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 2014 Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 19,566 posts (20,306 including aliases). 11 reviews. 4 lists. No wishlists. 22 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 19,566 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I understand that the change had to be made.

I understand the grandfathering cut off.

I do NOT understand the phobia around the rebuilds, especially in conjunction with the grandfathering cutoff. There should be some option to get out of the cocoon now that you need to fly to mexico in order to become a butterfly.

The cost to individual characters is pretty high. If mystic theurges running around had a proportional loss of fun high enough to justify that then why grandfather them in at all?

Shadow Lodge ***

BartonOliver wrote:
I would hope/imagine so, but as it stands...

As it stands the only thing keeping you from what you know full well is rai is your own supposition about sentence order, which is not raw.

Raw it works
Rai it works

Dont make a character popping into your table useless for the evening

Shadow Lodge ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brigg wrote:
If it's going to be that much of an inconvenient struggle, and you're not willing to try it a different way, or maybe even experiment with something different, then just play a different character.

The banning was annoying.

This? This constant, smug, snide assumption of superiority? That's what raises it to levels of grarg. You're assuming that your gaming chops are better than the people affected. You're assuming, without seeing our characters, that there is some way out of this.

You're assuming that there is a solution without offering one, whereas people who've tried crunching the numbers on the amount of prestige to get from here to there

Oh, but if you don't see a solution it must be because you didn't TRY.

Horsefeathers.

Shadow Lodge

Because there's a lot of ways to die. A shield blocks one of them. Killing the other guy faster blocks all of them.

Shadow Lodge

You're doing more than stating it, you're using it as the basis for why he's wrong. There's enough solid bedrock for that construction project, you don't need to build on the sand.

Whoops, sorry. Quote orama confusion. My bad. But i don't think its an instead of, its both.

Don't read into it. The birds more than adaquately armed in this battle of wits without my help, nothing more to it than that.

Shadow Lodge ***

Raw he is proficient with shields. That means he is proficient with shields as armor and proficient with shields as weapons. Raw does not make this distinction.

Shadow Lodge ***

Plays guide eye dog

uptop it says pathfinder/pathfinder society/general discussion

Right Click pathfinder society and open in new tab so you can see these instructions while following them

scroll down and click "pathfinder society grand lodge"

In the left hand column you'll see local online online local local online local. click one of the locals

In the upper right it says "Add new thread" Title the thread something like "Looking for game near Tomball Texas. Someone should be along to point you towards a venture officer.

Welcome to the institution :)

Shadow Lodge ***

You COULD read it that way, but since you can also read it the way that lets the shield champion use his eponymous weapon I'd go with the saner one.

Shadow Lodge ***

are you reading the playtest version? I have this

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A shield champion is
proficient with all simple weapons. She is also proficient
with light armor, and with bucklers, light shields, and
heavy shields. This replaces the brawler’s weapon and
armor proficiencies

Shadow Lodge ***

David Foley wrote:


The sorcerer with a combat trained tiger in my lodge got around that by buying a bridle of tricks.

Bridle of tricks is a headslot item. The tiger would need the extra slot: head feat to use it, and they can't get that feat.

A DM might be nice and let the character use it as an item under the "specifically for their use" clause under pfs rules, but that rule seems to mean VERY specifically, for a particular animal, to the point that the only item i'm sure about is horseshoes.

Shadow Lodge ***

Andrew Torgerud wrote:

@theJeff I should have used his second post - more explicit in thinking about the level 2/3's. secondpost

@BNW - there's been at least 4 different prestige classes with this option possible - I don't know all the possible prestige classes in Pathfinder to argue how many paths are possible... but a planestouched lvl 2 fighter with 11 int could be repurposed into an eldritch knight... can even get high level spells with magic gear later. one such example

1) So thats 10% of fighters :)

2) Magus is a better ek than the ek.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Torgerud wrote:
Let me define "abuse cases" - abuse cases are characters who were no intended to take the PrC, but could and would be 're-purposed' with the intent of a free rebuild/retrain.

How common do you think that situation is? Unlike mordor, one does not simply walk into early entry mystic theurge. It is something you have to plan very carefully for. Someone that could serendipitously make a good mystic theurge out of their character without having been heading that way anyway is too rare a circumstance to build policy around.

Very few people want to walk that path. Very few people want to be with a party member on that path. It leads through a VERY long valley of dross.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Torgerud wrote:
Grandfathering all lvl 2+ characters allows for plenty of characters who were not intending to go this route, to be re-purposed into it. Small or large, potential for abuse is there.

