Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hoary Muntjac

AbsolutGrndZer0's page

919 posts (1,023 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 4 aliases.


1 to 50 of 919 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Abyssian wrote:
For alliterative and redundant (and redundant) purposes, I think I would have to play a Winter Wolf Witchwolf Winter Witch with a wolf.

One problem... wolf is not a valid familiar... course, we're already throwing the CR out with the icy bath water... guess having a wolf familiar isn't so far out of range.

Vic Wertz wrote:
We have to be very very careful when we think about doing anything that increases the value proposition of our products at in ways that the retailers who carry our products cannot match. It makes them angry at us.

Hmm, that's somewhat understandable, but while the subscription is worth it, for books I am not subscribed (which I do plan to subscribe again soon as the next adventure path starts, don't want to restart in the middle of one plus I need to catch up on my cellphone bill next month) to it's very difficult to buy them from you when I can get them elsewhere for 30% off then use that money to buy the PDF here.

I want to buy them direct from you, I really really do... but... when I look at the Print+PDF cost... my debit card runs away from me in terror for the popular online site that starts with an A.

Green Smashomancer wrote:
graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Why are you assuming the human grows a tail when they take the feat? If your daddy is a Kobold it's reasonable that you would be born with Kobold-like features.

Because the feat says you can use your tail to make attacks, but doesn't say you grow one. Humans don't have tails, even Kobold legacy ones.

Check out the bastards book once. Humans can start with things like hooves and wings. But tails... silly... [rolls eyes again]
And the terrible Tail Terror is back! I'd like to thank everyone involved who decided to start arguing in bold about it and telling us they are rolling their eyes for this wonderful achievement.

Yeah, this thread is for mentioning of stuff, not a new thread to beat Tail Terror like a dead pegacorn.

Okay, so with the Winter Wolves in Irrisen able to take human form and the nuances of magic meaning crazy things can happen, I've created a new race (really a template) based on the idea of werewolves interbreeding with Irrisen's winter wolves. This is the Winter Wolf Blooded Witchwolf. I considered that a full fledged were winter wolf could be possible, that's beyond my intention.

So, you start by making a witchwolf as normal. Then you add the ability to take a medium sized winter wolf form (young template rebuild, which also means the breath weapon will be 6d3 instead of the normal 6d6). At 10th level you upgrade to a regular large winter wolf. This shares with the standard witchwolf shapechanging pool and follows the same rules. If you go shifting back and forth too many times, you'll be cut off for the rest of the day.

Then, they get the cold subtype, Darkvision 60 feet, and the +2 racial save bonuses. Which means, they can use only the bite or claws options, but as per the normal skinwalker rules, they have to switch back and use another charge of their ability to switch around. Also, with the cold subtype they get +1d6 damage on all natural attacks (NOT unarmed strike, sorry monks... though Feral Combat Training FTW)

Of course, this is a significantly powerful template, though that's mitigated a bit by the limits on their shifting times per day.

Of course, it's not for PCs except in higher level games, but that's also part of the reason I wanted to talk about it... help deciding the CR of such a thing. Since an Winter Wolf is CR 5, would this be CR 6 ala lycanthrope rules or figured differently?

First of all, wasn't sure where to put this so if there is a better forum, please feel free to flag and move it!

Now, I noticed that a lot of 3rd party publishers seem to offer a discount if you buy both the print and PDF editions at the same time. Now, I understand that with Paizo's subscription model you might not want to do as near of a big discount as some 3rd party publishers do, but what about... just as an example using Inner Sea Gods...

$39.99 HC
$27.99 PDF

Maybe say $49.99-54.99 for the bundle?

Now, part of why I say this is, I'll be completely honest here. Looking at the price of the Inner Sea Gods PDF then looking at the price of the Print book here... then looking at the price of the Print book from other popular sources, I really financially find it hard to buy the HC directly from Paizo AND buy the PDF (but I very much do want both.) But, if you did like 25-50% off the price of the PDF when purchased at the same time as the HC, it would make it much more appealing... but then the question becomes, would it help your sales from other than just me? I really don't know, which is kind of why I figured I'd give this example and find out.

