The Gaming Den

#Reactionary, how does it English?

They just used the wrong word because it sounded fancier and the editor didn't notice. It's pretty common in English, because we borrowed from so many other languages that very similar words (or even the same word) can have opposite meanings.

I mean, it could be intended as a play on how people who optimise their character for combat are "reactionary" relative to the flavour and style changes intended for Pathfinder over 3.5, but it's probably just a mistake.

tussock wrote:They just used the wrong word because it sounded fancier and the editor didn't notice.

Is "reactionary" a fancy word in English?

So I guess I saw the mistake because the French translation, "réactionnaire", doesn't sound fancy at all: it's a very common word in the field of politic. And using it in place of "réactif" ("quick to react") sounds very dumb in French, so the the trait sounds dumb when translated. I though the error came from the translator (and me), but no, it's the right translation.

GâtFromKI wrote:

tussock wrote:They just used the wrong word because it sounded fancier and the editor didn't notice.

Is "reactionary" a fancy word in English?

So I guess I saw the mistake because the French translation, "réactionnaire", doesn't sound fancy at all: it's a very common word in the field of politic. And using it in place of "réactif" ("quick to react") sounds very dumb in French, so the the trait sounds dumb when translated. I though the error came from the translator (and me), but no, it's the right translation.

It's not fancy and it's not especially unusual. It's not part of the everyday vocabulary of people who aren't politically aware, but it's not what I'd call obscure, either. It sounds extremely stupid in English, too, to people who do know what the word means.

Cyberzombie wrote:

Pseudo Stupidity wrote: Turns out there isn't, but there is a feat named "Hill Fighter" that lets you charge down hills (but not up them, you fucking munchkin) without making an acrobatics check.

I didn't even know there was an acrobatics check required for charging down a hill.

If I look at the acrobatics rules, it is probably :
Greater than 3 feet wide : DC 0*

* No Acrobatics check is needed to move across these surfaces unless the modifiers to the surface (below) increase the DC to 10 or higher.

And
Slightly sloped (<45°) +2 to the DC
Or
Severely sloped (>45°) +5 to the DC

But that would only make the DC 5, which would not require a check. So uhhh, something does not add up.

ishy wrote: But that would only make the DC 5, which would not require a check. So uhhh, something does not add up.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time that Pathfinder had an option that actually did nothing because it was created by someone with an inadequate understanding of the rules.

The actual rules about slopes are in the chapter "environment", in the sections "hill" and "mountain". You have to success an acrobatic check DC 10 to charge downhill on a steep slope, provided the slope is on a hill or a mountain.

I guess you don't have to make any check if there is a steep slope in dungeon or in a forest. For some reason.

ishy wrote:If I look at the acrobatics rules, it is probably :
Greater than 3 feet wide : DC 0*

* No Acrobatics check is needed to move across these surfaces unless the modifiers to the surface (below) increase the DC to 10 or higher.

And
Slightly sloped (<45°) +2 to the DC
Or
Severely sloped (>45°) +5 to the DC

But that would only make the DC 5, which would not require a check. So uhhh, something does not add up.

Moving at full speed instead of half is another +5, so that gives you a DC 10, which surprisingly matches the hill and mountain terrain rules.

That said, Climb defines a "wall" as having an incline >=60° and a "slope" as having an incline <60°. Acrobatics, however, doesn't reference "slopes", it references (severely) "sloped surfaces". And 90°>45°. So is there anything in RAW that keeps me from using an DC 10 Acrobatics check to move up an ice wall at half speed instead of a DC 30 Climb check to move up the same ice wall at quarter speed?

GâtFromKI wrote:

tussock wrote:They just used the wrong word because it sounded fancier and the editor didn't notice.

Is "reactionary" a fancy word in English?

So I guess I saw the mistake because the French translation, "réactionnaire", doesn't sound fancy at all: it's a very common word in the field of politic. And using it in place of "réactif" ("quick to react") sounds very dumb in French, so the the trait sounds dumb when translated. I though the error came from the translator (and me), but no, it's the right translation.

