The Gaming Den

icyshadowlord wrote:Seems like we've found another stupid Pathfinder fanboy in the form of rasmus here.
Now, instead of just SAYING something is wrong, maybe you could explain what really IS true...which I doubt you can do with your level of intelligence.

Fuck you too.

You're the one who reads: "You can have a ring, amulet, weapon, rod, staff or wand. It is of masterwork quality." as "You can have any fucking magic item you want, for free, at level 1, as long as it's a weapon, wand, rod, staff, ring or amulet". It's not that Sean K. Reynolds and the rest of the rules staff at Paizo are not drooling retards - check my UC overview thread on rpg.net - it's that your interpretation of the text is obviously not RAI, and you're writing theorywank that wouldn't fly at any actual table with an average age above 12.

Your argument that "masterwork non-magical wand is $CLASS_NOT_DEFINED, so it must mean a magical wand, and there are no specified limits so I can just take whatever" assumes fact not in evidence - namely, that the ruleset is written to an incredibly high level of precision and cohesiveness.

EDIT: From the 2. "you" and onwards, read "you" etc as "Mask de H".

Hey Rasmus, let me translate GamingDenese for you. They're not saying that your interpretation isn't the best on (it's pretty obvious what they meant to say), they're just saying that they didn't say what they meant to. That's actually pretty important.

Mask_De_H wrote:Nothing cited in that rule invalidates starting with a magical item.

Can we give it a rest with the "there's nothing says that you can't" bullshit?

For instance, there's nothing in the Bible that says I don't wake up every morning with my dick in your mouth, so I'm expecting a holy blowjob from you tomorrow morning.

rasmuswagner wrote:Your argument that "masterwork non-magical wand is $CLASS_NOT_DEFINED, so it must mean a magical wand, and there are no specified limits so I can just take whatever" assumes fact not in evidence - namely, that the ruleset is written to an incredibly high level of precision and cohesiveness.

The problem is that the ruleset's level of precision and cohesiveness is "Eh, fuck it, they'll figure it out or we'll clarify it on the forums later if we feel like it."

See also: Stealth, synthesist Summoners, what bonuses apply to your CMB

A Man In Black wrote:See also: Stealth, synthesist Summoners, what bonuses apply to your CMB

Or Ice tomb's range, tetori's bonus feat, instantaneous words of power, weapons and maneuvers (more specifically "weapon finesse and maneuvers")...

Anyway, the precision and cohesiveness of Pathfinder sucks, but saying that a "masterwork wand" is a magic wand "because the rules don't explain what is a masterwork wand and don't say the wand isn't magic" is as much retarded as SKR.

hogarth wrote:

Mask_De_H wrote:Nothing cited in that rule invalidates starting with a magical item.

Can we give it a rest with the "there's nothing says that you can't" bullshit?

For instance, there's nothing in the Bible that says I don't wake up every morning with my dick in your mouth, so I'm expecting a holy blowjob from you tomorrow morning.

I should try that next time I date someone...

Hogarth: you might not get a holy blowjob, but you can suck a barrel of cocks as a consolation prize.

A masterwork wand is only defined as "what happens when you piss away your bonded wand charges". It is not what you start with, or are forced to start with. I still don't even think it's a purchasable thing, nor is it a Club (which would make sense). Wand is not $CLASS_NOT_DEFINED, it is $CLASS_MAGIC_ITEM until it's burnt out, and then it's $CLASS_MASTERWORK_WAND, which seems to be only achievable through this one case. A magic weapon is $CLASS_WEAPON and $CLASS_MAGIC_WEAPON, as long as it's not also $CLASS_SPECIAL_MATERIAL, it qualifies under the rules. The rules allow you to pick from $CLASS_WEAPON, $CLASS_WAND, $CLASS_STAFF, $CLASS_RING, or $CLASS_AMULET. Wand and staff are $CLASS_MAGIC_ITEM normally, and only lose that distinction when completely burnt out (and normally not able to be bought). Icy's already explained that there are a lot of gray areas in the system regardless.

rasmus: You're new, so you don't realize that ramming your dick through poorly thought out rules is kind of what we do. You're also arguing rules intent, when the Magic Item section discusses allowing 1st level characters to start with magic items. Furthermore, you're dismissing rules discussion on the grounds that the writers are retarded. The writers being retarded is bread and butter for a lot of rules exploits. Or terrible rules in general.