Cr500cricket wrote:

could you give a link/PDF for those lost technology items doc? Preferably free

This is it on Paizo's site. It's $9.99 PDF, $18.99 Print, or $19.99 for both.

Kobold Press - Sunken Empires

So, I thought of this as an alternate racial feature for skinwalkers, and thought I would see what others thought of it.

So, you give up your spell-like ability and Animal-Minded skill bonuses to get Beast Form I for a single animal form that is possible as a lycanthrope always the same animal at will.

Now, being at-will is kind of powerful, but that's also why I have them also give up their skill bonuses. I think only being Beast Shape I and only being a single animal form never changing it's somewhat reasonable.


Hmmm... This intrigues me, but curious, are Winter Wolves in there? I noticed from the errata that worgs are.

VRMH wrote:

The former. Your character qualifies for the fear (while shapechanged), and so she can take the feat. When she then reverts to her natural form she no longer qualifies; the feat cannot be used at that time unless you get a Wisdom bonus from another source.

GMs may object to leveling up while shapechanged though, which you'd need to do.

Heh, thanks. She may end up having a 17 by the time she qualifies anyway, but wasn't sure so thought I'd ask.

EDIT: Decided to make her a martial artist monk instead so switched her Cha and Wis haha. So, now she qualifies (but oooh the AC bonus she'll have at 1st level yay)

I am making a Witchwolf Natural Weapons Ranger, and her Wis is 15. When she's shapechanged, she has a +2. So, for feat prerequisite, specifically Wolf Savage, does she have a Wis of 17 but can only use the feat while shapechanged, or because it's not a permanent always on bonus, does it not count?

Ascalaphus wrote:

You need some arcane spellcasting to qualify, but the effect isn't restricted to arcane spells. So a tiefling, gnome or aasimar easily qualifies...

Oh, and Communal Stoneskin has a material component of 100gp per target.

Oh, okay that's sneaky. So, would say Winter's Soul qualify you? It makes no reference on if it's Arcane or Divine, however the spell is magus/wizard.

Ooooh I see it now! Okay, yes thank you Paizo, that is very cool!

EDIT: OMG yes the FAQ and updates is ESPECIALLY amazing!!!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
. If so, we'll pierce the heavens, reject that reality and substitute...

... cookies?

Hmmm what do you mean? I just looked at the page for Ultimate Combat (which I do own the PDF of) and I don't see anything new, just the usual link to the downloads page... what am I missing?

You want to see gender inequality in Golarion, look no further than Kostchtchie (Chaotic Evil). Basic tenets on gender equality amount to women are good for two things... sex and giving birth to men.

Now, that said, I actually even before Golarion for the most part had more equality in my games. Sure, I might have had a few misogynistic cultures here and there depending on the campaign world, but overall I think it's a lofty goal in real life, but we can have it in our fantasy and hope that someday enough of us can find a way to make a difference.

EDIT: Oh, and Kostchtchie hates witches. More than he hates women.

EpicFail wrote:
I don't see a problem with Skinwalkers as lycanthropes thus qualifying for Aspect of the Beast feat.

I think it's reasonable, and so I at least allow it as a house rule for skinwalkers (but not others with the shapechanger subtype)

However, just for full disclosure, last I heard if you are playing in a PFS game, the answer is no. That is, archetypes are an exception in PFS, not sure why though, since I don't really play PFS myself.

Question wrote: mostly divine spells and utility i guess.

OK, slight thread necromancy here, but unless there is errata I don't know about, False Focus is for arcane casters only.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I'd build your PCs with point buy and let him roll his. Is he going to care about that? Or even know?

Well, no he wouldn't except as I said in my last post, on an overall topic, what if it wasn't NPCs and was just players... what would you do if Fiona and Patricia were players?

True, but part of the reason I hate rolling is just for example, pretend Patricia rolled really badly... (just kinda making up stats I think look good for way of quick example)...

