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

BigNorseWolf's page

RPG Superstar 7 Season Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 26,312 posts (27,524 including aliases). 16 reviews. 4 lists. No wishlists. 28 Pathfinder Society characters. 5 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 26,312 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Melkiador wrote:


No. A klar counts as a light shield. This is general. A klar lists its own damage. This is specific. I can't believe you actually believe what you are saying.

Klar: The klar is a traditional Shoanti weapon consisting

of a short blade bound to the skull of a horned reptile. An
attack with a klar is treated as an attack with shield spikes.
See page 153 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.

This is the description of the klar in the inner sea world guide

You have already seen me quote this.

The PTD already said that the armored spikes thing in antother source was a mistake.

So of COURSE I"m saying this.

Quote:
But despite that, your argument seems to be preficated that the klar somehow has two different damage types. And then you are simply choosing only one of those to try to advance your agenda. It's rather dishonest.

You cannot attempt the level of rules lawyering shenanigans you are trying here and then dare to question anyone else's honesty.

If the klar is an attack with shield spikes you cannot use the bashing enchant.

If you can bash with the klar at all it starts as a d3 like any other light shield.

It is a d6 or bust. Leave over.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:


No, sir. The response to the rules is that you follow them.

Never could manage to duck myself like all those notes from my boss said...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why cladistics arguments never get anywhere because you can both use the same term and be right and wrong at the same time.

Shadow Lodge

Melkiador wrote:


Maybe I expect them to address and clarify their mistakes that were recently reprinted despite the fact that they were obviously looking right at these items and these issues with those items have been long known.

The response to an obvious mistake that bothers you is "hey, you mean x why don't you change this to mean it" not "i'm going to pretend that you absolutely meant x, and insist that everyone plays as if it was x "

Shadow Lodge

Melkiador wrote:


First, it says armor spikes instead of shield spikes, which needs a dev clarification tight there by itself.

Obvious mistake. And it already got it.

Quote:
Second, assuming it's clarified to be shield spikes, the klar's damage is listed as 1d6, and if that damage is being modified by shield spikes it would give it a base of d4, since shield spikes only increase damage by one size increment, so after increasing that base twice for bashing, you'd be at 1d8.

A klar is a light shield. Light shields start at d3. The slashy spike is simply more effective than the regular one.

Shadow Lodge

Quantum Steve wrote:

To second Weirdo's comment, could a caster with reliable access (via spell) to the use of Smite or Lay on Hands "as a Paladin" count as having those features? What if it was a spell-like ability?

What about the Rage spell?

Temporary bonuses like that generally don't let you pick up abilities based off of them.

Shadow Lodge

Scott willhelm wrote:
Intuitively, that is what leads to wrong answers.

Then why is the sola raw interpretation/ method so consistently wrong?

Quote:
What it intuitive is that you don't invent new ways of attacking with a shield that exist nowhere else, never existed before, and is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the rules.

It is specifically mentioned multiple times in the klars description that there is a big honking blade on it. It does slashing damage. The authors assumed that we could figure out the rest. Most of us can.

Shadow Lodge

Melkiador wrote:
The klar certainly isn't attached to any language that implies it is naturally under the effect of a size change.

This is objectively wrong. The klar is described as a light shield swith a shield spike on it. That links it to a virtual size increase.

You have had this pointed out to you.
You have to stop saying this just because it agrees with your point.

The most common answers on a bashing Klar will be d6 slash or bludgeon or hell no.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

They answered it in march 2015.

They did, and that official rules post got buried in the morass of these message boards, so that very few people have been able to find it.

And people that knew about it linked to it.

Again

And again

And again

...and it kept getting ignored. Not because it was hard to find, but because that wasn't the answer people wanted.

Shadow Lodge

Melkiador wrote:


Only indirectly

It was very direct. One thing with as if language. Both things had as if language, they don't stack.

Quote:
with some doubt of intent remaining

There was not.

Quote:
. Now no doubt should remain.

