It's more like "I have no idea what the final precedence order will be, but it's high on the tentative precedence order."soon-ish.I hope that's not Valve Time :P
So, more like 'Wednesday-ish' with the Kineticist post-mortem then?
So, more like 'Wednesday-ish' with the Kineticist post-mortem then?It's more like "I have no idea what the final precedence order will be, but it's high on the tentative precedence order."soon-ish.I hope that's not Valve Time :P
Hahahaha, sort of, except in that case, I was told we would have a meeting on Wednesday and then it kept being pushed until later until it vanished one day. In that case, I was just as confused as all of you guys.
I think there are also things that increase the normal base damage of the weapon such as improved natural attack, and spikes on shields. Those also need to be look at.
Let's say you have to fire someone. Assume that the person to be fired is particularly egregious and you have 10 major reasons for firing this person, among them 3 reasons that were so big that you would probably need to fire the person just for any 1 of those reasons alone. The temptation, my advisor says, when discussing why you are firing the person, is to collect all 10 of the reasons to provide a preponderance of evidence.Could you explain the rationale behind why the SLA FAQ was changed?
Surely the solution there is to give the 3 really big reasons (or maybe just the biggest) and leave off the weak reasons.
Giving someone no reason at all why you fired them is poor form, leaves them confused and potentially justified in filing a wrongful termination.
Even just "I didn't like the original FAQ" would at least be cathartic, honestly. At the moment it comes across as trying to dodge backlash after an unpopular decision more than anything.
Let's say you have to fire someone. Assume that the person to be fired is particularly egregious and you have 10 major reasons for firing this person, among them 3 reasons that were so big that you would probably need to fire the person just for any 1 of those reasons alone. The temptation, my advisor says, when discussing why you are firing the person, is to collect all 10 of the reasons to provide a preponderance of evidence.Could you explain the rationale behind why the SLA FAQ was changed?
Surely the solution there is to give the 3 really big reasons (or maybe just the biggest) and leave off the weak reasons.
Giving someone no reason at all why you fired them is poor form, leaves them confused and potentially justified in filing a wrongful termination.
Even just "I didn't like the original FAQ" would at least be cathartic, honestly. At the moment it comes across as trying to dodge backlash after an unpopular decision more than anything.
Yeah, no, I pretty much think it's probably best to just drop this issue. Seems Paizo doesn't want to own up and explain why they changed this for no reason (not blaming Mark) and I'm probably pushing the limits on getting a 3-day ban for posting this as it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, no, I pretty much think it's probably best to just drop this issue. Seems Paizo doesn't want to own up and explain why they changed this for no reason (not blaming Mark) and I'm probably pushing the limits on getting a 3-day ban for posting this as it is.
Just a quick moderator note: We don't make a habit of suspending people just for expressing opposing opinions or dissenting opinions about Paizo, and take suspensions fairly seriously (and if this is a concern you have, please drop us a line at community@paizo.com). However, I'd say that this thread isn't the one to express those opinions, since it's an Off-Topic thread for asking Mark questions for fun, and would suggest another thread for these comments. Let's keep this thread firmly centered around the spirit in which it was created, please. :)
Surely the solution there is to give the 3 really big reasons (or maybe just the biggest) and leave off the weak reasons.Let's say you have to fire someone. Assume that the person to be fired is particularly egregious and you have 10 major reasons for firing this person, among them 3 reasons that were so big that you would probably need to fire the person just for any 1 of those reasons alone. The temptation, my advisor says, when discussing why you are firing the person, is to collect all 10 of the reasons to provide a preponderance of evidence.Could you explain the rationale behind why the SLA FAQ was changed?
Yep, you give the reason that is biggest or particularly one that is definitively true.
Giving someone no reason at all why you fired them is poor form, leaves them confused and potentially justified in filing a wrongful termination.
Even just "I didn't like the original FAQ" would at least be cathartic, honestly. At the moment it comes across as trying to dodge backlash after an unpopular decision more than anything.
I think the best way to continue the analogy would be to think about someone who was hired for temp work on a probationary period with an at-will contract, who had numerous minutiae-based or at least argument-based issues (but nothing like stealing on camera from the cash register), so the best non-argument-spawning reason, in that regard, would probably simply be "Probationary period is up."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, what do you think about Chris muscling in on your thread when she already has her own?