First reminder of Fiona's stats 17, 17, 17, 15, 15, 17 (natural weapon ranger)

Then Patricia say she rolled (lunar oracle)

10 12, 10, 12, 8, 14

So, given those stats... I'd need to up the CR to compensate cause Fiona is a BEAST with those stats... yet Patricia? Sure, she's an oracle but the stuff that is a challenge for Fiona will mop the floor with Patricia unless I completely arbitrarily say nothing attacks her, not to mention her 14 Charisma doesn't give her much in the way of save DCs. So, then if I DID do that, am I favoring an NPC (or even if she was an actual PC) by only having monsters attack the players with high rolled stats?

EDIT: Also, while my current example is a single player game being filled out by NPCs, overall my "discussion" is still extended to the standard many players games where let's say that Fiona and Patricia (with stats as in this post, not my OP) are actual players

Ok, first of all a forum location disclaimer... While in a way I am looking for advice, I feel this thread is better placed here to allow more discussion of the craziness that happens when you roll your stats...

I'm currently running a game with a single player who refuses outright to do point buy. I give 25 points in my games instead of the recommended 15, but he still is like we can play something else, if we are playing any incarnation of D&D, we roll or I don't play. Since he's the only player, I pretty much gave in.

SO, since he's the only player I am filling out the party with NPCs, and so far two of them I've rolled stats of (after racial mods)

Fiona Witchwolf Natural Weapon Ranger 17, 17, 17, 15, 15, 17 = 66
Patricia Witchwolf Lunar Oracle 14, 16, 16, 15, 15, 17 = 53

Which, is pretty much why I tend to not like to roll, but instead give generous points cause my d20's hate me, but my d6s love me.

Now, I've not seen what he's rolled yet but honestly, at this point I'm not sure it matters. With what I rolled for the NPCs even if he totally cheated and gave himself all 18s (which I know he wouldn't do... in past games I've seen him end up with 15 point buy and the other players like the stats I rolled for my twins and he was happy)

So, what would you guys do? Straight up stick with what I rolled, or should I assign the stats exactly how I see them concept wise which would be far lower than what I rolled either way?

Also, feel free to give your own stories of why you like or do not like rolling vs. point buy.

EDIT: Just as a "test" I went ahead and rolled the stats of the NPC I already had finished, and rolled 17 13 13 12 14 14 = 31 (which these stats are pre racial mods, I didn't assign them yet) Still over the 25, but not nearly as insane as Fiona and Patricia, but very much illustrates the disproportion!!!

Whaaaaat! I had to cancel my subscriptions for awhile, but... this might bring me back for awhile in August!

James Risner wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
obviously a misprint in Animal Archive given the original source's wording...
Not a misprint. It was deliberately changed to accommodate a single-class Ranger taking it and getting to remove the -3 penalty to their Animal Companion.

Okay, but then it's confusing for familiars that aren't affected by druid level.

Ah, cool okay thanks I didn't know it was updated in Seeker of Secrets. :)

And again, "We know what it's trying to say" is not a valid defense for many GMs because when something is not 100% clear, it is opened up to interpretation.

EDIT: Wait... Seeker of Secrets is OLD LOL... so yeah, it's obviously a misprint in Animal Archive given the original source's wording...

heliodorus04 wrote:

The pre-requisite for taking Boon Companion is "Animal Companion Class Feature"

Familiar is not Animal Companion, so I believe it is, as written, not applicable to familiars.

I am even curious whether a Ranger could take this feat at Level 3, since they have the class feature, but it doesn't activate until 4th level (so you couldn't take it until 5th level).

Read the feat. It says Prerequisites: Animal companion or familiar class feature.

Boon Companion feat

But, yes that is true, somewhere in the FAQ it does say that until you actually get a class feature you don't have it. Which, makes sense because otherwise a level 3 ranger could take this feat and get a companion early... then never ever bother taking another level of Ranger.

Also, a 4th level Ranger could retrain to the feat, since part of the retraining rules (at least in the RAW, I do not know PFS retraining rules changes, so don't be like "But AbsolutGrndZer0 said it was allowed" haha) you ARE allowed to when retraining get any feat you qualify for even if you did not qualify for it at the original level.

Sitri wrote:
I asked about this a while ago when one of my players in a home game wanted to use it for a familiar with no cap. I asked on the boards and didn't get a whole lot of help, other than a few people saying it should be capped. There was a couple of people that implied that at one time this was a animal companion only feat, it was only later versions that included the familiar. If this is true, it was likely an oversight when updating the feat to not include language more appropriate to the familiar.