It's the same thing in Portuguese, and if I ever enter a PF game I'll be sure of picking this trait and then roleplaying the shit out of it:
"THIS SKIRT IS TOO SHORT! YOU NEED TO PAY TAXES TO VOTE! DEATH PENALTY FOR ALL CRIMES!"

GâtFromKI wrote:Before that, I have to inform you about the thrush familiar from the APG. It gives +3 Diplomacy (and +2/+4 Sense motive, as any familiar). It's not as good as the scorpion familiar (+2 init), but if your group already has a wizard and need a face, it's still better than using some lame Cha-class.

Why is Cha even a stat?
EDIT: Seriously, one could merge it into Wis, treat all the social stuff strictly as skills, and be no worse off except that we'd lose the "default dump stat," which, all things considered, is a pretty poor use for a stat.

Because otherwise Sorcerers lose their casting stat and clerics will no longer have additional channels per day. Duh.

I removed charisma from all of my games. It is now legally replaced with the text "Intelligence or Wisdom, players choice". Constitution is also thought of poorly by many posters here. Not because it's useless but because it's utterly passive and almost entirely a metagame concept. You cannot do anything with your constitution.

In my heartbreaker I use the SWAG attributes. Strength, Wit, Agility, Grit.

Cha is useful when you roll for abilities. Assuming your roll method ensure that everyone has a good character, the only meaningfull difference between a good roll and a "meh" roll is the good roll gets the girls.

It happened to me once : the roll method was "you roll, and if you don't like what you rolled you can use 20 points build instead". I rolled, and the method became : "lol ok everyone can use a 35 points build instead of his roll", and the only meaningful difference between my character and others was the Cha.

One of the many problems with Cha is that it doesn't get the girls. If we build 2 level 6 Rogues and one has a +2 Cha and the other has no modifier you would likely not even notice who was who over a night of rolling Charisma based checks. If the Rogue with no modifier invested in Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Intimidate he could bring them up to a +9 which is a very noticeable modifier. If those two characters start wooing barmaids and staring down bouncers the one that will succeed isn't the one that the game tells you is handsome and charming, it will be the one that invested in the skills that comprise the entire social minigame of D&D.

Even if you did demand that all character interaction be done with straight Charisma checks they'd still be a shit archetype. Because dropping Charisma is still generally an optimal choice so basically at character creation you'd be deciding whether your character was better at convincing people of you're success or actually succeeding.

Rawbeard wrote:Because otherwise Sorcerers lose their casting stat and clerics will no longer have additional channels per day. Duh.

Nice! Sarcasm aside, though, one could just as easily say that Wis represents the bard totally being in touch with his music, and the sorcerer being in touch with his inner dragon or whatever, and the paladin being in touch with his spirirual oaths and things, and the cleric being in touch with the great groovy Universal Healing Vibe, and use Wis for all four...

The terrible thing about stuff like Hill Fighter is that it's at the power level the designers intended for traits. Traits are supposed to be bullshit throwaway tweaks that you could more or less ignore.

So, from that perspective, those +1 to a save/+2 to initiative/bonus caster level traits are overpowered.

(which gets really crazy when you consider they really want to sell that "a trait is half a feat" bullshit - it really explains how shitty most of the feats are when the power level they're going for is "Twice as good as Hill Fighter.")

Back in my day ... or actually just before it ... Charisma was the stat to have. It's up to +40% on the AD&D chart that decides if random enemies will attack you right now or serve you as grateful slaves.

Not to mention their morale checks while they serve you, how many henchmen you can have (eight of them!), and how cheap and quick it is to get henchmen in the first place. A few points to hit or AC don't really compete with having a bunch of loyal classed NPCs at your beck and call and the ability to randomly turn half the dungeon into more allies along the way.