I beg her forgiveness!
Also, how long do you predict it will be until Linda gets one, and will you be competing for thread length?
Linda has told me that since she was not really a forum personality before being hired, so people don't know who she is, she is quite confident that she will not get one of these threads for a long time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, what do you think about Chris muscling in on your thread when she already has her own?I beg her forgiveness!
Also, how long do you predict it will be until Linda gets one, and will you be competing for thread length?Linda has told me that since she was not really a forum personality before being hired, so people don't know who she is, she is quite confident that she will not get one of these threads for a long time.
You know that by saying this, SOMEONE is going to make an Ask Linda thread now, right? You've sort of doomed her to life as an internet persona .... ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ king was overthrown, and the new king only had 142 FAQs, which was far lower. It's no surprise that it could only hold the crown for but a single week.
Bard: The sound striker’s weird words ability is confusing. Does it work more than once on the same target? And does it require 30 rolls to adjudicate?
Change the text of weird words to the following “At 6th level the bard can start a performance that is always a standard action to speak up to one word per 4 bard levels laden with sonic energy. Each word deals 4d6 points of sonic damage as a ranged touch attack with a range of 30 feet. The bard adds his charisma modifier on damage rolls with weird words. Multiple words that strike the same target stack into a single powerful attack, applying energy resistance and bonuses on damage rolls only once. The bard can target all words at the same or different targets, but he unleashes all words simultaneously. Each word costs 1 round of bardic performance.” This change will be reflected in future errata.
What FAQ will rule now? Will it be a queen of the FAQs this time? Will we even have a FAQ Friday while Jason is at GAMA? Find out this and much much more on the next exciting episode of FAQ Friday!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's hoping that while Jason is away, the other designers will play ... with the PDT account and publish EXTRA FAQs in his absence!
Seriously, though, this is a good chance. I have a friend who's been wanting to play this archetype forever, but weird words' original wording was holding him back. Looking forward to seeing what gets clarified next.
The FAQ king was overthrown, and the new king only had 142 FAQs, which was far lower. It's no surprise that it could only hold the crown for but a single week.
What FAQ will rule now? Will it be a queen of the FAQs this time? Will we even have a FAQ Friday while Jason is at GAMA? Find out this and much much more on the next exciting episode of FAQ Friday!Bard: The sound striker’s weird words ability is confusing. Does it work more than once on the same target? And does it require 30 rolls to adjudicate?
Change the text of weird words to the following “At 6th level the bard can start a performance that is always a standard action to speak up to one word per 4 bard levels laden with sonic energy. Each word deals 4d6 points of sonic damage as a ranged touch attack with a range of 30 feet. The bard adds his charisma modifier on damage rolls with weird words. Multiple words that strike the same target stack into a single powerful attack, applying energy resistance and bonuses on damage rolls only once. The bard can target all words at the same or different targets, but he unleashes all words simultaneously. Each word costs 1 round of bardic performance.” This change will be reflected in future errata.
This looks really familiar :D
This looks really familiar :DThe FAQ king was overthrown, and the new king only had 142 FAQs, which was far lower. It's no surprise that it could only hold the crown for but a single week.
What FAQ will rule now? Will it be a queen of the FAQs this time? Will we even have a FAQ Friday while Jason is at GAMA? Find out this and much much more on the next exciting episode of FAQ Friday!Bard: The sound striker’s weird words ability is confusing. Does it work more than once on the same target? And does it require 30 rolls to adjudicate?
Change the text of weird words to the following “At 6th level the bard can start a performance that is always a standard action to speak up to one word per 4 bard levels laden with sonic energy. Each word deals 4d6 points of sonic damage as a ranged touch attack with a range of 30 feet. The bard adds his charisma modifier on damage rolls with weird words. Multiple words that strike the same target stack into a single powerful attack, applying energy resistance and bonuses on damage rolls only once. The bard can target all words at the same or different targets, but he unleashes all words simultaneously. Each word costs 1 round of bardic performance.” This change will be reflected in future errata.
The FAQ gathered the strongest aspects of the original PDT proposal as well as the three or four best proposed ideas from the 10 pages of discussion that followed, including, if I recall, yours!