Baring cheating, it only allows someone to take this route if they meet a couple of hard to do conditions. You need to be a Caster with two good (and probably different) casting stats AND Some way of getting a spell like ability that they need. That its hardly every level 2 character and its definitely not every player that the tiefling floodgates were.

Quote:
The same issues occur with free retraining and free rebuilding - the corner case abuses, whether in large or small quantities - the ability is there. (Some people say - "who cares?" - the campaign staff does. and i'm glad they do)

What abuse is there and winding up at level 3 with the exact same character you could have made from level 1? If a rule changes you're supposed to get a rebuild.

Quote:
For me - the biggest issue with grandfathering all level 2+ characters at time of announcement.. is it essentially allows a free pass to not follow the rules.

No one broke the rules.

If i was willing to break the rules my wizard 3 cleric 1 would be a Wizard 1 cleric with the right domains 2 mystic theurge 1 after a date with an eraser.

Every person you are accusing of not following the rules has to watch a character get roflstomped with the nerf bat because they followed the rules explicitly laid out in the faq and they're still following the rules now. No one cheated, no one rules lawyered, no one this affects tried to worm in through unclear wording. In what way does it allow a free pass not to follow the rules?

It does not help things when you reward that honesty with baseless insults and accusations of cheating.

Quote:
Those characters can still go the route to the PrC if they chose. (whether the character is "effective" enough for the player is up to them)

But its not a fair choice. The deal was altered halfway through. If you want to know how many people would have made wizard clerics before the faq you can see how many (or few) theurges there were before then.

Shadow Lodge ***

Kalindlara wrote:
You use words like "atrociously useless", "crippling", and "wrecked". Is the optimization floor of PFS really that high?

The optimization bar is pretty low. That the standard mystic theurge doesn't hit it says a lot about the standard mystic theurge.

Shadow Lodge ***

Definitely like the fix.

doc the grey wrote:
d light horse is still available right out of the gate.
That sounds like a pretty good hot fix for people who this worries and also helps mark to make leveling feel a bit more interesting. That being said you might want to right just right in an exception for the heavy horse and maybe a small list to help represent some of the other areas in golarion. Like I'd think it would be more weird for a mwangi fighter to have a heavy horse if he's originally from the expanse than say a jaguar.

Thats probably getting too complicated. The complexity of the proposal doesn't add much to it. After all, pcs are pathfinders who usually start in absolom. Horses are readily available to everyone.

Shadow Lodge ***

re spoiler: If you chose to do evil it was your own choice. You could have, as my table did, tell the NPC they've been using too much of their own product and refuse. Yes, you pay a consequence for that but you can do it. Is the complaint that your character can't be a good person or that being a good person comes with some downsides?

I love moral quandaries like that (i just wish the take a third option option hadn't been so random and limited)

Spoiler:
Party: Her word won't hold up in court because she sells drugs

Kangaroo pouch rider: You mean these?

Yes

*opens kangaroo pouch. Starts putting drugs inside* "What drugs?"

Shadow Lodge ***

Gm Lamplighter wrote:
Yes, it is. New players can't play two of the more powerful races there are, while some pockets of players have a half-dozen or more of them, generated by replaying a single module multiple times in a day

I don't see how "I've been playing for a while and gamed the system" is all that different from "I got to a con and look at this shiny new toy i came back with" in that regard.

Shadow Lodge ***

Brigg wrote:


I'm trying to encourage those who feel shorted by the new ruling to try something different; not just chalk it up to a wasted character slot.

I know what you're trying to say, but just because the response worked for such a small change doesn't mean that it will work for the much bigger change.

Shadow Lodge

Mean, this is the quoted part

A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat.

Shadow Lodge

Kain Darkwind wrote:

That might apply were any of this actually ad hom.

Its the very definition of an ad hom. You're refuting what he's saying by pointing out his youth and inexperience, which you think has contributed to his erroneous conclusions rather than his completely unfounded conclusions. You could give the exact same argument if his position were reversed.

Quote:
Quark himself has stated that he was seventeen

Being true and being an ad hom are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:
and demonstrated on a consistent basis to be completely ignorant of his ignorance.

If age were a cure for that fox news would be out of business.

Quote:
On the other hand, nearly every position of Quark's could be summed up with, "Here is some nonsense, I'm seventeen."