And now, despite my efforts to parody it, you are in fact arguing that a klar is something different and this ruling doesn't apply. So yes, doubt remains. "Doubt" will always remain when people want to get a mechanical advantage.

I can not consider the "doubt" genuine when the grounds for questioning it are as flimsy and nonsensical as what I'm seeing here. There is just absolutely no substance to it, at all. I don't know how else to put that.

Please look at how you got the wrong answer and try to consider the possibility that it wasn't an accident, and consider what you can do differently now.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
That logic tree depends on inventing a whole new way of attacking with a shield that is not a shield bash, and that is just not supported in the rules.

The "invented" way of attacking with a klar is to use that giant blade on the end of it to slash people with. It does more damage than a regular shield and a different type of damage than a regular shield because it's got a big honking blade on it. If you are not using that big honking blade, you are not getting more damage. This is a level of obviousness and intuitiveness that the rules assume you read with. Deliberately ignoring that and worse, insisting that anyone using that is making stuff up, has lead to the wrong answer and is going to keep leading to the wrong answer.

Shadow Lodge ****

Mitch Mutrux wrote:
I agree with you that a paladin or good cleric/whatever would lose powers for animating dead things, but I'm also not going to move a LN/N/CN caster to evil for animating dead.

Agreed. I fully understand why it has to be that way for pfs, even if it lets you do a "LG" wizard with an undead chorus ensemble.

Shadow Lodge

So wait, canada can't leave. States can't leave, we settled that int he civil war.

*ow ow ow ow kidding ow ow ow*

Shadow Lodge

Nefreet wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
The klar can definitely be enchanted with bashing
Expect table variation on that.

I would expect almost no variation from oh hell no or enjoy your choice of d6 slashing or d6 bashing.

Shadow Lodge ****

Mitch Mutrux wrote:
I don't reall have anything too meaningful about the current topic, but there a quote from one of Dave Gross's Pathfinder Tales novels that I wanted to share on topic that is neat.

A paladin does not have to run out and smite such behavior (though really, they can)

A paladin can even tolerate that behavior For the sake of party unity and the idea that we're all players that need to go on the same adventure the greater good

But tolerate does not mean that it's ok to engage in the behavior yourself.

Shadow Lodge ****

Wei Ji the learner wrote:
Then that should be in the mission brief. Not everyone's experience is going to be the same.

No. it is not remotely metagaming or cheating by having your characters that are part of a society dedicated to archeology and exploration have a good idea of what you need to encounter common problems. It's not in the mission briefing because its something you should be generally aware of like don't lick strange plants, never stick any part of your body into an inter-dimensional rift, and anything that glows black is probably not something you want to to cuddle. Be prepared for darkness, damage reduction, and swarm is pathfinder 101, which your character should have attended.

The field guide even includes "society suggestions" for what pathfinders tend to know about different types of hazzards, even if they've never seen it themselves.

Shadow Lodge ****

Wei ji he learner wrote:

If the character has NEVER had cause to deal with a thing, then they may not know they need to deal with it, and using knowledge 'out of the box' could be considered metagaming and/or cheating.

A player is not their character.

A character's play career should influence their equipment, skill, spell, and whatnot choices.

My -22 is not my -2 , but my dash 22 has surely benefited from the experience of him and those like him who have explored and then REPORTED on what they found, so if dozens of pathfinders drag whats left of their party back to absolom and say "we ran into this problem " then the people that go after them take something to deal with that. The rookie cop has a badge a uniform a flashlight a gun a tazer pepper spray, handcuffs an extendo stick a knife and a multitool because other cops have said "i needed to do x and didn't have anything to do that with" even if he personally has never had to stumble around a dark field looking for someone.

It's dangerous to go alone. Take this

Shadow Lodge ****

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

I could see the 'reverse' (necromancer who gets 'religion') following someone such as Grandmother Crow (who's aware that being good is a hard road that you have to constantly work on) or Ragathiel (devil-child raging ends justify the means murderhoboadin go-to) working uneasily with it under the same sorts of understandings... 'ie, don't do it unless you absolutely have to, but not outright NO'.