Hmm, yah that could be but honestly, if it is I don't get why a writer cant just tell us's like they completely avoid the question, one thread on it that had a lot of FAQ hits they just marked "No reply needed" like.. um wtf yes a reply is needed, or are they saying that we are all stupid that we are even asking when it's so obvious what the feat does because the wording is 100% clear and concise?

Or, here even more so... why can't a Venture Captain tell me simply how this feat is arbitrated for familiars in PFS, since that would at least be closer to an official ruling than the developers seem to want to bother with.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Same way the regular rules do. Adding "in pfs" doesn't make something a pfs question. Its not like "in bed" with a fortune cookie :)

Okay, so then how does it work? Because I've been asking in the regular forums and gotten a few different answers. Some say that despite not saying wizard level it means wizard level. Some say that it says druid level which means that the maximum level only matters for animal companions not for familiars, and then there is the (pedantic) literal reading that says your druid level is increased which means it has no effect for a familiar.

For reference:

The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit. If you lose or dismiss an animal companion or familiar that has received this benefit, you may apply this feat to the replacement creature.

Note, it says nothing at all about effective wizard level. Now, when I GM I can of course say that "obviously the intent is druid OR wizard level" but I've seen others interpret it other ways, so who I am to say "Sorry dude, you are wrong and I am right."

Which, is kind of why I am asking here... how does PFS treat this feat in regard to familiars when the feat only mentions a druid level?

EDIT: Also, I know of one case where a character in my home game would be illegal in PFS despite being 100% legal by the RAW and clarified as RAI by SKR. That is, she's a Aasimaar with Scion of Humanity who is a Gunslinger (Buccaneer). The official rules say that she can take a human archetype, PFS says she can't. So that is very much a case where just adding "IN PFS" turns it into a PFS question.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

So, as there are a few interpretations I've heard of how the Boon Companion feat works with familiars, I'm curious what the PFS ruling is. Mind you, I am not a PFS player (closest VC is like 75 miles away, too far for me to travel for regular games) but I am however curious how the PFS interprets the feat, since it says it's available to familiars and animal companions, yet only references your druid level...

Davor wrote:
It looks like the implication is that there are no limitations on how high it can boost a familiar's level, which makes sense, given their relatively low individual power compared to animal companions.

Hmmm, see now THAT is not how I would interpret it, so in a way, you make my point even better than I did... maybe the RAI is NOT so obvious as I thought it was.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
No writing of the rules is ever going to be so tight that they cannot be deliberately misread if you really try hard. This is why lawyers are so rich.

True, though as I said above, I've known GMs that would say as you have a druid level of 4 means nothing to a familiar, therefore the feat doesn't affect a familiar. I don't play with him anymore, but having known him, I have learned stuff like this DOES matter.

James Risner wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

most glaring case of the RAW making a feat completely worthless for characters that qualify for it can be seen in

Animal Archive wrote:
calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level.

In context we know what the rules say, so we know RAW.

If we deliberately choose to read them in a very pedantic way, we run into some trouble. But really, it isn't a problem here.

This increases "class", in context the only class that is relevant is the class granting you the familiar (if you don't have an AC.)

It limits your effective druid level, which you don't have. So the good news is 0+4 is less than your character level unless you are 3rd level. If you are 3rd level, good news. Your familiar isn't limited by effective druid level, only Animal companions are.

So then by that logic, if I am a level 4 Witch and a level 3 Gunslinger, I get a +4... it's therefore 8 since it's a familiar not an animal companion and only druid level is limited?

Now, I don't think that's how it works, but as it is worded, your effective druid level is referenced, wizard level is not. It should be, simply because there are GMs that are that pedantic.

Or, ARE you saying that a character with a familiar can exceed their character level but those with animal companions cannot?

Mike Franke wrote:
For me if you know the RAI there is no need to even worry about the RAW. That is what opens the door to silly arguments about whether or not a human with no tail can make a tail attack...However without the semantic arguments these boards would be a lot more...well boring.

