Pathfinder: the Lowdown

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:03 pm

I think that could be the next step for the Tomes: Tome SRD. Just have everything integrated with the 3.5 SRD on some server somewhere, but that would take time and money.

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Fri Oct 08, 2010 4:16 pm

That's the current direction of the Tomes actually. Aktariel and Utterfail, along with a few very minor contributors like myself, are working on incorporating the SRD and Tomes into a cohesive, comprehensivish book so you don't have to keep other references immediately available. And yes, that takes time, and a lot of effort, but not so much money at present.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:35 am

Everyone remember Cockatrice Strike? That feat that let you take a full-round action to turn an enemy to stone, if you made a crit, and they failed a save? They're errataing it.

It now only requires a +14 BAB to qualify. So Monks can take it.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:40 am

TOZ wrote:Everyone remember Cockatrice Strike? That feat that let you take a full-round action to turn an enemy to stone, if you made a crit, and they failed a save? They're errataing it.

It now only requires a +14 BAB to qualify. So Monks can take it.

Didn't used to need BAB 16? So if Monks could take it in the first place it's a special bonus feat and they can ignore the requirements.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:10 am

It didn't have the 'monk bonus feat' wording in it.

houstonderek · Post by **houstonderek** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:46 am

Roy wrote:Cool. So in addition to the Paizils jumping at shadows that I might be lurking among them, I got two fucktards here doing the same. It amuses me greatly to know I elict such fear in the hearts of failtards. Though at the same time it's sad that anyone would be scared of someone on the internet.

You know, some of us do miss you and speak fondly of you over the gaming table. TOZ can attest to that, having shared said table with me from time to time.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:39 am

Oh shi-

Didn't think I'd ever see you over here Derek.

houstonderek · Post by **houstonderek** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:46 am

Why not? I've been lurking for a while. Figured I had to tell Roy Kirth and I miss him.

houstonderek · Post by **houstonderek** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:59 am

TOZ, have you shared any of our houserules here? Any feedback? Some of the guys here are really good at number crunching, and Kirth and I have wondered if they'd take a stab at checking the math.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:00 am

TOZ wrote: It now only requires a +14 BAB to qualify. So Monks can take it.

At BAB +14 (level 19) a monk is already past their last feat (level 18).

I guess maybe they could take a fighter level for it or something at 19 or 20.

koz · Post by **koz** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:51 am

erik wrote:
TOZ wrote: It now only requires a +14 BAB to qualify. So Monks can take it.
At BAB +14 (level 19) a monk is already past their last feat (level 18).

I guess maybe they could take a fighter level for it or something at 19 or 20.

In Pathfailure, you get a feat every odd level.

Gorbacz · Post by **Gorbacz** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:56 am

Screw this, it's Paizils Invade The Failden Week ! Hi guys

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:56 pm

Gorbacz wrote:Screw this, it's Paizils Invade The Failden Week ! Hi guys

Go suck a barrel of cocks.

houstonderek wrote:
Roy wrote:Cool. So in addition to the Paizils jumping at shadows that I might be lurking among them, I got two fucktards here doing the same. It amuses me greatly to know I elict such fear in the hearts of failtards. Though at the same time it's sad that anyone would be scared of someone on the internet.
You know, some of us do miss you and speak fondly of you over the gaming table. TOZ can attest to that, having shared said table with me from time to time.

O rly?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:02 pm

Gorbacz wrote:The Failden

0/10, try harder

Seriously, the least you could do is come up with something vaguely original or clever.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:26 pm

houstonderek wrote:TOZ, have you shared any of our houserules here? Any feedback? Some of the guys here are really good at number crunching, and Kirth and I have wondered if they'd take a stab at checking the math.

I haven't, but I suppose I could post it up.

FatR · Post by **FatR** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:53 pm

Returning to the topic... Not about mechanics this time, though. Does anyone know, why exactly Paizo tries to make their game so fucking grimdark, that Warhammer Fantasy's world perspectives are looking bright by comparison? It is not like the vanilla DnDland is any less than an absolutely horrible place to live, forever locked into a state where the world crawls with superpowered psychopaths and monsters that wage war on everything that lives. Yet, for some reason, Paizo decided to take this foundation and make changes and additions like:

- Turning most of the standard monstrous humanoids races from "bastards, but, really, not even as bad as Mongols were" to "demonspawn that exist only to bring misery to the world". Drow also were hit with this.
- Making gods of Good more useless. And buffing the number and potency of evil extraplanar bigshots even more, even compared with 3.X, which already overpowered demon princes and the like way too much.
- Adding so much sleeping/sealed/hidden apocalyptic evils, that it is not remotely clear anymore, how they all managed to divide the past of a single planet between them. And wanking on them quite hard. I mean, I can somewhat understand dragonwank or drowwank, but abolethwank? These aren't even remotely interesting antagonists (way too little middle ground between "you lose" and "your spells auto-negate everything meaningful it can do") and never were such.
- Upping the nausea factor of the stuff the various evils do by quite a bit.