Seeing as how Druids had to have high Cha, that became their job. 1st edition Druids can also trivially make friends with every damn animal in the dungeon. Huge power.

MisterDee wrote:The terrible thing about stuff like Hill Fighter is that it's at the power level the designers intended for traits. Traits are supposed to be bullshit throwaway tweaks that you could more or less ignore.

Traits are supposed to be half a feat.

The thing is martial feat are shit flavored shit. I mean, one of the "must-have" martial feat is a shitty +5% to hit, only if you use the appropriate weapon; an other "must-have" martial feat allow you to increase your damage by reducing your to-hit, a thing any character should be able to do without any feat.

So, martial traits are supposed to be half as good as a piece of shit flavored shit. That's not a very high standard; actually, if you decide to take a martial feat, it isn't worth the trouble searching something appropriate in the books, it isn't even worth the effort to write something on your sheet: you can simply assume that you have 1 less trait.

In the other hand, magical feats can be good. Having an imp as familiar instead of a lame toad is cool, casting two spell per round is good, being able to cast spell while in tyrannosaur form is good, etc. As a consequence, magical traits can be good : magical lineage is good, birthmark can be cool, focused mind is useful since there aren't that many way to improve concentration checks, etc.

Paizil wrote:Since it is new posts by Pathfinder people week...

Ultimate Campaign's traits were astoundingly terrible. My favorite is Tireless Avenger, which lowers the DC for a forced march to 10+1/hour instead of +2/hour. But only when tracking a favored enemy. And only when saving against lethal damage. Note: forced marches do nonlethal damage, so this probably does nothing. I also like that they published new traits for "+1 to a Craft" and "+2 to a Craft" in the same book. I'm sure it was for realism, since everyone knows people who learn from "Artisans" instead of "Monks" are just better.

Not true, nit deals lethal to mounts, nonlethal to riders. So if your mount has the trait (by taking extra traits), it is better. Needs to be a Ranger since they share favored enemy to their mounts (is Animal companion is mount), but at least this is possible.

NPC's dont get Traits, but animals so?

Normally no, animals don't start with traits like PCs do, you'd have to burn one of your animal companion's feats on the Additional Traits feat to get any. Also you'd need to boost its INT somehow to get it to qualify for normal feats in the first place.

Basically Tireless Avenger is only useful for INT boosted animal companions of rangers who happen to be riding the animal while tracking a favored enemy and who are willing to set a feat on fire for two traits as opposed to taking Spring Attack or something they can use constantly.

I'm hard pressed to think of a more obscure corner case without adding "on the moon" or something.

Note also that if the ranger at any point just dismounts and doesn't run his beloved horse into the ground like an asshole, then the damage becomes nonlethal for the animal and the trait becomes pointless again. Also, unless the ranger has abandoned the party, all their horses will die of exhaustion before his will so he'll have to dismount anyway to not outpace everyone.

I didn't say it was a good trait, but it isn't worthless

But I love the image that everyone's mount died but his because they were that worried about getting to dinner on time.

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/1 ... rged-PFRPG

Just thought I would share this. Because Clerics need more stuff!

TOZ wrote:http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/1 ... rged-PFRPG

Just thought I would share this. Because Clerics need more stuff!

At TPK games, it's apparently still early 2000.

I'm all for making their Domains more relevant to them in day to day life. That book could work if it does something major like killing the "You know all the spells on your list, just like that". You can then give them any number of flavour class features to fill up the "Special" column on the class progression, you've fixed the most important bit.

And this lets a player forego every single Cure spell, meaning they're not the healbot because their known 1st level spells are Divine Favour, Magic Weapon and the one that grants a Deflection Bonus to AC.

If it's literally just "Take your Cleric, add more" though, then yeah, they took the "stupid" ball and ran with it.

I got my Kickstarter copy of Deep Magic in the mail today. Lots of filler and mediocre blast spells, but also some interesting and probably unintentionally broken stuff and a number of spells that are really cool. Tempted to do a review of it.