A paladin's god specific code does not override the general one. Paladins have a lawful Good "take" on their god. While a lawful evil monkcleric of irori could certain raise himself some animate training dummies an irorian paladin is going to have a problem with it.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:
Well at the very least you can still associate with evil to defeat greater evil.

Taking out the competition for your place as dark lord of the undead is not defeating a greater evil. If your paladin needs a hobby, try knitting.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Secondly, the "I didn't absolutely know i was doing was wrong even though all the evidence points that way so it's all good right?" is not only the hallmark of lawful evil but that level of epistemic Nihlism would get you the hairy eyeball (or a job recommendation) in the courts of asmodeous. Iomadae would punt you down to anti paladin before you could finish the opening argument.
Iomedae is NOT the only deity for a paladin. Just sayin'.

Fine, abadar waits till your argument is done, spends 6 months on the trial, fines you your entire net worth and then transfers you to his new lawful evil anti paladin tax collection squad in the infernal revenue service.

Shadow Lodge ****

Quentin Coldwater wrote:
But how the Occultist's power works isn't defined: do you will a body to move again for a while? Or are you conjuring it up from thin air? Because it's not defined, a Paladin could in theory multiclass to Occultist (if he had the INT for it) and have an undead buddy walking around without any problems.

There's a number of huge problems.

First off, if a paladin isn't sure whether whether or not the happy fun rock rips a soul out of it's final resting place and traps it in a rotting corpse then the paladin does not use the happy fun rock .

Secondly, the "I didn't absolutely know i was doing was wrong even though all the evidence points that way so it's all good right?" is not only the hallmark of lawful evil but that level of epistemic Nihlism would get you the hairy eyeball (or a job recommendation) in the courts of asmodeous. Iomadae would punt you down to anti paladin before you could finish the opening argument.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mitch Mutrux wrote:
Woo! Stealth paladin alignment thread, everybody drink!

Eh. its 5 o clock somewhere

Shadow Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Using an [evil] spell certainly qualifies as a code violation. You also can't work with evil associates, which your newly raised undead allies would be.

Again only if the code actually says something which you would be violating.

You totally can ally with evil associates to defeat a greater evil.

This is beyond absurd. It's abundantly clear what code that specific post was talking about, "accidentally" not understanding that is rules lawyering cheese weaseling that belongs under the darkest rocks in the rules forum IF it belongs anywhere at all.

Being a paladin means something more than getting your charisma bonus to your saves. It means standing for honor, justice, right, and everything that is good and holy.

The code doesn't say that you can't use [evil] spells because it really should go without saying to anyone even considering being a holy warrior for good that you don't do anything that has the warning label [evil] clearly written on the front of the jar. It certainly means that you do not take take the very essence of evil, bring it into this world, and use it to animate a corpse in an unholy mockery of the miracle of life and set it loose upon the world.

I get that paladins can be more than one dimensional sticks in the mud, and that there's a lot of things you can certainly do as lawful good that are dark and gritty, but there's a line somewhere or the very idea is meaningless. Where exactly that line is is certainly debatable, but raising your own undead servants that hunger for the flesh of the living is so far past it the light from that line couldn't be seen with the Hubble telescope.

Shadow Lodge

LankyOgre wrote:

And this is why I dislike short hand rules and stat blocks for discussing rules. I read the "6" as short hand for 4+Con Mod (2) and therefore would allow a badger's number of rage rounds to go up by a Con increase as well as anything else that increases rage rounds.

I'd buy that (even running a pfs table) but wouldn't make a character around it.

Shadow Lodge ****

Ragoz wrote:
So assuming they aren't violating their code a paladin/oracle could go animate some dead just fine then.

Thats not an assumption, its saying what if gravity didn't work.

Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues.