Well, while I agree to some extent, not every case of the RAI vs. the RAW is clear cut, and even when it is, some GMs are hardcases that enforce the RAW over RAI every time. So, it's in cases like this that becomes a major problem.

Green Smashomancer wrote:
Chaotic Fighter wrote:

Tail terror debacle?

*puts in pipe* A long time ago back when I was but a wee lurker (like three months or so), someone came onto the boards with a simple question: can a human take Racial Heritage to qualify for feats specific to other races. The feat in question was the Kobold feat tail terror, which gave you a tail attack (or increased the damage die? Not sure in my old age...). Arguments raged, dogs hid under sobbing mothers, and all sorts of debates and interpretations showed up. Some said that you couldn't take the feat because the human did not necessarily have a tail to begin with, some said it worked fine, others still said it could be taken, but didn't do anything until the character worked out a way to get a tail, and so on.

*curls up in the corner and cries*

Okay, so I am NOT suggesting moving this to the PFS area, as this is about the base game rules, not PFS but as an aside am curious if anyone knows, what's the PFS ruling on Boon Companion? Is it RAW and therefore worthless to a character with a familiar, or have they house ruled it to what's obviously RAI?

Arachnofiend wrote:
Behold! The list that Paizo probably should have provided us at some point.

It's incomplete for many non-core archetypes (like he's missing Buccaneer from the ARG, yet he has Bonded Witch from the same book), plus he's got mistakes... Beast-Bonded and Bonded Witch are completely incompatible. Beast-Bonded enhances your familiar, Bonded Witch replaces your familiar with an arcane bonded item.

Sarrah wrote:
Can someone take 10 levels in a class with two archetypes - where both archetypes replace the Level 20 ability? (then multiclass into something else)


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Okay, so this is maybe better in the advice section, but I'm putting it here for now, if people want to flag it for elsewhere and Paizo agrees, I'm okay with that...

There are other examples, but the most glaring case of the RAW making a feat completely worthless for characters that qualify for it can be seen in

Animal Archive wrote:

Boon Companion

Your bond with your animal companion or familiar is unusually close.

Prerequisites: Animal companion or familiar class feature.

Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit. If you lose or dismiss an animal companion or familiar that has received this benefit, you may apply this feat to the replacement creature.

Special: You may select this feat more than once. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different animal companion or familiar.

So, while you can take it for a familiar, AS WRITTEN it doesn't do anything for your familiar, since it gives you +4 effective druid level, not wizard level. We all know the RAI of course MUST be druid OR wizard as needed for the companion or familiar, but this is not what it says.

So, anyone have any other examples where word count or other reasons make it so the RAW and the obvious RAI are wildly out of sync?

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
richard develyn wrote:
Still a bit puzzled,
Here's the thing to remember: with few exceptions, none of us publishers can survive the time/expense of a law suit. If a publisher decided to put another publisher out of business, all they would have to do is examine all of their products, find something that is "close enough," hire a lawyer and file a law suit. None of us want it to happen and to my knowledge it hasn't happened, yet....

Well, it hasn't happened to my knowledge in the gaming industry, but it has happened in the mobile games industry, although just last week it was put to rest amicably. Though it seems the bigger company is still cracking the whip on every single OTHER mobile game on the iTunes and Android markets that use their new trademarked word. Granted, I don't know full legal details, just what I've read on the websites of the parties involved and various gaming news sites covering the lawsuit.

But, my point here is to further show the OP how he should consult with a lawyer if he's at all even thinking he MIGHT be breaking copyright.

There also was some issues with White Wolf about ten years back vs. the real life Obeah religion they were fighting with over trademark of a vampire power named and inspired from the religion's beliefs, although details on it are strangely hard to find today (like no idea how WW managed to scour the internet, but they did!)... but I heard about it when it was going on because it all started when a member of the religion wanted to start a newsletter and was told he couldn't as White Wolf had trademarked "Obeah" and the wording of their trademark claim pretty much spelled out the religion's core beliefs. White Wolf won the lawsuit, and they had to (at least for awhile) change their name in print. IT's also why I had to rewind Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest and turn on the subtitles to be sure they said that Tia Dalma was Obeah.

Bit of thread necromancy here, but what about this line...