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does the impervious magic weapon special quality cost 3,000 gp, but the impervious magic armor/shield quality require a +1 bonus? They are pretty much exactly the same otherwise. While an impervious weapon has a much higher cost if impervious is the only quality added to the weapon, the impervious quality for the armor/shield makes the item more expensive in the long run due to using up one of the enhancement bonuses.
I am guessing that losing a weapon is more expensive to replace so they were given the weapon cost a break.
Mark I restarted an FAQ, but I forgot to put it in the form of a question. Here is the FAQ in question..
If I could still edit it I would ask Do the knowledge rules in the skill section need an errata or does the bard class skill need to be fixed" or something similar.
So now I ask:
A. Should I try to get someone to fix it for me?
B. Should I start another FAQ?
C. Is it good enough to be understood and FAQ'd/answered even though it is not in the form of a question? aka "I do not have to do anything except wait for an answer".
|
So this came up came up recently and wondered what your viewpoint was?
Would the Wizard archetype Infernal Binder's Assume Control ability work on Phantoms and Eidolons?
Yes I searched the threads for answers and opinions before coming here and found a board from a few years ago where you posted as RE that it would work on Eidolons so I was just curious if you were still of that opinion? Moreso since we have Phantoms entering the mix.
At 1st level, you can attempt to gain control over a summoned creature by disrupting the bond between it and the caster who summoned it. You must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) equal to 10 + the summoning caster’s level. If you know the summoned creature’s name, you receive a +2 circumstance bonus on the check. If the check is successful, you can control the summoned creature as if you had summoned it for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum 1 round). This does not increase the duration of the original summoning. The original summoning caster can attempt to regain control of the summoned creature as a standard action by making a caster level check against your caster level + 10. When your control ends, the creature reverts to the control of its summoner.
Why does the impervious magic weapon special quality cost 3,000 gp, but the impervious magic armor/shield quality require a +1 bonus? They are pretty much exactly the same otherwise. While an impervious weapon has a much higher cost if impervious is the only quality added to the weapon, the impervious quality for the armor/shield makes the item more expensive in the long run due to using up one of the enhancement bonuses.
And benevolent is the opposite—flat for armor and +1 for weapons. Perhaps someone decided to give a break for some reason, as wraithstrike said, but it could have just been an error. I think one possibility is that the weapons and armor went to two different designers to develop, and they didn't realize that a turnover had included an extremely parallel quality in another section. That is pure and 100% speculation
So this came up came up recently and wondered what your viewpoint was?
Would the Wizard archetype Infernal Binder's Assume Control ability work on Phantoms and Eidolons?
Yes I searched the threads for answers and opinions before coming here and found a board from a few years ago where you posted as RE that it would work on Eidolons so I was just curious if you were still of that opinion? Moreso since we have Phantoms entering the mix.
At 1st level, you can attempt to gain control over a summoned creature by disrupting the bond between it and the caster who summoned it. You must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) equal to 10 + the summoning caster’s level. If you know the summoned creature’s name, you receive a +2 circumstance bonus on the check. If the check is successful, you can control the summoned creature as if you had summoned it for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum 1 round). This does not increase the duration of the original summoning. The original summoning caster can attempt to regain control of the summoned creature as a standard action by making a caster level check against your caster level + 10. When your control ends, the creature reverts to the control of its summoner.
I still think it works on any summoned outsider, and that would include eidolons or bodily manifested phantoms. Just my personal opinion though, as always.
Why does the impervious magic weapon special quality cost 3,000 gp, but the impervious magic armor/shield quality require a +1 bonus? They are pretty much exactly the same otherwise. While an impervious weapon has a much higher cost if impervious is the only quality added to the weapon, the impervious quality for the armor/shield makes the item more expensive in the long run due to using up one of the enhancement bonuses.And benevolent is the opposite—flat for armor and +1 for weapons. Perhaps someone decided to give a break for some reason, as wraithstrike said, but it could have just been an error. I think one possibility is that the weapons and armor went to two different designers to develop, and they didn't realize that a turnover had included an extremely parallel quality in another section. That is pure and 100% speculation
Alternatively, could it be because giving an ally an increased attack bonus was judged more valuable than giving an ally an increased AC?