Only the first part matters.

Shadow Lodge ***

Mark Stratton wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
If a given option is not abusable, then declining said option does not rein in any abuse.
For my own sake, Jiggy, can you spell out for me what this option is? I'm not certain (between the two threads) what this other option is.

A few options I"ve seen:

1) Let dm credit count as playing

2) Grandfather characters level 2 and higher. At worst the rush to theurgehood would be done by casters who didn't dump int/wis. there wouldn't be enough people to count as a rush. If your level 1 character was going to be theurge you can protoplasm your way out of it.

3) Let any multi classed caster grandfather in. Taking wizard and cleric levels is better than a signed statement that you're going Theurge.

Shadow Lodge ***

Since the spell doesn't specify the cost of the vial of venom you could say that its a spell component so its therefore included in your spell component pouch.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Peacock is different for two reasons:

1) Even in a campaign as skill heavy as PFS skill ranks are pretty far down on the list in terms of character power. Its not the same ballpark as casting stat and caster level.

2) There was a bit of ambiguity in exactly how the ability worked: whether you were bluffing your way through seeming to know things or whether you actually knew them. Pageant didn't get banned till after the author clarified it was the latter.

3) Its a much, much easier fix.

Shadow Lodge ***

Re the aasimar tiefling thing: So what?

A limited number of people stockpiled an entire angelic/demonic legion. So what? That means that that one person shows up always playing a tiefling. They could accomplish the same thing just by playing slow. The problem wasn't a few people playing the planetouched, it was that EVERYONE was playing the planetouched.

Quote:
whether such a disclaimer or caveat is made or not), people relied on the original FAQ ruling, and I suspect either didn't think the caveat would apply, or that it wouldn't matter.....

...or that the procedure written out allowing rebuilds when the rules changes would be followed. This was not building a character around a corner case interpretation strait out of asmodeuous' playbook. This was something where the devs said -Yes, this is the rule, and yes it really means this-. It is a rules change, they're supposed to come with rebuilds.

Quote:
Those who have characters impacted by this change have a number of choices, and those have been articulated prior to this post. One of them, however, is worth noting: no longer playing Pathfinder and/or Pathfinder Society

Really? If people took this advice as often as you give it PFS would be half the size it is.

Quote:
Some people here are talking about how they had "intended" or "planned" to take early entry into a PrC but hand't gotten their yet. That is not the fault of Mike or John.

I don't like the implication there. I don't think anyone multiclasses wizard and cleric without intending to take mystic theurge, nor do they level out their int and wisdom, take practiced caster, or a dozen other things you start doing from day 1.

And its not peoples fault that they DMd for others instead of playing more to lock the character in.

Shadow Lodge ***

Art imitates life, and sometimes doing the right thing will be harder or come with a cost.

Doing it anyway helps to define a character and help them stand out from among the crowd. If this were the Palidin society then EVERYONE would be a law abiding goody two shoes, so law abiding goody two shoes would cease to be a personality trait of a character.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
Yes we do. If you're using speed (fly, run, climb, swim, etc) for your action, you're moving.

Would the two definitions vary at any point?

Shadow Lodge

bbangerter wrote:
Dismounting is not pathfinder specific movement.

The thing is we don't have a pathfinder specific definition of movement. So the definition most people stick to is -you were in that square THERE now you're in this square HERE= movement- .

Shadow Lodge ***

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

I added information that the poster I quoted was either a) leaving out, or b) unaware of.

I don't see how the addition of those words turns my comment into one of condescension.

Its putting words into peoples mouth. Its saying that your opinion is so right and theirs is so wrong that they MUST want to say your opinion. Its calling their opinion so wrong its broken.

I've never seen that phrase used as anything but a backhanded insult.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It was explicitly in the FAQ.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Maybe it is just all the talk of "ruined" that tends to annoy me.

If the best option available is, as you suggested yourself, getting more prestige than i currently have on the character and blowing it all in order to retrain him, then i think ruined is an accurate description.

Shadow Lodge ***

The aasimars and tieflings tagged out. (they needed to) Nagaji, wayangs, and kitsune tagged in.

The factions changed. Scarzini got a hostile take over from qadiria and are now the exchange.

Cheliax is now the dark archives, and devoted to dangerous forbidden knowledge being properly cared for. Not evil since AR 4314

Osirion is now the scarab sages, and under new leadership.