Pathfinder Familiars section wrote:
Levels of different classes that are entitled to familiars stack for the purpose of determining any familiar abilities that depend on the master's level.

Does it not, for purposes of the familiar, mean your caster level is higher?

So, for an example of my own, could I have a level 5 Gunslinger (Buccaneer) / level 2 Witch with a lyrakien? Since for the purpose of determining any familiar abilities that depend on the master's level the total level is 7?

As a GM, I allow Wildblooded bloodlines with Eldritch Heritage, however I can totally see where a GM could rule that you can't.

Kazaan wrote:
Well that's a stealth errata. When did they switch it from bonus spells per day to spells known at lvl 1?

I have the first printing of the ARG, and it says spells known at 1st level.

That said, I read it as Con replaces Int for all class abilities. So, when I had a player run a Scarred Witch Doctor I allowed bonus spells per day based on his Con.

Just found this and I am so happy to see official statement that it will be changed in a future printing.

Rynjin wrote:

I renders you immune to the curse, but immunity to something shouldn't do anything if you've already contracted it unless it has ongoing effects.

So, like, a guy gets poisoned. Before the poison has run its course, he gains immunity to poison. He stops taking damage from the poison, but any ability score damage isn't wiped just because he's now immune.

Same deal here, I would think.

Curse of Lycanthropy is specifically the Su ability that causes the curse to infect those a werewolf bites. Not the transformation itself. Once you're a werewolf, you're a werewolf.

Okay, that's what I thought, but wanted to be sure before I fully decided that I want to make her a Lunar oracle.

If you are a natural lycanthrope and you gain immunity to lycanthropy (for example of what prompted the question, I am making a werewolf oracle with the Lunar mystery which can take "Mantle of Moonlight" that makes one immune to Lycanthropy among other combat benefits vs. lycanthropes), does it not matter because you are natural, can you not take such an ability, or do you lose your werewolf abilities?

Scavion wrote:

The game isn't designed based on pvp.

Also if you're relying on flight alone to catch an enemy rather than some other means, it's already a pointless exercise and a pointless comparison.

Are you legitimately telling me that you couldn't catch someone within 15 minutes of flight time?

Especially since by 15th level, teleportation becomes common place? Or even the incredibly vast array of options a 15th level party has at their disposal to lockdown an opponent?

I'm not talking about PvP, first of all.

Second, we're comparing two methods of obtaining wings. Other things you can do sure, you can throw Wish spells in at level 20. Wish for permanent wings, why not (probably out of the scope of a wish I know)? But, in comparing the two wing abilities, I don't feel that "other options for locking down an opponent" matter because I am comparing flight capability of the two options. If you are making a level 15+ character, you're better off going for On Dark Wings because there are no limits.

pauljathome wrote:

In fairness, one place where people disagree greatly is in how much of the world/rules characters know.

Practically speaking it CAN'T all be reflected in knowledge skills since some characters just don't have the skill points to buy what their character "should" know. And what skill is "know in character what druid archetypes exist and what they look like?" anyway?

I personally handle the issue by giving significant circumstance bonuses based on character background. I'd likely give an oracle at least a bit of a bonus for knowing about oracles.

OH I agree somewhat, the fact that I even let him roll in the first place and didn't just say "You know nothing about black-blooded oracles" is because he was an oracle. However, seeing as he was a Kitsune oracle from Tian-Xia, I figured even as an oracle it was highly unlikely he knew anything about a curse that is rare outside the Darklands. I decided the difficulty would be 30 (the max) without knowing that he was one level away from being able to make it even with a 20.

As for what skill, it would for Druids I think be knowledge Nature (or maybe Religion, but I think more likely Nature for druids) For oracles, it's Religion. Arcane classes would be Arcana... Then if like say a player of a bard was like "Hey, can I roll knowledge arcana to know about bard archetypes" I'd probably let him too.

But, my problem wasn't so much that I didn't want him to know, as that he just assumed he knew it just because he was an oracle without even asking "Sounds like she's a Black-Blooded Oracle, would I recognize her as such?" when I hadn't even said that's what she was, all I said was she was cold to the touch and when she was cut black blood splashed on the cleric and she hissed in pain.