Using an [evil] spell certainly qualifies as a code violation, there's a reason good clerics can't cast them at all. You also can't work with evil associates, which your newly raised undead allies would be.

This sort of thing really shouldn't need saying. Paladins smite the people that raise undead mockeries of all that is sacred in the face, they don't take it up as a hobby.

Shadow Lodge ****

andreww wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
Paladins spell list makes it impossible for them to prepare an evil spell anyway. The others don't worship a god as a class feature.
That used to be the case but unsanctioned knowledge opened it up as a possible, if rather stupid choice.

hey, now that they cast based off of charisma int AND wisdom are both dumps stats...

Shadow Lodge ****

Ragoz wrote:


Paladins spell list makes it impossible for them to prepare an evil spell anyway. The others don't worship a god as a class feature.

There's always the ever popular taking a minor in paladin for the saving throw bonus and lay on hands oracles.

Shadow Lodge

Shield lawrence wrote:
Because they provoke for moving into a square, where normally it's about leaving a square. Approaching the barbarian with the same reach as the barbarian will result in an AoO you didn't expect.

1) why would a caster move towards a barbarian

2) aoo's occured in the round before or after spell casting don't interrupt a spell. you have to hit them in response to casting, so i don't see how you're interrupting a spell from that rage power.

Shadow Lodge ****

thejeff wrote:
I'm actually a little surprised that killing is the only thing that's banned as PvP.

It's not. That's just a really legalistic interpretation of a document that's even more plain language than the rest of the game. As bolded, the intent and RAW is to prevent player vs player conflict via the proxy of characters fighting each other

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Still say it should be pfs legal to have "weapon group, whatever weapon this thing is in"

Shadow Lodge ****

Ragoz wrote:
Agreed there is no variation on this. It simply isn't evil to use this spell.

... provided you're not a paladin, cleric, druid, or have a trait attached to worshiping a good god or one that doesn't like undead (Like Pharasma). It's not evil in the sense that your CN wizards foray into the dark arts won't make the evil(er) (CN: its not evil! *wink wink*) because the society doesn't want to track darkside points, but it will still make a paladin fall faster than a monkey with a jetpack.

Shadow Lodge ****

No Player-versus-Player Combat -already explained the negative effects on the character

The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide
an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible.
One player being all cool and striking from the dark while 5 other people stumble around isnt

Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session. While
killing another character might seem like fun to you, it
certainly won’t be for the other character’s player. Even if
you feel that killing another PC is in character for your PC
at this particular moment, just figure out some other way
for your character to express herself. In short, you can never
voluntarily use your character to kill another character—
without their consent
. - Unless you ascribe to the idea that you can leave a fellow party member at -10 hit points, bleeding, and covered in BBQ sauce in front of the monsterwithout violating tehe no PVP rule you could easily be killing them because of teh severe penalties associated with being blind.

Note that this does not apply to
situations where your character is mind-controlled by an
NPC and is forced by that NPC to attack a fellow Pathfinder.

Shadow Lodge

Quantum Steve wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
The question is: "Is being able to go into a rage, the same as having the 'Rage Class Feature'?"

Since it says as a barbarian and barbarians have it as a rage class feature i don't see the counter argument.

But mind you [rage] and [rage powers] are different. The barbarian has 1 at first level but not the other.

So, would a Badger also be able to get more rounds of rage with Con increases as per the Rage Class Feature, or would it be limited to 6 rounds per day as per the Badger Animal Companion description?

6. Its as a barbarian except for what it specifies, and it specifies six.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

They answered it in march 2015.

Shadow Lodge

Storyteller Shadow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I can't believe the seasons almost over. Seems like just yesterday it was waiting for the season...

I feel the same way. With the next two seasons being 7 episodes each it's going to feel like the season is over before it starts!

NoooOOOOOOoooooo.. why? CCGI eating too much budget?

Shadow Lodge

Horse with skill focus: senator?