Mask_De_H wrote:rasmus: You're new, so you don't realize that ramming your dick through poorly thought out rules is kind of what we do.

No.

What you're doing right now is saying "hey, nothing in the rules says that humans have two hand! My character can have 36! And nothing in the rules says that you can't take action when you're dead! Oh, and regular wands aren't described, therefore all wands are magical! And if my character wears a hat, it has to be a magical hat also!"

Mask_De_H wrote:Hogarth: you might not get a holy blowjob, but you can suck a barrel of cocks as a consolation prize.

No, you're screwing up the game. You're supposed to phrase it as a double negative! I.e. "it doesn't say you don't suck a barrel of cocks as a consolation prize".

Seriously, in English the article "a" is not always synonymous with the word "any".

Mask_De_H, I'm not new, and I can assure you that your argument is really, really silly.

Mask_De_H wrote:Hogarth: you might not get a holy blowjob, but you can suck a barrel of cocks as a consolation prize.

A masterwork wand is only defined as "what happens when you piss away your bonded wand charges". It is not what you start with, or are forced to start with. I still don't even think it's a purchasable thing, nor is it a Club (which would make sense). Wand is not $CLASS_NOT_DEFINED, it is $CLASS_MAGIC_ITEM until it's burnt out, and then it's $CLASS_MASTERWORK_WAND, which seems to be only achievable through this one case. A magic weapon is $CLASS_WEAPON and $CLASS_MAGIC_WEAPON, as long as it's not also $CLASS_SPECIAL_MATERIAL, it qualifies under the rules. The rules allow you to pick from $CLASS_WEAPON, $CLASS_WAND, $CLASS_STAFF, $CLASS_RING, or $CLASS_AMULET. Wand and staff are $CLASS_MAGIC_ITEM normally, and only lose that distinction when completely burnt out (and normally not able to be bought). Icy's already explained that there are a lot of gray areas in the system regardless.

rasmus: You're new, so you don't realize that ramming your dick through poorly thought out rules is kind of what we do. You're also arguing rules intent, when the Magic Item section discusses allowing 1st level characters to start with magic items. Furthermore, you're dismissing rules discussion on the grounds that the writers are retarded. The writers being retarded is bread and butter for a lot of rules exploits. Or terrible rules in general.

Similarly, the 3.5 rules don't list regular belts. You better find a girdle of giant strength if you don't want your pants around your ankles.

You make a compelling case, but we of the Supreme Court notice that you are not mentioned by name anywhere in the Constitution.

There's a playtest for a new version of the stealth skill.

I can't see any fucking difference with the old version. Can someone explain me, with very simple words?

There is no difference.

And I am saying that despite never even trying it out.

GâtFromKI wrote:There's a playtest for a new version of the stealth skill.

I can't see any fucking difference with the old version. Can someone explain me, with very simple words?

You could have linked it.

The old playtest!Stealth made you Invisible if you succeeded. The new one creates a Hidden condition (like MGS when the guards aren't alerted), and also clarifies some monster abilities that interact with Stealth.

This new iteration also makes it incredibly fucking confusing to tell when it is exactly that you're supposed to make a Stealth check, and when you're noticed if you fail.

A Man In Black wrote:The old playtest!Stealth made you Invisible if you succeeded. The new one creates a Hidden condition (like MGS when the guards aren't alerted), and also clarifies some monster abilities that interact with Stealth.

I'm not asking for the differences with the first playtest, but the differences with core. As far i can tell:

• you need concealment or cover.
• blindsense, blindsight etc negate stealth.
• even if you have concealment and the monsters don't have special senses, you need to roll many, many check to walk unnoticed.

It's the same as the core rulebook...