Alternatively, could it be because giving an ally an increased attack bonus was judged more valuable than giving an ally an increased AC?Why does the impervious magic weapon special quality cost 3,000 gp, but the impervious magic armor/shield quality require a +1 bonus? They are pretty much exactly the same otherwise. While an impervious weapon has a much higher cost if impervious is the only quality added to the weapon, the impervious quality for the armor/shield makes the item more expensive in the long run due to using up one of the enhancement bonuses.And benevolent is the opposite—flat for armor and +1 for weapons. Perhaps someone decided to give a break for some reason, as wraithstrike said, but it could have just been an error. I think one possibility is that the weapons and armor went to two different designers to develop, and they didn't realize that a turnover had included an extremely parallel quality in another section. That is pure and 100% speculation
That's possible, but if so, it overlooks the fact that there is an extremely abusable feat for Aid Another to AC, but not on attack rolls.
Heh. Actually, Bodyguard helps on attack rolls too, if you're the right archetype.
Cooperative Combatant (Ex): At 11th level, when a tactician uses the aid another special attack, he may affect one additional ally per point of Intelligence bonus. For each ally that a tactician aids, he can pick whether to grant that ally the +2 bonus on its next attack against the opponent or the +2 bonus to AC against the opponent's next attack on that ally, and can grant different allies different bonuses. This ability replaces armor training 3.
That's a corner case, though.
Here's a question - do you know of any particular reason why the agile weapon enchant from Pathfinder Society Field Guide didn't make it into Ultimate Equipment? I'm guessing no, but curious as to why if you do.
Heh. Actually, Bodyguard helps on attack rolls too, if you're the right archetype.
Cooperative Combatant (Ex): At 11th level, when a tactician uses the aid another special attack, he may affect one additional ally per point of Intelligence bonus. For each ally that a tactician aids, he can pick whether to grant that ally the +2 bonus on its next attack against the opponent or the +2 bonus to AC against the opponent's next attack on that ally, and can grant different allies different bonuses. This ability replaces armor training 3.That's a corner case, though.
I'd say that the Bodyguard feat overrides cooperative combatant, but as is often true with specific overriding general, that's up for grabs.
Here's a question - do you know of any particular reason why the agile weapon enchant from Pathfinder Society Field Guide didn't make it into Ultimate Equipment? I'm guessing no, but curious as to why if you do.
In general, not everything from player companion and campaign setting lines make it into the RPG line by default.
What FAQ will rule now?Can you shed any light on what the new most-FAQ'd topic is? Or are you going to leave us in the dark?
Sorry, you're only #3 (one of the Top 2 we wrote an answer and scheduled to release it only to then realize it wasn't in our line when we were checking which book it was in to put it in that FAQ page, so really you're #2 for RPG line FAQs, and also #7 for that matter).
|
|
Mark when will the FAQ come out for the Bolt Ace?
Mark would a fire arm that uses metal rounds that has higher damage but a restricted rate of fire and does not use the touch AC mechanic but use the standard rules for combat work.
Example big game rifle. This is a double barreled rife it has a rate of fire of 2 rounds per melee round. The rifle does not have the -4 penalty to hit for firing both barrels and it can not be used with the rapid reload feat or the gunslinger deed that increase the rate of fire.
Rifle does 2d12 19-20x4
My group has two questions about Mage's Disjunction, and how it interacts with antimagic effects and Aroden's Spellbane. I really hope you can help us out! :)
1. Spellbane works as an antimagic field, except it only affects the selected spells. Disjunction has a % = CL chance of destroying an antimagic field. Does this mean that a Mage's Disjunction has a chance of destroying a Spellbane effect?
2. Mage's Disjunction reads as follows: "If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined". Let's assume that there are both active magic items and active spells within the Spellbane area, and Disjunction is cast into it. Since the spell description only explains how un-disjoined items would work, Would active spells be disjoined even if the Spellbane survived the disjunction?
Links to the relevant spells:
Aroden's Spellbane
Mage's Disjunction
Antimagic Field
|
|
Mark, could you talk with the other rules developers and come up with another feat to replace combat expertise for teamwork feats and most other combat feats in general. It is one of the worst feat taxes in the game as in punishes martial characters in most builds requiring them to have an intelligence of 13. There is no feat tax like that for a casters to have a physical stat of 13. I could make an argument that it would make more sense for an arcane caster to have a con of 13+ as casting is hard on the body.
