Anguish's page

Back on May 11th someone asked on their forum what was going on and there was an answer that breaks down to "labour-intensive technical problems, you should see new creatures later today". No further feedback.

So I dunno.

I failed to get hooked when the first themed month was clockwork creatures, which is about as niche as it gets.

Whose character sheet is the familiar/companion on?

That's right. The player's sheet. Not a DM's NPC statblock, not in an adventure path, not in the module. It's not the DM's purview, period.

That said, I won't hesitate to put words in their mouth (if they can speak), but I never act.

Grey area: if a PC buys a mount and that mount is brought into a dangerous area, the PC dismounts, then goes adventuring... I might let the mount run away or something appropriate. But that's the extent of it, and that only happens if there's a concrete inarguable reason. I generally let the PCs then find their mounts afterward, safe.

It depends. I've got a whack-load of monsters. Most of them won't fit the role or atmosphere I'm designing for. A template might help. Sixteen new monsters probably won't. Of course... what are the odds that one of the sixteen templates will let me turn several inappropriate monsters into appropriate ones? It still depends.

That is to say... I can't answer the question. The specifics matter as do the circumstances.

Can you find two targets that are more than 30ft apart? Well then... you've violated the condition that says "no two can be more than 30ft apart".

With darkvision you can see with no light source, only in black & white. No problem reading.

"Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. Darkvision is black-and-white only (colors cannot be discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are
still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they seem to be. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not spoil darkvision."

why would anyone use it outside of organized play?

1} It's fair.

2} It allows characters to be created away from the table.

In my experience point buy systems only lead to Min-Maxing and Munchkinism.

Randomized character stats aren't fun. If I want to play a class that really needs three "good" stats and I randomly roll only two then I can't effectively play the character I want to play.

More, in my experience point-buy does away with max/min because players are able to budget and design their characters. Playing a rogue? You can - with a decent point buy pool - ensure you've got enough Str, Dex, Int and Cha to make a useful, versatile and interesting character. With random stats... you stand a decent chance of something missing. Maybe you have to sacrifice being a decent face character because you can't justify the Cha. Maybe you have to sacrifice being very widely skillful because you can't justify the Int. Maybe you're going to get hit more often and can't rely on ranged attacks because you can't justify the Dex. Maybe there's no point in throwing weapons, swinging weapons, or using a composite bow because you can't justify the Str.

With point-buy you get to decide... a little here, a little there, or focus on fewer things. With dice rolls you can't decide.

It also encourages people to build to mechanics as opposed to character.

You may as well have said "it encourages people to wear blue socks." So what? Why hasn't 32 years of gaming taught you that this game is multifaceted and there's no wrong way to play it.

Chess doesn't have any role-playing. It's 100% about the stats of the pieces. Strangely it's a fun game. Well, surprise... this game can work that way too. Yes, role-play is fun, yes it's a healthy part of the rules, and yes, I personally like a balance between the two. But your point is being BLIND to the fact that some people have fun in different ways than you do.

I'm not into BDSM but what's it to me if someone else is?

the social ability of the system in question has become the "dump-stat" because too few GMs build social challenges into their games

Again, tough. This is a condescending viewpoint. Have you seriously never encountered players who don't want, don't enjoy, and won't participate in RP-heavy content? I certainly have. I refuse to tell them they're wrong. Instead I design my game for my audience. There's enough RP content to keep the RP-lovers entertained and there's enough combat to keep the tacticians (or the simply embarrassed-to-role-play) happy.

We tried point buy when it was introduced in 3rd Ed. and didn't care for it, finding it far inferior to Method one,

Inferior. Hmmm.

and (especially when I am DM, I admit to a certain level of harshness here) a far higher rate of character mortality.

And yet.

And yet you claim it leads to max/min. Interesting. Interesting and contradictory. How odd that when your players had the opportunity to design their characters in a more optimal fashion they ended up dead more often. Must have been the plethora of social challenges that whittled away their hit-points. Or maybe you were just being a good GM and penalized them to death for role-playing a higher social ability than the characters "should have".

