Pathfinder: the Lowdown

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:45 am

I just noticed something. You can sunder armor in Pathfinder.

Hegemonic · Post by **Hegemonic** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:21 am

Mask_De_H wrote:
Psychic Robot wrote:In response to a criticism that the summoner might have economy of action problems (and then force everyone to wait an hour during his turn):
Sean K. Reynolds wrote:Part of his schtick is that the summoner can do adventures solo because he CAN conjure an army. As in, "my GM is going to run a solo campaign for me, I'm going to play a summoner because he's especially suited for it."

Yes, in a standard group the summoner can go overboard with all of his summoned creatures' actions... and a courteous player won't dominate the game that way. Just as another character with summonings, animal companions, and cohorts should give the other players time to play.
So, the answer is "that's the point, if the summoner isn't a dick, the rest of the party isn't made obsolete/banished to play Smash out of boredom."

At least they're honest about it.

Yeeesh. I guess I can take this as cynical encouragement for anything I write - if I don't write blatant cop-outs depending on players playing the way they 'should', I'll have done better than a significant published IP.

It shouldn't be that easy.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:34 pm

hogarth wrote:Saying "they" have an opinion about something is meaningless. On the Paizo board, the various writers drop their opinions seemingly without any co-ordination or discussion between them. James Jacobs is particularly bad at that.

Thank you for reminding me of the Imp Nat Attack thread man.

Fuckin' flip-floppin' Jacobs. And Jason promising to errata INA out of the game.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:54 pm

There are not words enough to express my blinding hate for the Paizo forums.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:20 pm

TOZ wrote:
hogarth wrote:Saying "they" have an opinion about something is meaningless. On the Paizo board, the various writers drop their opinions seemingly without any co-ordination or discussion between them. James Jacobs is particularly bad at that.
Thank you for reminding me of the Imp Nat Attack thread man.

Fuckin' flip-floppin' Jacobs. And Jason promising to errata INA out of the game.

I didn't even remember which incident(s) I was referring to. Thanks for refreshing my memory...

I don't mind Paizo employees posting their opinions (even stupid opinions), but there should be a disclaimer in big bold letters saying: "THIS IS JUST MY (HALF-ASSED) OPINION, NOT A SOURCE OF ERRATA OR OFFICIAL FAQ ANSWERS."

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:21 pm

What was the gist of the INA thread?

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:54 pm

Koumei wrote:What was the gist of the INA thread?

JJ: "Monks can't take INA!"
Poster: "Yes, they can; read the rules."
JJ: "Well, maybe they can, but they can't in my game!"
Poster: "..."
JJ: "Hey, Jason said he's going to explicitly add a rule that says monks can't take INA. So I was right all along!"
Poster: "..."

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:24 pm

But it's really your own fault for listening to anything Sean K. Reynolds says.

I used to consider Bruce Cordell the worst writer for D&D. Though looking at SKR's record... well, Bruce Cordell would still curbstomp him, but SKR would still be in striking distance.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:40 pm

*slightly* tangent

Seriously when you make monsters like this

http://www.seankreynolds.com/skrg/free/ ... illem.html

I don't think you really should be listening to that person.

ggroy · Post by **ggroy** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:49 pm

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:11 am

hogarth wrote:
Koumei wrote:What was the gist of the INA thread?
JJ: "Monks can't take INA!"
Poster: "Yes, they can; read the rules."
JJ: "Well, maybe they can, but they can't in my game!"
Poster: "But your monk NPC in your adventure took it!"
JJ: "Oh, well, you know, it's not that bad. I give it a thumbs up!"
JB: "Don't worry, I'll be posting some errata banishing that feat from players hands, because I haven't fucked the monk hard enough!"
JJ: "Hey, Jason said he's going to explicitly add a rule that says monks can't take INA. So I was right all along!"
Poster: "..."

Fixed that for you.

Leress wrote:http://www.seankreynolds.com/skrg/free/ ... illem.html

*eyetwitch*

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:06 am

Leress wrote:*slightly* tangent

Seriously when you make monsters like this

http://www.seankreynolds.com/skrg/free/ ... illem.html

I don't think you really should be listening to that person.

That has to be one of the worst monsters I've ever seen. A templated monster with 3 HD with a CR of 1/2? What the...

This guy has a ridiculous amount of hit points for their CR. If you throw a horde of these at a level 1-3 fighter they will be slashing all day unless they be having Power Attack or some shit.

The abilities don't even make any internal sense. Why the fuck would I care about whether this guy starts starving if the symbiote will kill him more than five times as quickly as the hunger? What is the point of the extra mouths and teeth if they aren't used for attacking? A shapechanger with no ability to change their shape? An aquatic monster with no swim speed?

Like I said, second-worst writer in the business, next to Bruce Cordell. A man so awful that Andy Collins had to apologize for his suckage.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:07 am

Leress wrote:*slightly* tangent

Seriously when you make monsters like this

http://www.seankreynolds.com/skrg/free/ ... illem.html

I don't think you really should be listening to that person.