The only difference I see is: a bard with blur can try to hide every round as a swift action, and can start or maintain a bardic performance while being hidden.


... That's why I'm asking for the differences.

For one thing, it's more explicit as to what action you need to use in order to hide. I.e., it consumes at least a swift action each round, even if you're standing still.

GâtFromKI wrote:I'm not asking for the differences with the first playtest, but the differences with core. As far i can tell:

• you need concealment or cover.
• blindsense, blindsight etc negate stealth.
• even if you have concealment and the monsters don't have special senses, you need to roll many, many check to walk unnoticed.

It's the same as the core rulebook...

The only difference I see is: a bard with blur can try to hide every round as a swift action, and can start or maintain a bardic performance while being hidden.

... That's why I'm asking for the differences.

It's more explicit what action is involved in hiding. Creating a distraction is marginally clearer. It's (somewhat) clearer on what causes hiding to end. "Hiding" is now a condition with explicit effects. It's now clearly possible to sneak past a gap in concealment/cover without being automatically spotted at DC 0.

They're not good rules (yet?), but they're marginally better.

Essentially, the changes they're attempting to make are as follows:

If you start out hiding/concealed, you can cross a creature's line of sight and still be hidden if you end your move with some form of concealment. In other words, you can actually use stealth to sneak. There is a huge thread complaining about how you can't hide from a farmer and steal his chickens the way the core rules are written.

If you want to distract someone and then hide, there's a rule for it. The core rules say you can't hide while being observed, ever, without hide in plain sight, and even that has too many qualifiers. This is an attempt at allowing you to Batman away from the commissioner. Or Ninja disappear, whatever.

The first "playtest" of fixes granted "invisibility" and that generated a lot of "how does that interact with supersenses" questions. The second one creates a new condition and attempts to answer these questions.

There is a huge thread complaining about how you can't hide from a farmer and steal his chickens the way the core rules are written.

if I recall correctly that thread was from a long while ago

The first "playtest" of fixes granted "invisibility"

that's fucking stupid since invisibility grants a +20/+40 to stealth checks

The second one creates a new condition

it's really like I'm playing 4e

Psychic Robot wrote:if I recall correctly that thread was from a long while ago

It keeps getting bumped. I'm surprised it has the legs it does, especially since it's basically "Paizo is incompetent" in the den of Paizo fan noise.

it's really like I'm playing 4e

Not only is it a new condition, but its only effect is that nobody has a line of sight to you (but no total concealment, because, um...), and also you can be hidden from some people but not others unlike every other condition in the game.

Judging from the way you described it, they only made stealth even more convoluted and harder to determine in terms of what exactly you can do in it and what it does as a condition. Simply put, "now it's even more confusing!!".

Anyway, since this thread is about Pathfinder being bad, how bad is the Oracle class? The fluff got me mildly interested despite the fact that it's probably a pretty horrible class with the way it's spell progression works.

oracle is pretty good, probably better than sorc but near that power level

The infuriating thing about the Oracle is that they didn't fix the damned delayed progression for spontaneous casting. They do get some of the best selectable class abilities though. Which sucks in its own way, because even if you take spellcasting out of the equation the Oracle can get some better abilities than the Fighter.

Maybe some of you guys are aware of this label called Super Genius Games from Own K.C. Stephens? They produce a lot of small PDF supplements for Pathfinder, some of which I picked up and found myself intrigued by an idea or two. Now they have this line called Spell Variants, where they do these variants of existing spells... the results are interesting, to say the least

Now there's a third volume, advertised with the following statement:

[Yadda, yadda, marketing speach]

For example it’s fairly obvious a druid class shouldn’t have the haste spell on its spell list, but a new spell called pack tactics which acted like haste but could only be cast on creatures of the animal type is perfect for druids. And even better, you already know it’s about a 3rd level spell, since it doesn’t do anything the wizard haste spell doesn't.

I am still deciding if I should pay $4 dollars to see how bad this really is. Please tell me it's just cruel mockery from the authors, please do. They can't be serious.