Something's rotten in Denmark here.

Leo... what are you trying to achieve with this thread? You've clearly made up your mind. Your opinion is clearly and strongly stated and I don't see much sign that you're open to being convinced that any other position is valid. Do you really think by posting this anyone else is going to suddenly feel guilty about the way they (allow their players to) generate their characters and start playing the game the One True Way? I'd just like clarification as to your motive/purpose in this post 'cuz I'm kind of unsure.

Take a level dip in anything allowed to cast guidance and you've got another +1 to play with any time you can plan for using UMD.

Man. I can do a top 21 list fairly easily. 10 is shaving it way too close to the bone; there are so many where "if I eliminate X then Y should go too". That process pretty quickly gets down to 0 because there are so many equally-iconic spells.

Regardless...

disintegrate
dispel magic
explosive runes
feather fall
fireball
fly
invisibility
magic missile
sleep
teleport

Somehow I totally missed this product discussion. Weird. I am more chuffed than ever to run one of my victi^H^H^H^H^Hplayer groups through RotR.

To a certain degree it is always better to err on the side of over-supply. If Paizo only ever puts out minis that have never been done before, there will be more dissatisfied people than if they allow overlap.

I'm finding these wonderful, despite having lots of DMMs.

I'd have to suggest it's worth looking at Curse of the Moon by Sean K. Reynolds. It can easily be retrofitted into Pathfinder and it presents much more sensible rules for PCs and lycanthropy than the Bestiary.

This is why wands of cure light wounds were born.

I'm definitely in on this but have to address some automotive expenses first. So in a week or two. I'm sure that there are others like me.

I'd just like to weigh in. For me the two product types complement one another. To run a module I want a printed book in front of me. I also want a Core, APG, and the other key rules books at the table.

On the other hand, I like to have them all in PDF so I can copy & paste material into either my monster statblocks or my character sheets. Note: all my groups use standard statblocks for character sheets... no pretty grid sheets.

Finally, there are products that I simply wouldn't pay for (or use) if they were printed only. Or even if they were a more expensive set of both. Things like the SuperGenius Games materials... those are niche products that belong in a nice folder on my hard drive, to be referenced when and if I need them. I DON'T need those taking up shelf space or wallet capacity.

So some products are best PDF-only, in my mind and all others should be both.

However, do you think I should say to him to add the ability increase scores in to DEX instead of Wisdom as he levels up?

Nope. Just let him be. Part of learning the system comes from experience. It's one thing if there's a clear misunderstanding like "I wanna be a grappler so I'm going to have a huge Dex!" This isn't that. It's just shy of optimal. Let him be.

Looks like he's making a combat druid. It'll serve him well when he starts wildshaping. If he's not casting spells that require saving throws all he needs to do is hit Wis 19 by 17th level to be able to cast all his spells. Sure, he won't have bonus slots but he probably doesn't care.

You're probably looking at a self-buffing death machine.

If only there was a spell like augury available to double-check with your deity if you should do something.

Throw this into your DM's lap. If Pharasma says "it's cool, let the undead abomination alone", you can play the surprised and confused cleric. If she says "nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure", you've got the in-game and out-of-game justification to make undead glue.

Either way, it's the DM who provides you the result. He can't punish you for responding to your goddesses wishes. Win-win. And your fellow players can't be mad at you... it's again in the DM's lap.

You are allowed a sugary lollypop and a sugary drink on Mondays and Wednesdays.

You can have a +1 luck bonus to X and Y when A and when B.

You gain a +1 luck bonus to saves and AC during surprise rounds and against invisible stuff you can't see.

Just read the sentence linearly. Don't insert commas or pauses.

That does not seem to be the case though. People in this community will stubbornly fight TOOTH AND NAIL to prove that they are right, even if their interpretation would hurt the game somehow.

Just. Why?

To play a game like this requires consensus; each player including the DM should be playing by the same definition of rules or things really do fall apart.