That has to be one of the worst monsters I've ever seen. A templated monster with 3 HD with a CR of 1/2? What the...

This guy has a ridiculous amount of hit points for their CR. If you throw a horde of these at a level 1-3 fighter they will be slashing all day unless they be having Power Attack or some shit.

The abilities don't even make any internal sense. Why the fuck would I care about whether this guy starts starving if the symbiote will kill him more than five times as quickly as the hunger? What is the point of the extra mouths and teeth if they aren't used for attacking? A shapechanger with no ability to change their shape? An aquatic monster with no swim speed?

Like I said, second-worst writer in the business, next to Bruce Cordell. A man so awful that Andy Collins had to apologize for his suckage.

FatR · Post by **FatR** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:30 pm

Ganbare Gincun wrote:My local gaming group wants to play Pathfinder despite the fact that they know damned well that it hasn't fixed any of the class balance issues in 3.5. And they all want to play Fighters and Monks. *sigh*

For most people mechanical balance is way less important than perceived coolness factor.

DeadlyReed · Post by **DeadlyReed** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:53 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote: Like I said, second-worst writer in the business, next to Bruce Cordell. A man so awful that Andy Collins had to apologize for his suckage.

Really? Link?

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:06 pm

That thing... is a fucking Giant Crab, all over again.

25 HP at CR 1/2? Even the CR 1 Trog Zombie has less HP than that, and is considered one of the toughest CR 1 creatures in the MM.

The +5 to hit? and 1d8+6 damage? That's better than most Fighters with greatswords. This thing deals damage like a PC, and has HP like something much higher than the PCs would deal with at CR 1.

The AC of 16 isn't winning it any points either, seeing as average PC AC is about 15 and up to 21 on an AC-specialized build. So, it has more AC than the average CR 1 PC.

That's just raw combat ability. Lago pointed out the other bullshit; aquatic, and no swim speed. Shapechanger that can't shapechange in any discernable way.

Seriously, just making it an [augmented humanoid] would have been more logical, and moreover, easier.

The flavour text at the end is completely bullshit, and lies and spits all over the reader.

The symbiote will kill the commoner before it abandons him, and there is no possible way, barring deus ex machina or Game Ref fiat, that Willhelm can possibly even live through the process, let alone "recover his mind", as SKR so deceptively writes.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:29 am

DeadlyReed wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote: Like I said, second-worst writer in the business, next to Bruce Cordell. A man so awful that Andy Collins had to apologize for his suckage.
Really? Link?

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... s/20090717

Andy Collins wrote:Today, we posted a new version of the Class Acts: Ranger article that originally appeared on July 13, 2009.

To put it bluntly, the previous version of the article was of unacceptable quality. You, the readers, correctly pointed that out and we agreed. Hence, these revisions.

We apologize for this lapse in quality.

Suck it, Andy. Suck it dry.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:59 am

What was wrong with the original?

Also, in response to more summoner/economy of actions/time consumption criticism:

SKR wrote:But note that the wizard conjurer can *already* create a similar situation using the core rules. I'd like to see if, in PLAY, a summoner's conjured army is a significant problem. It very well may be. But speculation and numbered lists of actions aren't conclusive. I want to see playtest results.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:41 pm

Which means instead of actually testing it he wants to know if it's 'fun' to fill the battlemap with Charizards.

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:13 pm

Roy wrote:Which means instead of actually testing it he wants to know if it's 'fun' to fill the battlemap with Charizards.

Wait... isn't that obviously the case? For its own sake? O_o

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:27 pm

Roy wrote:Which means instead of actually testing it he wants to know if it's 'fun' to fill the battlemap with Charizards.

It's more like the IRS. They don't like it when you just hand them a cheque for $12,357.25, or if you try to pay your taxes in pennies -- they have long boring forms you're supposed to fill out and you can only pay in certain formats. All the squawking in the world won't change that, even if it's a dumb system.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:43 pm

[This battlefield lieks moar mudkip. You can help, by adding moar mudkipz.]

-Username17

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:12 pm

I loled.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:07 am

Pathfinder Reference Document; Wall of Iron wrote:Iron created by this spell is not suitable for use in the creation of other objects and cannot be sold.

I'm trying to figure out how this would even look in the game, since there are NO other details about this trait in the spell description.

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:16 am

Paizo's continuing with their PHB2...I mean, Advanced Players' Guide playtest, and one of the latest classes is completely baffling.

Can someone read this and tell me what the fuck the alchemist is supposed to do? It's like Paizo looked at the warlock and said, "Hey, this is way too good. Let's limit everything it does to X/day and also tack on random hour-long prep time to be able to do anything. Wait, that's almost playable. Let's give it a bunch of nearly-at-will (except that you need to keep track of level+int mod daily uses) AOE fog effects with round/level duration, some of which move."

seriously what is the thinking behind this class i dont even