DO you know if Paizo has ever thought of using a Mana system in place of the current spell system? I think mana systems work far better for casters than current system.
an ex. a an el 10 wizard would have 13 [con]+20 intelligence+[10x4] for a total of 73 mana to spend for their spells. a fire ball would cost 5 mana to cast. it makes meta magic easier for instance maximized fire ball would cost 20 mana to cast. A Mana system makes it easier to load wands and staffs it simply cost 3x the amount of mana to load a staff or wand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of FAQ questions in this thread now! Hurts to be so popular ;-).
More seriously, I think everyone appreciates your weekly FAQs, Mark. They are a great addition to the game even if I don't agree with every decision. It takes guts to put out FAQs like you are and I'm sure I speak for a lot of the community when I say I'm very grateful.
So did we get a FAQ today?
About FAQs, do you do any sort of combining of similar questions for counting the highest FAQed issue? Like if we had 3 threads about doubling stat sources, 1 with 100, another with 50 and the last with 25 do they somehow get combined to say this issue has 175 FAQs? Or do they stay separate so only adding to the highest one matters?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So did we geta FAQ today?
Nope, Jason was at GAMA all last week. However, while he was away, I got some serious work done on structuring future discussion of possible FAQs for later, so that much is good. We'll see where that leads.
About FAQs, do you do any sort of combining of similar questions for counting the highest FAQed issue? Like if we had 3 threads about doubling stat sources, 1 with 100, another with 50 and the last with 25 do they somehow get combined to say this issue has 175 FAQs? Or do they stay separate so only adding to the highest one matters?
We usually don't add them together, at least automatically, due to the fact that it's possibly the same people asking the question in each post (imagine 15 posts where the same 10 people hit FAQ; adding them up would put that much higher on the FAQ queue than it should probably be). I've been looking in manually sometimes though and taking it into account, but in general, it's one reason why when Sean was in charge he always recommended that people make a good clear question and get as many FAQs in that one place as possible; since being here, I've really seen his wisdom in that, and I continue to recommend it. A well-phrased single FAQ thread can really shoot up quickly. For instance the relatively-recent mithral thread has been growing pretty well and is getting up there, and I'm happy because that's one that deserves to be answered (especially since some GMs in PFS have been taking the "and other restrictions" clause to never apply). It's still not at the top, but it's getting there (and we don't always choose the very top of the queue if we can't reach consensus on that one, like the damage dice FAQ for quite a while).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of FAQ questions in this thread now! Hurts to be so popular ;-).
More seriously, I think everyone appreciates your weekly FAQs, Mark. They are a great addition to the game even if I don't agree with every decision. It takes guts to put out FAQs like you are and I'm sure I speak for a lot of the community when I say I'm very grateful.
Thanks. I will take credit for us getting out the FAQs with more regularity, since I do push to get them through, but I can't take the credit for the decisions; we always discuss the FAQ, and we try not to release a FAQ at all if we can't get one that all four of us can agree with.
Mark when will the FAQ come out for the Bolt Ace?
Mark would a fire arm that uses metal rounds that has higher damage but a restricted rate of fire and does not use the touch AC mechanic but use the standard rules for combat work.
Example big game rifle. This is a double barreled rife it has a rate of fire of 2 rounds per melee round. The rifle does not have the -4 penalty to hit for firing both barrels and it can not be used with the rapid reload feat or the gunslinger deed that increase the rate of fire.
Rifle does 2d12 19-20x4
While normally I would immediately balk at a 19-20/x4 (since that's an enormously overpowered critical compared to all other weapons), the fact is that with the inability to increase the reload speed and targeting against full AC, that weapon probably is not more overpowered than a regular gunslinger (I'm thinking that it could potentially be terrifying with Quick Draw and a GM who let a character have like 12 of these giant rifles hanging from their back somehow, since Quick Drawing a totally new gun would be a way around reloading).
My group has two questions about Mage's Disjunction, and how it interacts with antimagic effects and Aroden's Spellbane. I really hope you can help us out! :)
1. Spellbane works as an antimagic field, except it only affects the selected spells. Disjunction has a % = CL chance of destroying an antimagic field. Does this mean that a Mage's Disjunction has a chance of destroying a Spellbane effect?