Shadow Lodge

Do they ever just START with the sword of ending the fight?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stormwind fallacy: The idea that role playing and optimization are two opposite ends of a spectrum, ie, that making your character worse mechanically results in better role play or that optimization automatically precludes role play. Its a form of the either or/false dilema fallacy

Shadow Lodge

murderhobo: a nod to the fact that most adventuring parties are itinerant wander bands of people who commit illegal acts of killing for money, especially with regards to old school kick down the door and kill everything style of handling an adventure.

Often hilarious when they try this at a political function.

optimization: making your character good

minmaxing: making your character really good at one/a few things at the expense of others. Since every character does this to some extent, this usually applies to taking it a little far.

Munchkining: attempting to get a mechanical advantage out of the rules by taking the weaker interpretation.

An optimizer takes combat expertise, improved disarm , and a weapon that grants a +2 bonus.

A minmaxer takes a level of brawler, skips the pre req on combat expertise so they can have a 7int and buy more strength, and gets improved disarm and a weapon that grants a +2 bonus.

A munchkin argues that when they disarm the monk his arm falls off so that like, at least 25% of his hitpoint.

Shadow Lodge

Quantum Steve wrote:
The question is: "Is being able to go into a rage, the same as having the 'Rage Class Feature'?"

Since it says as a barbarian and barbarians have it as a rage class feature i don't see the counter argument.

But mind you [rage] and [rage powers] are different. The barbarian has 1 at first level but not the other.

Shadow Lodge ****

Its also possible venture critters don't answer emails get out of touch send your emails to spam folders automatically...

Shadow Lodge

Nefreet wrote:
*cough cough*

It would be nice if the campaign clarification were the swift, agile, bureaucracy free errata system we've needed for a while.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:
There's no way it's pvp. At best its being a jerk but even then I'm skeptical.

You cast a spell that

-halves my movement
-Costs me my dex bonus to ac (rendering me vulnerable to sneak attacks)
-rendered me incapable of taking aoos
-keeps me from targeting my foes

There's no way thats NOT pvp.

Shadow Lodge

Protoman wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
*pats James on the back*
Yes, pat him on the back for making this week's FAQ a link to an FAQ that already answered the question a year ago.
Considering the bashing/spiked shield debate comes up every 1.5-2 months or so, a PDT statement clarifying that they're both "effective size increases" for anyone to refer to and cite is a big help and practically necessary considering how adamant some folks are with their opinions on the matter. It's not James' fault that's all the PDT will be addressing this week.

But came up with absolutely.nothing. No argument, no sense, no evidence, and just a blind willingness to pretend that words that are clearly there weren't. Nothing besides *redacted redacted redactted chinchillia redacted redacted rubber pants redacted redacted willingness to stubbornly insist that the idea with the mechanical advantage was the right one.

Shadow Lodge ****

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

I don't think that 'first person omnicient' is a thing.

There are

"First Person"

"Second Person" (mostly instruction manuals & the old pick-a-path books)

"Third Person Limited"

and

"Third Person Omnicient"

I don't remember any "First Person Omnicient".

It's a thing, depending on whether you're looking into their head or hearing them tell it.

Shadow Lodge

*puts a garbage can lid on their arm and tries to reload a musket*

Yeah i'm gonna say no...

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

OO oo ooo but what about klars! thats totally different right!

*will get the newspawper and thwap themselves in the head for that one...*

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

Our FAQ slot for today wound up being for a highly-asked no FAQ required question about whether the effective size increase FAQ applies in a specific instance. So simultaneously yes and no, depending on if you count the FAQ discussion slot or whether it winds up as a FAQ.

Bites the link a little to make it behave

Shadow Lodge

I can't believe the seasons almost over. Seems like just yesterday it was waiting for the season...

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:
The funny part is the Feat: Extra Rage Power. So, this means that Badger AC's can get rage powers, too.

Prerequisite: Rage power class feature.

Not just rage class feature. So unless i missed a step in how they get the class feature?

1 to 50 of 26,312 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.