And so on. I wonder is there is actually someone who likes crap like this in their heroic fantasy, or if they just are Lovecraft fanboys, who secretly hate the genre that earns their bread.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:02 pm

FatR wrote:Returning to the topic... Not about mechanics this time, though. Does anyone know, why exactly Paizo tries to make their game so fucking grimdark, that Warhammer Fantasy's world perspectives are looking bright by comparison?

I think James Jacobs is responsible for most of the "this ain't your momma's D&D!!!" creative direction. He's always blathering on about "shades of grey" and how awesome it is to have "deals with the devil". Feh.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:16 pm

Grimdarkness does two things.

It makes you feel as though the situation is hopeless, and it gives jerkass DMs plenty of penis extensions to jerk you around with. As Paizo is full of jerkasses and the situation is hopeless for all but about three classes it is understandable they would make a game that suits their interests.

Of course they still suck a barrel of cocks.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:17 pm

I was going to say "Smells like Cthulhu spirit" but then I saw you already guessed that was it. And shades of grey? HA! Try SHADES OF BLACK!

On a tangent:

It is not like the vanilla DnDland is any less than an absolutely horrible place to live

Someone commented the other day that D&D is just what kind of world you get when capitalism goes too far. I think he was talking about the fact that you have adventurers rushing about murdering people for their stuff as part of their regular job.

I then mentioned how Carrion Crawlers have been discovered in real life. The look on his face could be described as "Oh. Fuck. Shit just got real."

For the record, if his statement becomes even more true? Dibs on Wizard.

magnuskn · Post by **magnuskn** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:01 pm

Koumei wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:The Failden
0/10, try harder

Seriously, the least you could do is come up with something vaguely original or clever.

Really? For a place where the mayority of people chortle into their tea about "Pathfailure" and "Paizils", I think the term is not any less imaginative.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:10 pm

magnuskn wrote:
Koumei wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:The Failden
0/10, try harder

Seriously, the least you could do is come up with something vaguely original or clever.
Really? For a place where the mayority of people chortle into their tea about "Pathfailure" and "Paizils", I think the term is not any less imaginative.

What majority?

magnuskn · Post by **magnuskn** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:15 pm

Maxus wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Koumei wrote:
0/10, try harder

Seriously, the least you could do is come up with something vaguely original or clever.
Really? For a place where the mayority of people chortle into their tea about "Pathfailure" and "Paizils", I think the term is not any less imaginative.
What majority?

Well, the "felt" mayority, in my case.

In my ( perhaps flawed ) perception the mayor part of people who post have an exceptionally negative view on Pathfinder and habitually refer to it and the people on the PF forums with the terms referenced above.

Of course I could be equating the most outspoken part of the population with the mayority, but as I said, it's personal perception.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:29 pm

It doesn't matter. Who here goes over there to the Paizo boards and lambastes them with terms like "Pathfailure". I use the term without irony because I am done trying to have polite conversation with them. Which is why I don't post on their board any more.

Coming over here and using the word "failden" is just retarded trolling. That guy, whoever he is, should seriously get a life.

-Username17

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:39 pm

It sounded self-depracating to me.

But I dunno. The Den does turn out awesome things you would not have thought of.

Like the feats in this thread: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=32770

magnuskn · Post by **magnuskn** » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:49 pm

Eh, I think a good number of things I've read here about the technical problems of Pathfinder are correct. But then the on the last pages we got extended "They suck!" posts over the beta playtest of the Magus, which I think is premature. If the Magus doesn't get better in its final incarnation, go ahead and lambast them, but wait until it is the final product.

Another thing which is often mentioned is that a number of persons here are confused why people would pay for what they call "a set of houserules".

I don't think they appreciate how important it is for many players to have a ruleset published by a mayor company, which is done professionally, with good artwork and product support. That it is compatible with Paizos line of very good adventures ( which also feature good artwork and look professionally done ) is another point. IMO, it is important for people to have a ruleset which they can refer to as canon and then can modify the parts they don't agree with at their own table. Since 3.5 is actively not supported by WotC, it falls to Paizo to take up the slack.

Another reason why many people are loyal to Paizo, is because the developers very actively participate in the forums. You may disagree with many of their decisions and rulings, but it is really, really nice to have one of the chief developers respond to your rules question or comment about the setting.

And a last point, while I think that the general Den impression that the game turns into a superhero game at the later levels is technically correct, no player I have personally known ( so maybe it's just my group of people ^^ ) tries to play his character like he suddenly became Superman. They still play them like the people who started out the game, maybe grizzled up by their experiences, but not suddenly like Dr. Manhattan.