2. Mage's Disjunction reads as follows: "If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined". Let's assume that there are both active magic items and active spells within the Spellbane area, and Disjunction is cast into it. Since the spell description only explains how un-disjoined items would work, Would active spells be disjoined even if the Spellbane survived the disjunction?
Links to the relevant spells:
Aroden's Spellbane
Mage's Disjunction
Antimagic Field
Oh Aroden's spellbane. What a rascal. I don't honestly recommend using that spell, but I will certainly be happy to try to help adjudicate it.
1) Since it says it otherwise works the same as antimagic field, that would be true.
2) It would seem that spells would survive as well; however, there's a caveat here, which is that if the spellbane didn't choose disjunction as one of its spells to block, nothing is safe, since it lets the disjunction pass as normal and does not function as an antimagic field towards blocking it. But I guess come on, everyone always spellbanes antimagic field and disjunction.
Thanks. I will take credit for us getting out the FAQs with more regularity, since I do push to get them through, but I can't take the credit for the decisions; we always discuss the FAQ, and we try not to release a FAQ at all if we can't get one that all four of us can agree with.Lots of FAQ questions in this thread now! Hurts to be so popular ;-).
More seriously, I think everyone appreciates your weekly FAQs, Mark. They are a great addition to the game even if I don't agree with every decision. It takes guts to put out FAQs like you are and I'm sure I speak for a lot of the community when I say I'm very grateful.
4?
I think there were only 3 people on the team.Just so I can have the info what are the names of everyone on the team?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark, could you talk with the other rules developers and come up with another feat to replace combat expertise for teamwork feats and most other combat feats in general. It is one of the worst feat taxes in the game as in punishes martial characters in most builds requiring them to have an intelligence of 13. There is no feat tax like that for a casters to have a physical stat of 13. I could make an argument that it would make more sense for an arcane caster to have a con of 13+ as casting is hard on the body.
DO you know if Paizo has ever thought of using a Mana system in place of the current spell system? I think mana systems work far better for casters than current system.
an ex. a an el 10 wizard would have 13 [con]+20 intelligence+[10x4] for a total of 73 mana to spend for their spells. a fire ball would cost 5 mana to cast. it makes meta magic easier for instance maximized fire ball would cost 20 mana to cast. A Mana system makes it easier to load wands and staffs it simply cost 3x the amount of mana to load a staff or wand.
There's a few ways to get around the Int 13 requirement for Combat Expertise already. At this point, it's probably better to keep making more options for that rather than to remove it and make all those options not do anything.
As for mana points and the like, Jason in particular is not a fan of that kind of mechanic because of the ability to nova out all of your power into the strongest types of spells you can do (this is the case for psionic power points, for instance, as well). As someone who likes point systems and think they aren't as strong as they seem, and having listened to some very persuasive analysis and data from Jason, I think what it comes down to is that extreme high end tactical players (like me and most of my players) can get more use out of the spell slot system due to finding ways to make some of the lowest level spells in the game provide enormous benefits (often due to free scaling, like how resist energy for resist 30 is an amazing spell at most levels of the game, far beyond when 2nd level spells are even close to your highest spell), so for those groups a spell point system would not be stronger, but the large majority of groups, including the average group, can run into problems with the nova potential of a point system more so than they do with the spell slot system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks. I will take credit for us getting out the FAQs with more regularity, since I do push to get them through, but I can't take the credit for the decisions; we always discuss the FAQ, and we try not to release a FAQ at all if we can't get one that all four of us can agree with.Lots of FAQ questions in this thread now! Hurts to be so popular ;-).
More seriously, I think everyone appreciates your weekly FAQs, Mark. They are a great addition to the game even if I don't agree with every decision. It takes guts to put out FAQs like you are and I'm sure I speak for a lot of the community when I say I'm very grateful.
4?
I think there were only 3 people on the team.Just so I can have the info what are the names of everyone on the team?
Me, Jason, Logan, and Stephen.
Don't forget Logan, even though they keep saying he's a developer in some places on the site; if you remember from the Occult playtest, he had the Mesmerist and the Psychic, and since he was both an editor and a developer before being a designer, the design team benefits immensely from his attention to editing detail when he does a development pass on stuff!