The problem is that since the rules are written in English instead of C++ or algebraic formula, there's plenty of room for interpretation. Different people have different backgrounds, moods, and agendas, so differing interpretations of rules are inevitable.

That someone interprets things differently than you do is borderline intolerable because the "wrong" folks might spread their "wrongness", teaching the innocent "wrongly". It's insulting, the idea of more players out there Doing It Wrong. Some day they might be at your table, arguing and cheating and it's all anarchy.

So we post. And educate.

Just tested the Core. WOW. I haven't thrown it on any of my portable devices yet but the difference on my desktop (quad-core i5) is huge. I expect I'll shift to using the Lite PDFs for all my prep work.

Thanks!

You know that you can't target something that you don't see? So unless you are using See invisibility or some similar effect you can't counter an invisible spellcaster.

That's fine by me... but the spell won't be invisible once it leaves the caster's possession. The rules tell us what a fireball looks like. The spell is visible. I don't see the caster but that's okay... I don't need to see the caster. I need to see the spell.

Invisible casters don't produce invisible spells. Worst illusionist ever.

There is a hole in your logic. In order to continue with the counterspell you have to make a Spellcraft check. Without that Spellcraft check there is no counterspell. We now refer to the Spellcraft section which says you must see the spell being cast. The counterspell section doesn't need to say as the spell being cast because the Spellcraft section takes care of that. It's not rocket science. There is a particular order in which this all happens. You can't go from A to C by skipping B.

No. Nice try, but no.

The counter-spelling section of the rules does NOT say to go to the Spellcraft section of the book and apply the usages of the skill that are noted therein. It defines how your check works then and there.

You're trying to take a (hypothetical) section of the book that defines how to... say... use Acrobatics to walk on hot coals without taking damage, and then forcing a player to use the definition of "using Acrobatics to jump" during that Acrobatics check.

I'd accept application of general skill rules, but not a specific application. Counter-spelling tells you what to do. No need to go looking for more rules to make it more complicated.

This is entirely up to interpretation. For instance...

"you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast"

Who? You.
What? The spell.
When? As it is being cast.

Good news... in this game, spells "happen" as part of the action wherein they are cast. If a wizard with Silent Spell who is under greater invisibility who casts fireball can still have his spell identified. (Which makes perfect sense.) As long as you attempt the identification before the spell is resolved, it is during the same action in which it is being cast. Effectively the casting and the resolution are one and the same. There is no "and then".

It is nonsensical to suggest that a sorcerer who gets plastered by the above fireball is unable to determine what happened to him. To strive to interpret the rules to render a nonsensical result is pointless. One should always try to interpret the language used in the rulebook such that the resulting interpretation a} makes consistent in-game sense and b} improves the play of the game.

Let me be clear... I am of the opinion that you are identifying THE SPELL as it is being cast (at you or someone else), not you are identifying THE SPELL AS IT IS BEING CAST. Subtle emphasis.

Now, since we're done with TRYING to interpret rules so they don't make sense, let's expand our research somewhat.

Counter-spelling.

"If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s spell and can attempt to counter it."

Hey look. The counter-spelling rule doesn't mention "as it is being cast" at all. You just... get a check, using your Spellcraft score. Succeed and you identify the spell. That's what it says.

If that usage of the Spellcraft skill Just Works it seems quite reasonable to bolster the viewpoint that the general usage isn't mindlessly punitive.

So, to be clear. If THE SPELL cannot be clearly seen as it is being cast, you can't identify it. Further, casting and resolving are (generally) done during the same game action time-period. Anything that interrupts the casting interrupts the spell. Shrug.

Once again, it is nonsensical to deliberately parse the words such that the ruling result is counter-intuitive, nonsensical, inconsistent, or negatively impacts game-play. THAT is the most important takeaway of my post. Don't sweat the minutia. Arguing against the specifics and the details of this post are beside the point.

DMs roll far more than players. This variant rule is very weighted against players. It's far more likely that a PC is going to end up dead by allowing this at a table than a BBEG.

