking up this point in Amber Diceless. His counterpoint that as the DM, you should be designing your campaign around your players. If they're all creating characters centered around Warfare, your campaign should not require Sorcery.

I'm a very big believer that a Home campaign that you're creating for people should be designed around the characters THEY want to play. They want to play a group of fighters and warrior types, and rouges, you should build your campaign around them. If they all want to be Wizards, you should shape the adventures and challenges appropriately. Roleplaying games like this DO exist, Conan, Ars Magica, and Mage the Awakening come to mind.

While it's true that players can't do anything without a DM, many DM's fail to realise that the converse holds just as true.