Andoran cut ties with andor and is now liberties edge. Still slave freeing do gooders though

Taldor is now the Sovereign court, trying to promote an international nobless obligee coalition of nobles that do something.

Shadow Lodge

MeanMutton wrote:
Howie23 wrote:
Ride skill.

I don't mean to be dense here but I honestly don't see it.

Ride Skill

I did a search for "adjacent" and found nothing. I searched for "square" and found nothing. I searched for "dismount" and found it seven times, none of which say that you move to another space. Can you point out where it is?

Under the mounted combat rules in the combat chapter

A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat.

So if you are in the squares next to your horse, and you mount, you are now in the squares of your horse. You've moved unless the horse started in your square.

Shadow Lodge

[wiley coyote] 5 foot steps out over a cliff. Nope! Can't move anywhere, sorry! [/qile coyote]

Shadow Lodge ***

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
With those stats, I would actually consider putting the character on the back burner, maybe apply some GM chronicles an retrain him as a shaman. That way you would still get the mix or arcane and divine spells, the class uses wisdom and charisma, and the lore shaman requires intelligence.

Thats an interesting possibility and worth considering. But the main point was to demonstrate that characters are an interconnected whole. You can't change one part, especially one as big as a prestige class, without changing the whole thing. Even small changes can ripple.

Shadow Lodge ***

eternallamppost wrote:


The question for whether or not we ban something is not "what is it adding?" The question is "What is it hurting?" and the answer here is not much.

Its a two parter. What does it add to the game VS what does it hurt.

In this case its hurting the low level play in some areas where the trend catches on. As it seems to add nothing to the game even that localized damaged to the game seems to call for a ban.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, what exactly is being added to the game by purchasable cannon fodder?

It might be rare and localized, but the argument for it seems to be almost non existent.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I realize the problem they were trying to fix, but the lack of warning does make me a little leery about some other options. For example, do i need to chivy someone else into DMing or play a character that may not fit the scenario as well just because I want to be sure a character is locked in for sure.

Shadow Lodge ***

I have a level 3 wizard level 1 cleric that was 2 sessions away from theurgedom.

If i continue onto mystic theurgdom... i think we covered that.

If i ditch the cleric level i lose

The magical knack trait

The 16 wisdom and 14 charisma become pretty useless

The Divine barrier feat. Which is at least retrainable but at 5 prestige points? for the class and 7 for the class.

I have binders full of other characters, so just putting Argentum on the back burner isn't the end of the world for me but if he was my highest level character? I'd be hosed.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Ooo! Ooo! My cynicism pans out again.

Couple more victories like this and I'll be fashionably cynical.

:D

You're not cynical. You're seventeen.

Not only do you not know what cynicism is, you also are completely ignorant about near infinite number of things you are ignorant of.

Go have a milkshake with your friends or something.

Could we leave off with the ad homs on this guy? If you're making bad arguments against his positions it looks like you can't make good arguments against his positions.

Shadow Lodge

DM_Blake wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Komoda wrote:
So I guess you also would not allow someone to 5' Step and mount?

I think i would. I don't think that 5 feet prevents all movement the way movement prevents a 5 foot step.

So would you allow a typical human to take a 5' Step and then move 30'? This would allow him a total move of 35', which essentially extends his "move rate" by 5'. Are you OK with this?

I bet not.

The rule is not specific about the sequence of the actions, it merely says "You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement" and "you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance". No sequence, no order, no timing mentioned.

Hmmm true. I'd probably allow the horse to shuffle into the characters space. Otherwise how would you do zoro leaping onto the saddle from the lady's window?

Shadow Lodge ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Ok I really have to ask, what character is "ruined" ? It seems that most of those characters will be about level 3-4 with a suboptimal stat allocation.

So at this point they have two choices, either continue on their path to MT or retrain one level, and have slightly less than perfect stat allocations (and not even that if you go Oracle/Sorcerer, or Cleric/Sorcerer with the right bloodline).

That is really not ruined, I recently played with a sorcerer/rogue/arcane trickster and that player had to go through a valley of suck to get there.

It might be quite bad for your proposed concept, but from a mechanical point of view, the character is hardly "ruined".

Well, the plan was to have low spell DC's made up for by having a large number of buff spells available.

A mystic theurge walks into level 7-11 scenarios casting second level spells. That really isn't a viable party member.