My groups use a box of useful Lego bits. A 1x6 bump part works nicely as a 2" long wall segment. It's really cool how you can build a dungeon/room/forest/cave with just a few dozen parts. We've got parts that we use for doors, for stairs, even lines to show where spells have been cast.

The Lego is quick to throw down on the mat, is 3D (but low, so doesn't get in the way), and easily added to and taken back down.

We tend not to do room-by-room building unless it's called for, but for indoor environments it's entirely do-able if you've got a big mat.

Unless our goal is reduce the Skills section of the book down to the ultimate; Skillful (anything you want to do, roll this), functional variety is a Good Thing.

When your wizard finds a wand of cure light wounds and wonders "what is this?", he needs a way to figure it out. Knowledge(arcana) doesn't apply because - did I mention - this isn't a bard wand. He needs some way to experiment with, decipher, and master the wand. He doesn't know what it is... he uses his understanding of the craft of spell-working to learn what it is.

Same thing for identifying spells (and psionic powers!) being cast.

I think of Spellcraft as a general background in the fundamentals of all magic. The Knowledge() skills are just that; raw information. Do I or don't I know about X?

If by "yes" you mean "no", then yes, otherwise no. Witness invisible creatures. They threaten but you don't even know they're present.

Meh, that's moving the goal posts. It's also a corner case. And we were obviously discussing it in the context of visible enemies.

All I meant by it - and it's an important point - is that there's no mechanical rule that reveals that a PC is threatened. If there was, there would have to be exceptions for cases such as invisibility, and there are not.

I'm not moving the goalposts but rather setting a baseline. If we can agree that you don't know when invisible creatures are threatening you, we have to then find the rule that says "in the case of visible creatures, you DO know".

This discussion frankly comes down to simulationist versus gameist viewpoints. A simulationist points out that a human with IUS is visible indifferentiable from one without, depriving the threatened character any notable signals. A gameist points out "the rulebook tells you who threatens who, and the players are allowed to read the rulebook".

Me, I am of the opinion that the monster manual and the statblocks of bad guy NPCs are off-limits for my players. If they're not allowed to Just Know that a bad guy has resist fire 5 or a Reflex save of +15, they're also not allowed to know he's got IUS until he uses it.

Do you tell your players "this guy knows how to sunder without provoking an AoO"?

Do you know if you are threatened. Yes.

If by "yes" you mean "no", then yes, otherwise no. Witness invisible creatures. They threaten but you don't even know they're present.

What's fair is for a DM to describe a creature. It's reasonable to assume that Large creatures may threaten 10ft from them but it's not a given. It's reasonable to assume that creatures with tentacles can probably use them. It's reasonable to assume that creatures with long weapons like spears probably have extended reach. But without a Knowledge() check, you don't know for sure one way or the other.

Do you know when there are no AoO's left? Perhaps, I could see this being described as "a brief opening or lull in the foe's offense."

Meh, I wouldn't. And really, all of this stuff is going on in six seconds that it's probably not fair to talk about lulls and the like. The bad guy takes his two or three attacks, two of my friends provoke, giving the bad guy two more attacks, and there's still time for me to notice that he's not going to AoO me if I cast? Meh.

Can you know a tentacles monsters reach or how many AoO's it has? I'd say yes. If you see it attack your buddy next to you, you know you are in a bad spot. Short of the above lull, you are likely acutely aware of the danger you face.

Just opinion, but nope. Until the tentacles reach out, you don't know precisely how long they are. If you want to assume it has lots of reach and act appropriately, you've earned your life. But I don't see why as a DM I should be telling a player that "it can reach out 15 feet". I'll give reasonable hints like "it's got really long arms so you get the impression you don't want to be anywhere near it". If you interpret that as 10ft reach, so be it. If you interpret that to be 20ft reach, again so be it.

Mmmm. This is likely a RAW vs RAI thing, but I don't agree TOZ. CMD is pretty obviously AC minus armor and natural, with the inverted size bonus, plus your Strength modifier. At my table I would apply MaxDex to the contribution Dexterity makes to CMD.

