|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Like having words like "heterosexual" or "straight". We could ditch those too and just use "normal".
Probably. Or just not bring it up unless you need to.
And much much larger portion of the population. What percent do you need to reach before everyone else gets a label? Can therins call everyone else cispeciest? How long do you need to spend identifying your normalities as a whitecispeciestcissexiststraitmeateatinggluteneatingpeanuteatingbluegreense etingmobilewhitemale ?
Stephen Ross wrote:
This is definitely a good thing. Sometimes the "true role player!" tm wants to be able to do something but they don't know the mechanics to accomplish it. Its definitely easier for the mechanic to explain what options to take than the true role player(tm) to port over how to make a character a person.
Often a problem arises though in that the mechanic dumped charisma on more than their characters, and the true role player considers the mechanics aspects of the game to be unclean.
Daniel Myhre wrote:
I'm sure everyone remembers the Spiked Chain Fighter from 3.5. That's a prime example of legally bending the rules to the detriment of the game.
No. No it most certainly was not.
There was no bending at all, what so ever. It was a weapon, it gave you reach at range and still let you hit things close up. That was the rule, that was how it worked. There was no bending, at all, by any stretch of the word or imagination.
It was by the best melee option and thats why everyone took it. If you want to complain about that, complain about that, but do NOT equivocate and say that people are bending the rules when they pick the best option. They are not remotely the same thing.
Or a certain songbird fighter build someone did here on the Pathfinder forums.
Which relied heavily on a the ability of the master of many styles monk to skip feat pre reqs and has been shot to heck by that much needed errata. It also wasn't uber terrible to begin with: its just that in this system you need to jump through hoops to make other options even remotely competitive with "Stand still shoot bow", much less "force unhitable save, twice, they die, we loot"
I just don't like using the term because thats not how english generally works. You don't mention a 4 legged dog, or a furred bear, or apples with seeds. Yes, that comes with the implication that cis is normal and everything else isn't, but why does not normal have to be not good? Have you met normal people? They're boring.
guide says one thing board post says something a little different.
I think I know the answers to this but still have some doubt. Does your fame score allow the purchase of magical items that are equal to or lower than your fame score on the PFS guide? Even if they haven't been acquired through chronicle sheets from PFS modules?
Your next question is "doesn't that make chronicle sheet loot kinda pointless since your fame score is high enough anyway?" and the answer is yes (unless you're a member of the exchange and can get a discount)
Also if you have a +1 darkwood composite long bow and wanted to add acid to it does the damage increase by 1d6 or do you need acid arrows to that?
Either one works. I'd try to get more +s with the bow though, lots of things can resist ad6 points of acid.
PFS isn't going to get the pull to put that in new material. It probably needs to be a general rule along the lines of...
-players are allowed to use common sense to place weapons in weapon groups
-a weapon can be placed in its own group if you're not sure
-weapon group "whatever weapon group this pointy thing goes in" is an acceptable answer.
-If a weapon has a word in its name or description its part of that weapon group
Because even if you tattoo atheist on your forehead a hat can cover it.
While either (or slayer) can fulfill a wide variety of character concepts... I'd definitely start with fighter and look at ranger another time.
The problem with the fighter is that its an ok generic all purpose build. For a long time now anything specialized you want to do with it has had a better alternative. The ranger combat styles alone do the fighters job better for most specialized builds
For role playing, don't let class define your role play. You don't have to run around the woods in pantyhose singing.
Unless you want to.
Valeros Rivenblade wrote:
ok, I see so i'll gain a feat at 1,3,5,7,9,11 but at 4,8 I get to switch them (say two-weapon fighting for improves two-weapon and then improved for great two-weapon fighting) if I'm reading this all correct?
A human fighter would have
human Two weapon fighting
But the Ranger does this absurdly better. Not needing the dex requirement is amazing. PFS is skill heavier than most campaigns and the 6 skill points per level and good class skills let you branch out beyond "beat thing" so you have something to do for the talky/exploration/investigative portion of the adventures.