Another thing that annoys me is when players just assume they know something in character. Like for example, when the tongues cursed oracle meets a young girl and a cleric is doing some tests on her to see what's wrong with her and why her body temperature is so cold, the player is like "OH she's a black-blooded oracle, her blood is black runs cold and she's got a negative energy affinity as if she were undead" like being a level 3 oracle gives him an automatic 30 on all oracle related things. Then when I say he needs to make a roll and he gets a 29 (rolled a 20 and had a +9 bonus), as I decided that black-blooded oracles are DC 30 to know about outside of the darklands, he got even more mad trying to say no DC can be higher than 25, forcing me to pull out the book to show him the DC can be as high as 30. Which, yeah me being the GM should have made the 30 DC okay, but he thought he shouldn't have needed the roll in the first place, he's not going to accept an impossible at his level DC.

The Morphling wrote:

To start, let me preface this by saying this is meant to be a light-hearted thread to point out a few annoying habits of some players, rather than an attempt to insult or shame anyone. I've noticed a couple of recurring things players seem to not realize they're doing wrong.

There is no phrase in the world more aggravating to me as a GM (or even as a player) when the rogue at the table says "I go into stealth" while in the middle of a wide-open, well-lit chamber. How difficult can it be to understand that hiding requires, well, something to hide behind? Most players who do this are repeat offenders, too. They go "Oh, okay." when their mistake is pointed out, and then attempt it again while marching down the center of the next well-lit hallway, fifteen feet in front of the paladin in full plate.

I have a player that is like that (although he recently moved out of town for a new job, so we probably won't be playing anymore for awhile) I tend to let him get away with it just because it's easier to do so than to hold up the game for twenty minutes debating how Stealth works. But, he usually sets his rogues up to be snipers, maxes out his stealth, stealth feats, etc. Even takes the sniper archetype. The party just assumes he's following when they travel because he's ALWAYS stealthed.

James Jacobs wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Brandon Hodge wrote:
Same as traps: experience awarded once on survival.
Yeah, but then some haunts are just stupid "oh look some ghosts ran by you here have some xp" There is at least one haunt like that in Carrion Crown.

Think of that as "you learned some backstory to the adventure that may help you in the future or that may just make you enjoy the story more" rewards then.

It's not stupid if it adds to the player's immersion in the game.

Ah, yeah I see what you mean, kinda. I guess at the very least as long as they players don't think as I said, "oh look some stupid ghosts ran by us" but instead get the right idea that oh the ghosts are people who died in a fire here...

Hank the Bugbear wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

Now, other than On Dark Wings being granted at 15th level and Wings of Fire being at chosen at minimum 7th level, On Dark Wings is CLEARLY superior due to having no use limit like Wings of Fire.

It's like you're comparing a 4th level spell to an 8th level spell and complaining that the 4th level spell is weaker...

Except that an 8th level spell would be different enough that you would have reason to use the 4th level still sometimes, and even if it's not much different (say Cure Critical is clearly better than Cure Light, but of course its higher level) you are still limited to how many times you can use the higher level version, plus if you only need to cure 8hp, why waste your Cure Criticals? However, if you had Wings of Fire AND On Dark Wings, Wings of Fire would become worthless as soon as you got On Dark Wings because they both do exactly the same thing, other than the limitations on usage time.

Scavion wrote:

As opposed to 15th level(A HUGE difference), you get permanent flight which you'll only use just as much as the Oracle's wings will anyways.

So, when the Infernal winged person decides to fly away and the Oracle wings person follows.... well, the Infernal escapes because he's got unlimited flight time and the oracle better make sure he's not too high up when his time expires, a danger the Infernal doesn't have.

Stark_ wrote:
You're kidding yourself if you don't think 8 levels is a LONG time. Flame oracle pays for a swift action each fight to get it much earlier, since 7 minutes will be enough for your fights and some puzzle solving. They just can't have them out all the time.

Well, right I realize that, but maybe the ability should improve at higher levels then? Because, as it stands looking at a level 20 character... An Infernal Sorcerer's wings are hands down better than the Flame Oracle's.

1 to 50 of 919 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.