Retraining makes a lot of feats and abilities useless, for example the tehurgy feat and the magical knack trait.

The valley of suck for a mytic theurge is most of PFS standard levels.

Shadow Lodge ***

Finlanderboy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Ask for it to be banned. I have yet to see anyone arguing in favor of the tactic, and the campaign has responded to complaints about less egregious problems than this.

until then Play undead heavy scenarios. You need a dc 25 handle animal check to get it to attack unnatural creatures.

Until you train it. It is not hard to train it farther.

A combat trained tiger can't learn any more tricks. Its int of 2 allows it to know 6 tricks, which is the number required for combat training.

There's also technically no rule for replacing tricks... except getting it combat trained, so it can't just drop down to pick up a second attack.

The solution there is to get an untrained tiger and drain it up, but since you can train at max 1 trick per session at level 1, 2 at level 2 etc, you'll be level 3-4 before its fully functional. Before then a tiger that knows attack twice but not "heel" should be more trouble than its worth.

Shadow Lodge ***

Ask for it to be banned. I have yet to see anyone arguing in favor of the tactic, and the campaign has responded to complaints about less egregious problems than this.

until then Play undead heavy scenarios. You need a dc 25 handle animal check to get it to attack unnatural creatures.

Shadow Lodge ***

Brigg wrote:

Okay, please forgive me for missing the boat on this, but I have three questions:

What was the old ruling? (Something about Spell like abilities and mystic theurge?)

Old Ruling: Spell like abilities counted as spellcasting for meeting prestige class requirements. The most common fall out was that aasimar wizards could pick up levels of mystic theurge with a 1 level dip into cleric instead of 3, or vice versa.

Quote:

What is the new ruling? (That something has a new interpretation?)

Why are people actually upset? (Character build is now borked? )

The new faq ruling is that it only counts if it calls out your spell like ability specifically, ie, if dimensional dervish feat requires dimension door, a dimension door spell like ability is close enough, but any other spell like ability is not.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
"Inari" wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
John and I discussed grandfathering at length. As John and I both advised in the first thread, this is the decision that the PFS team has made and is what we are going with.
Okay, this is a good answer.
Actually, it does not answer the OP at all. The question was "Why was this decision made?". Saying that it was made after discussion and that it won't change does NOT answer "Why".
"It's not changing" is a perfectly adequate response when providing a reason why is just going to get argued with. (Even if the OP isn't just fishing for something to argue with, that won't stop the nerdrage brigade from stopping in.)

Peoples characters are stuck halfway through the process of becoming mystic theurges, leaving them somewhere between suboptimal to useless.

Of course they're going to try to change peoples minds about this decision.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jayson MF Kip wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Hosteling seems overpriced to me. I LOVE the flavor/effect of your companion becoming heraldry, but 7.5 k buys you a LOT of scrolls of carry companion before you break even.

Doesn't help a Cavalier much.

It does. A VERY overlooked option in pfs is to buy an item, hand it to a party member and say "hey, can you use this for me?" The spell is on nearly every spell list. It would be very rare to have a party with no one that could cast it natively or VIA UMD. Its why a monks first purchase should be a wand of mage armor even if they have the UMD score of a bookend.

Shadow Lodge ***

Exguardi wrote:
I understand this. Here is what I am unclear on. This FAQ that I referenced is from the Advanced Player's Guide, not the Advanced Race Guide. This FAQ does NOT say that half-orcs and half-elves are allowed to take feats from their parent races. It says "favored class bonuses, archetypes, traits, and so on." I'm aware that in a home game "so on" would obviously include feats unless the GM explicitly says otherwise, but in the context of PFS play I have had issues in the past with any ruling that did not use INCREDIBLY specific language.

I believe the faq amounts to "You count as human" , which would let you extent the so forth pretty much into infinity.

Shadow Lodge

Komoda wrote:
So I guess you also would not allow someone to 5' Step and mount?

I think i would. I don't think that 5 feet prevents all movement the way movement prevents a 5 foot step.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hosteling seems overpriced to me. I LOVE the flavor/effect of your companion becoming heraldry, but 7.5 k buys you a LOT of scrolls of carry companion before you break even.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

People used crepuscular: they is they'd go to bed a bit after sun down, wake up in the middle of the night, and then go back to sleep.

Linky

Zeplins and derigibles used to be THE huge thing. The spire on the empire state building was a hook for derigibles.

1 to 50 of 19,566 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.