Actually, I'm going to take the devil's advocate position because I believe in it.

I'd like to see more little edge-condition rules like this. The game already explicitly encourages DMs to apply circumstance modifiers to the rolls players have to make. There are some examples given, but I'd be perfectly happy to see more, such as the "wet" condition above.

The reason I play PF over other systems is the rich, varied, detailed rule set. Since some people won't allow or respect a circumstance modifier if it's not literally in print, I support more printed rules.

SKR is spot-on with this ruling.

That's very cool and highly useful. And... faster than the PDF. I just hope Paizo turns a blind eye to this as I'm pretty sure we're looking at copyrighted material.

Just a thought... the DM could be interested in the fudge-factor. He likely knows how many hit points your character has. If he knows how many temporary hit points you have, he has a running total. When an orc barbarian with a greataxe Power Attacks you and crits, he might... adjust the damage rolled. He could for instance leave you a hit point or two shy of negative Con, to give your fellows a chance to heal you, or for you to manage to stabilize. If your temp hit points are rolled as you take damage, he loses the granularity.

I'm not advocating fudging or looking to start a debate there, but off the top of my head there's one reason a DM might want to have the roll done at casting time.

I did have a little kid in the next set, but ultimately I cut him for something a little cooler. I am keeping an eye out for the right time for non-combatants.

That's actually brilliant. Seriously, rescuing children, damsels, and other non-combatants is a huge RPG trope. It's kind of a bummer to drop a handful of soldiers or elven wizards or xorn on the battlemat and say "ok, there's the deck of this ship, see... and the captain has these prisoners tied to the mast, see..." I get the hairy-eyeball from my players and I can tell they're wondering why these kids are wearing full plate.

Here's a viewpoint you might not have thought of. When you intend to help someone, your delivery is at least as important as the content.

I'd like to go out on a limb and suggest that should a newbie stumble upon one of your threads wherein you vigorously argue with forum veterans to the point that name-calling is inevitable and the thread gets locked, that newbie is unlikely to absorb your input.

Run-on-sentence TLDR? Carrot and the stick, man. You're not going to teach newbies anything with the stick.

At this point, we have the shocking and highly unprecedented dev clarification that the intent of the game is that when you cannot see, you are in fact not affected by effects that specifically require you to see things.

Sorry Cheapy... I'm pretty good at noticing Paizo employee contributions to threads but I didn't notice your quotes when skimming.

You've done all that needs be done here.

If a target is invisible, you can attack their square, resulting in a 50% miss chance. That mirror image makes the odds of hitting much worse is pretty powerful. It's better than invisibility from a defensive standpoint. Taking true strike out of the picture, allowing an attacker to close their eyes to become "blind" merely reduces the miss-chance to 50% and has some penalties. Not unreasonable.

Adding true strike is where things start to go awry. Still, if you burn a spell to counter a spell for ONE attack, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

RAW it looks like it works. RAI it probably should as well, with the caveat that you should close your eyes for the round, like with gaze attacks.

Lisa. Thanks for sharing. This particular story is a cold, hard reminder that while we might like to complain about Antagonize or monk flurries, there's a real world where real hardship happens.

Thanks for letting Vic talk you down too.

I'm confused. If my friends didn't protect me and value my life, I'd leave. I wouldn't attack them.

Unless... I were evil. Are you?

Very cool.

I'm really impressed by the design choice. As a DM, what I need most often is an appropriately-leveled Bad Guy with the right role. I need them fast, and easy to run. CRB gives us that.

I don't know that I'd find any use for 20 different Summoners from 1st to 20th. Seriously? That'd be 320 pages on its own.

I honestly view the APG classes as mostly player-oriented options. Yes, it's nice to hand-craft the occasional witch or inquisitor to mess my players pretty little characters up with, but most of the time the APG classes just don't fit for NPCs. Here's why: they get four rounds to live. APG classes have tonnes of things to do every round, which is great for a PC, but as an NPC who's going to be defeated in mere moments, it's a huge waste of ability-depth.