I just feel the need to give you a word of caution about this build. Two weapon fighting relies heavily on full attacks, which are hardly a guarantee. PFS can be crawling with melee, which means a lot of people running around the map killing anything thats moderately wounded. It makes for very mobile fights that aren't always conducive to two weapon fighting.
PFS kind of tops out at level 11, so if you see cool stuff beyond there, its kind of hard to get to.
If you have your heart set on it because its cool, go for it.
Annoying Nitpicker wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Logic does fall under philosophy.
Communication does not. Communication is communicating, not investigating the universe by speculative means.
Daniel Myhre wrote:
Probably because kitsune have a -2 attribute, while aasimar don't. not sure bout tieflings since I've never looked at the race seriously.
Kitsune only come with one stat set +dex +cha. Aasimar come with almost pick your two favorite stats. For almost every character there's a good set to pick.
How can I convince a skeptical GM that the Magical Knack trait can be selected by a Rogue who plans to take the Minor Magic and Major Magic talents in the future?
So tell me. How exactly, do you believe, something like Newgrange was constructed without a fundamental understanding of the concept of how ideas are spoken and understood?
That question only makes sense as a rebuttal if you conflate language with the philosophical concept of language.
The idea that philosophy predates and is responsible for the concept of empirical evidence is somewhere between preposterous and unevidenced.
" SABRE TOOTHED TIGER! RUN!" has been with us longer than the spoken word.
" Well how can we reallyknow its a sabre toothed tige.. .AHHHHHHHH!" had to wait for an era of no saber toothed tigers when everyone was wearing togas you couldn't run away in anyway to come about.
Andrew Klein wrote:
The additional resource document system is confusing enough without the extra layer
Prerequisites: You may only select this feat at 1st level.
Benefit: Whenever you receive magical healing, you heal an additional 2 points per die rolled. You gain a +2 bonus on all saving throws against death effects. Unfortunately, you also suffer +1 point of damage from cold iron weapons (although you can wield cold iron weapons without significant discomfort).
Life conduit is School conjuration (healing)
Looks like it works.
Quintin Verassi wrote:
The ARG ban alone probably knocks out half of what people want to do with the feat. If its not going to work like people expect it to from reading it, it should have a warning.
Well that pretty much settles that.
The feat needs a ban, a really big asterix, or a cautionary word from admiral ackbar on the additional resources.
While I was working at a wolf center, a little girl pointed up at me and said "You look like Hagrid!" Which was funny because taking care of critters most people found repulsive was what i did all day. Her parents started to scold her, I told her it was my favorite character and more than one of my family members had noted the resemblance.
Is Hagrid a job?
Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.
From the ARG additional resources
Note: Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed).
Pathfinder Player Companion: Dragon Empires Primer
Archetypes: all archetypes on pages 22-23; Feats: kitsune feats on page 5 are legal for kitsune characters; all feats on pages 24-25;
The dragon empires primer has a prohibition similar to the arg's
Racial heritage needs a ban, a really big asterix, or a cautionary word from admiral ackbar.
Because its talking about an int 3 quasi sentient critter. Not an int 7 or higher paladin mount.
When apointing your horse to the senate actually raises the average IQ you either need to lay off the handle animal rules or teach the horse the "just a bill" song.
as for more general rules...
Another aspect of intelligent animals is tool use. There are a number of feats that convey an understanding and the proper use of weapons and armor. Generally speaking, these feats are off-limits to animals, but when their intelligence reaches 3, the rules state that they can use any feat that they are physically capable of using. Some people take this to mean that they can equip their animal companion in chainmail and arm him with a greatsword given the correct feats. While you could interpret the rules in this way, the "capable of use" clause is very important. Most weapons require thumbs to use properly, and even then, few animals would choose to use an artificial weapon in place of the natural weapons that have served them all their life. It's what they were born with, after all, and virtually no amount of training will change that. In the end, the GM should feel free to restrict such choices if he feels that they take away from the feel of his campaign. The rules themselves are left a little vague to give the GM the latitude to make the call that's right for his campaign.
Its not quite making a rule of no weapons for critters, but its very much encouraging DMs to rule that way, because its a very valid rules interpretation.