Posted: Tue May 26, 2015 2:29 pm
Watch empty body get nerfed like crane wing in errata
No, no, that is not the Paizo way. They're just going to slap a level 14 requirement on it (so that by the time you can choose this class ability, the Wizard can just fucking memorize it if he needs it). In two years.OgreBattle wrote:Watch empty body get nerfed like crane wing in errata
In the mean time, though, we'll have to just rely on a FAQ that redefines ethereal and breaks every instance where the word has been used in the rules so far.rasmuswagner wrote:No, no, that is not the Paizo way. They're just going to slap a level 14 requirement on it (so that by the time you can choose this class ability, the Wizard can just fucking memorize it if he needs it). In two years.OgreBattle wrote:Watch empty body get nerfed like crane wing in errata
Again, a full caster's pool is going to be around 2 to 8 spells total. It is unlikely your spell pool will cover even the top level of spells you lost.Though spontaneous casters can use this system, they gain relatively little, since they already don’t need to select which spells to prepare in advance, and their spell slots are comparable in number to those they would have if they used a spell pool.
Lurky Lurkpants wrote:...Simplified Spellcasting...
It's not "recent". Shit like synthesist (longer errata than the original archetype !) or sound striker (30 roll per turn !) or monkey lunge are older than D&D 5.Lurky Lurkpants wrote:However Paizo's editing seems to have gone to shit recently (was SKR carrying them?)
Close, but the level requirement is:rasmuswagner wrote:No, no, that is not the Paizo way. They're just going to slap a level 14 requirement on it (so that by the time you can choose this class ability, the Wizard can just fucking memorize it if he needs it). In two years.OgreBattle wrote:Watch empty body get nerfed like crane wing in errata
Mark Seifter wrote:This was mentioned earlier. Jason has confirmed its supposed to be 18.
You can take ninja tricks, but you can't get a ki pool (thus can't use forgotten trick). They also excluded all possible talents not from the 'main RPG line' (basically everything they'll put on the prd themselves), because those were written by a different team of people and they feel they can't refer to it or something. And they removed some other rogue talents, because the unchained rogue got a worse version build in, some were combined in new ones and some probably because they were better than other rogue talents.Dogbert wrote:No access to ninja tricks as a Rogue? Fuck that noise, Forgotten Trick Rogue is the only incentive I could ever have to play something other than a wizard.
Wait, what FAQ on Ethereal? They changed it?momothefiddler wrote:In the mean time, though, we'll have to just rely on a FAQ that redefines ethereal and breaks every instance where the word has been used in the rules so far.rasmuswagner wrote:No, no, that is not the Paizo way. They're just going to slap a level 14 requirement on it (so that by the time you can choose this class ability, the Wizard can just fucking memorize it if he needs it). In two years.OgreBattle wrote:Watch empty body get nerfed like crane wing in errata
No. He's just joking that they will. Rather than 'fixing' the ability that causes a rules interaction they don't like, they seem to like just changing the larger rule and saying 'it always worked like this'.Slade wrote:Wait, what FAQ on Ethereal? They changed it?momothefiddler wrote:In the mean time, though, we'll have to just rely on a FAQ that redefines ethereal and breaks every instance where the word has been used in the rules so far.rasmuswagner wrote:
No, no, that is not the Paizo way. They're just going to slap a level 14 requirement on it (so that by the time you can choose this class ability, the Wizard can just fucking memorize it if he needs it). In two years.
Famously, they did this for the Fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies which means the Fighter doesn't qualify for a lot of feats requiring proficiencies because their proficiencies aren't feats.deaddmwalking wrote:No. He's just joking that they will. Rather than 'fixing' the ability that causes a rules interaction they don't like, they seem to like just changing the larger rule and saying 'it always worked like this'.Slade wrote:Wait, what FAQ on Ethereal? They changed it?momothefiddler wrote:
In the mean time, though, we'll have to just rely on a FAQ that redefines ethereal and breaks every instance where the word has been used in the rules so far.
Exactly (Thanks for the clarification, guys.)RelentlessImp wrote:Famously, they did this for the Fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies which means the Fighter doesn't qualify for a lot of feats requiring proficiencies because their proficiencies aren't feats.deaddmwalking wrote:No. He's just joking that they will. Rather than 'fixing' the ability that causes a rules interaction they don't like, they seem to like just changing the larger rule and saying 'it always worked like this'.
They issued stealth errata in the FAQ. It sucks now.Insomniac wrote:It stinks that sound strikers have to give up Suggestion but the tradeoff is 1d8 damage plus Charisma modifier damage up to 10 times.The only reason not to do it is the sheer tedium of it all. 10 ranged tough attacks, then 10 different rolls for damage, then 10 separate Fortitude saves for half.,Damn. that really is at least 18 rolls at the minimum level you get it, 6th, and 30 by level 10.
If not for the bolded line, an Assimar bard might be able to make use of it.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.
Credit where credit is due (because at paizo, it so rarely is), making package deal proficiencies not feats is better design. Writing all the feats to require feat-based proficiency is where they show their true ineptitude.RelentlessImp wrote: Famously, they did this for the Fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies which means the Fighter doesn't qualify for a lot of feats requiring proficiencies because their proficiencies aren't feats.
I'd like to nominate Gygax. Here is one exampleRelentlessImp wrote:Really, if the shit they released in Dragon for years wasn't a big indicator that Paizo cannot into design, then their FAQ is just proving it all over again.
So, the real question is who's worse for answering gameplay questions/clearing up rules quirks/issuing errata? Paizo, WotC CustServ, or Skip fucking Williams as the Sage?
Gygax wrote: Another point to remember is that you should keep a strict account of time. The wizard who spends six months writing scrolls and enchanting items is OUT of the campaign for six months, he cannot play during these six game months, and if the time system is anywhere reflective of the proper scale that means a period of actual time in the neighborhood of three months. That will pretty well eliminate all that sort of foolishness. Ingredients for scroll writing and potion making should also be stipulated so that it is no easy task to prepare scrolls or duplicate potions.
If, when confronted with flaws in your game, your advice is to kick players out of the game for 3 months, so they'll stop using that part of the game, your advice is obviously bad.if the time system is anywhere reflective of the proper scale that means a period of actual time in the neighborhood of three months. That will pretty well eliminate all that sort of foolishness. "
Jesus fucking christ. No, that was not the expectation at all.vagrant wrote:Well remember, you were expected to have a running stable of characters - so saying 'My wizard is busy making wands for half a year' actually isn't unreasonable if the expectation is 'The player will pull out another character while his wizard is busy.'
Obviously, that isn't the expectation in modern games, where you have a single dude and play him every session, so for modern games, yes, that advice is fucking horrid.