So anyway, while I'd love to see APG classes appear from time to time in adventure material, I'd rather not see them in this book. Codex II, maybe. Maybe. But this book just shot up in utility to me.

Wait,.....I thought every day was Sean Appreciation Day?

SG

Good point. Actually, some years we can't fit enough appreciation, so we add an extra day just to handle the overflow.

Sean's so awesome he can Intimidate foes while using Hide In Plain Sight.

Sean's so awesome he threatens on a natural 1.

Sean is so awesome, icosahedrons hope to roll a "natural Sean."

Sean is so awesome that PCs with that name need a +4 level-adjustment?

I'm sensing a Chuck Norris meme brewing.

Huh. And you're surprised?

Human nature is that people generally do what they want to do. Most of us know that about one another. You put in a bunch of effort and hand-crafted a living, breathing world with an intricate and realistic plot that your players can revel in.

You did that because you wanted to. They know that. You know that.

They made chuckle-worthy characters because they wanted to. They know that. You... not so much.

You're being sent a message. My suggestion is - if you can stomach it - is to ditch your glorious homebrew, awesome as it may be, and run them through World's Largest Dungeon or something. That's what they're telling you they want.

Someone's got to give, and they clearly don't intend to take the game as seriously as you. Can you take the game as lightly as they?

Actually, I'd like to jump on this sentiment. I'm an SKR fan but regardless he deserves respect.

I don't have to agree with every ruling, or every rule for that matter, but when disagreeing we should all do so with respect. The people writing for Paizo are very, very good at what they do and the ratio of awesome-to-stinker is exceptionally low.

So I'll agree. I appreciate SKR.

Mainly I just want to give you some money and get the book. I'm an old fart. Extra whatever should either be included with the purchase of a book or should be an add-on pack. While I understand what kickstarter is, I think that's great for projects that are having trouble getting off the ground, not viable products. I'm far, far more likely to mosey on over to the FGG web site and slap still more money down than wade through a kickstarter page. But again, I'm an old guy. As long as I don't need to visit Facebook, I don't much really care what you do.

Oh, and $100 for what you're describing is fantastically awesomely delicious. I'd expect to pay much more. Of course... I will, but only because of shipping.

I agree 100%. If would prefer more monster, less humanoids. Also more monsters Pathfinder specific, not done in other lines.

Meh. I'm going to register the opposite vote.

I only tend to use a monster once unless it's a wolf/orc/ogre type iconic monster. I don't need the freak of the week. I've got dozens of those.

On the other hand, I don't like to hear "wasn't that the bartender from the last town?" when re-using a mini for a bandit or major NPC. More, more, more of what gets encountered; people.

My preference when making decisions like this is: what is the simplest way to run something that isn't broken in mechanic or flavor?

So. I don't see any benefit in denying a monk the ability to flurry with one weapon. It's not a huge thing, but it's simpler to me to just treat flurry as extra attacks, much like iteratives or haste attacks. Just... play the game, roll some dice, and I'll tell you what hits. I don't see the need to treat a flurry like TWF in this regard.

Sure, when someone rolls up a character whose theme is fighting with two (or more) weapons, I'm going to expect that they use two (or more) weapons. That may impose mechanical penalties (having to enchant two or more weapons), but that's the price of doing literal TWF.

A monk? Not so much. Go ahead and head-butt your flurry, or elbow the bad guy five times. Whatever. Kama-to-the-head. The only reason it says flurry = TWF is arbitrary. It's not important. So we simplify our lives at the table.

I respect what Jason and Sean are doing here. I really, really do. They're trying to say "hey, we already have a rule that does mostly-X... why don't we use it for X?" Brilliant thinking. It's just that now I have to think "oh yeah, that martial artist class that's got super-rapid attacks... can't pulse off a bunch of rabbit-punches. 'Cuz."

Recently one of my players died

Send flowers.

Huh.

'Cuz I was wondering what to do with that huge pile of money I wasn't already dedicating to this hobby. Errr.