Mark, could you talk with the other rules developers and come up with another feat to replace combat expertise for teamwork feats and most other combat feats in general. It is one of the worst feat taxes in the game as in punishes martial characters in most builds requiring them to have an intelligence of 13. There is no feat tax like that for a casters to have a physical stat of 13. I could make an argument that it would make more sense for an arcane caster to have a con of 13+ as casting is hard on the body.
DO you know if Paizo has ever thought of using a Mana system in place of the current spell system? I think mana systems work far better for casters than current system.
an ex. a an el 10 wizard would have 13 [con]+20 intelligence+[10x4] for a total of 73 mana to spend for their spells. a fire ball would cost 5 mana to cast. it makes meta magic easier for instance maximized fire ball would cost 20 mana to cast. A Mana system makes it easier to load wands and staffs it simply cost 3x the amount of mana to load a staff or wand.
There's a few ways to get around the Int 13 requirement for Combat Expertise already. At this point, it's probably better to keep making more options for that rather than to remove it and make all those options not do anything.
As for mana points and the like, Jason in particular is not a fan of that kind of mechanic because of the ability to nova out all of your power into the strongest types of spells you can do (this is the case for psionic power points, for instance, as well). As someone who likes point systems and think they aren't as strong as they seem, and having listened to some very persuasive analysis and data from Jason, I think what it comes down to is that extreme high end tactical players (like me and most of my players) can get more use out of the spell slot system due to finding ways to make some of the lowest level spells in the game provide enormous benefits (often due to free scaling, like how resist energy...
I think a mana system works best if the entire magic system is built, from the ground up, with that possibility in mind. Especially a regenerating mana system. That, essentially, means an over-all loss in power when it comes to magic.
Personally, I think the more powerful spells (Wish, Planar Binding, Get, etc.) would be best served as some sort of ritual in a mana system that takes a long time to cast. So then you would have your more basic spells, and then the truly powerful ones, or game changing ones, would be best used as a ritual so you can't just spam out a Wish in every fight.
But, mostly, a complete over-haul of the magic system and a rewrite of nearly every spell would be necessary for a mana system to truly work.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for mana points and the like...
This has me thinking: What if all magic was at-will, with no resource tracking at all? I mean, obviously you couldn't just plop that straight into Pathfinder since every spell would need to be balanced against that constant availability. But theoretically, couldn't that work? And would it reduce gameplay headaches since you don't have to track anything for it?
|
Contributor
|
As for mana points and the like...This has me thinking: What if all magic was at-will, with no resource tracking at all? I mean, obviously you couldn't just plop that straight into Pathfinder since every spell would need to be balanced against that constant availability. But theoretically, couldn't that work? And would it reduce gameplay headaches since you don't have to track anything for it?
Not to derail the thread, but have you played Iron Kingdoms? Focus/fatigue recharges each turn. It's quite interesting, although I haven't played enough of it to say whether it's balanced or not. And it's very different magic. :)
Mr. Seifter, do you have any experience with/interest in Iron Kingdoms, or Warmachine and Hordes (its parent games)?
Mark, I have a couple questions on Complex Bombs from the ARG:
"Complex Bomb: When the saboteur creates a bomb, he can choose to have it modified by two different discoveries that modify a bomb's damage (those discoveries marked with an asterisk). Each discovery modifies half the bomb's damage dice, rounding down. For example, a concussive/frost bomb from a 9th-level saboteur deals 2d4 points of sonic damage + 2d6 points of frost damage. Creating a complex bomb counts as 2 daily uses of the bomb ability."
1) Do you get both effects (ie, Staggering from Frost Bomb, Greased area from Grease Bomb, increased splash radius from Explosive Bomb, etc)?
2) Are all asterisked discoveries considered to be modifying a bomb's damage? Some modify the area of effect or add a secondary effect (such as the Grease Bomb) without actually modifying the amount or type of damage done. Do those count, as the parenthetical note in the bomb description seems to imply?
Thanks!
Since it uses up two bombs, presumably it would have kickers like force bomb's prone effect too, but it seems the archetype author mistakenly thought that the * was synonymous with modifying the bomb's damage. In this case, since the rule contradicts itself, I would go with the text as the likelier ruling (author probably just didn't know the precise definition of the *) and say it only applies if it actually modifies the bomb's damage, since otherwise it would be possible to create a literal contradiction (say you had an * ability that changed it to a cone and another that changed it to a line).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for mana points and the like...This has me thinking: What if all magic was at-will, with no resource tracking at all? I mean, obviously you couldn't just plop that straight into Pathfinder since every spell would need to be balanced against that constant availability. But theoretically, couldn't that work? And would it reduce gameplay headaches since you don't have to track anything for it?Not to derail the thread, but have you played Iron Kingdoms? Focus/fatigue recharges each turn. It's quite interesting, although I haven't played enough of it to say whether it's balanced or not. And it's very different magic. :)
Mr. Seifter, do you have any experience with/interest in Iron Kingdoms, or Warmachine and Hordes (its parent games)?
I'm always interested in mucking my way through the guts of different systems, but I haven't looked into that one in particular. I have definitely at times throughout the years toyed around in my head with ideas involving pools that recharge over time or even start at 0 and build over time as an interesting mechanic that runs against a nova metagame.
So, I don't know about you, but I firmly believe the true problem with the original Crane Wing was early access via the Master of Many Styles archetype. Granted, Crane Wing is a good feat, but it's overpowered before 6th level, strong from levels 6 - 12 or so, and then a good feat after that as the number of attacks increase the relative strength of the feat diminishes.
Do you think, the following change would have better fixed the problem than the change to the feat itself?
At 1st level, 2nd level, and every four levels thereafter, a master of many styles may select a bonus style feat or the Elemental Fist feat. He does not have to meet the prerequisites of that feat, except the Elemental Fist feat. The feats gained at 1st and 2nd level must be the first feats in a particular style path, but bonus feats gained after that can be any feat in the style path itself (such as Earth Child Topple) if he already has the appropriate style feat from any source (such as Earth Child Style). The master of many styles does not need to meet any other prerequisite of the feat in the style’s feat path.
This ability replaces a monk’s standard bonus feats.
It replaces the following text: "Alternatively, a master of many styles may choose a feat in that style’s feat path (such as Earth Child Topple) as one of these bonus feats if he already has the appropriate style feat (such as Earth Child Style)."
I feel... that this would have stopped a bunch of the Crane Wing shenanigans in it's tracks and fixed the problem of dipping MoMS for early access to any of the Style Feats. It also helps focus the MoMS more on using multiple style feats, instead of just gaining an entire style path in the first 3 levels.
So, I don't know about you, but I firmly believe the true problem with the original Crane Wing was early access via the Master of Many Styles archetype. Granted, Crane Wing is a good feat, but it's overpowered before 6th level, strong from levels 6 - 12 or so, and then a good feat after that as the number of attacks increase the relative strength of the feat diminishes.
Do you think, the following change would have better fixed the problem than the change to the feat itself?
At 1st level, 2nd level, and every four levels thereafter, a master of many styles may select a bonus style feat or the Elemental Fist feat. He does not have to meet the prerequisites of that feat, except the Elemental Fist feat. The feats gained at 1st and 2nd level must be the first feats in a particular style path, but bonus feats gained after that can be any feat in the style path itself (such as Earth Child Topple) if he already has the appropriate style feat from any source (such as Earth Child Style). The master of many styles does not need to meet any other prerequisite of the feat in the style’s feat path.
This ability replaces a monk’s standard bonus feats.
It replaces the following text: "Alternatively, a master of many styles may choose a feat in that style’s feat path (such as Earth Child Topple) as one of these bonus feats if he already has the appropriate style feat (such as Earth Child Style)."
I feel... that this would have stopped a bunch of the Crane Wing shenanigans in it's tracks and fixed the problem of dipping MoMS for early access to any of the Style Feats. It also helps focus the MoMS more on using multiple style feats, instead of just gaining an entire style path in the first 3 levels.
Your replacement is certainly an improvement for MoMS. I've long considered possible adjustments of that archetype for my home games, and that's one of the ones I had been thinking was best, for exactly the reasons you stated. Maybe also not skipping the intermediate style feats in the case where they're a 3 feat chain.