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. 27,371 posts (28,694 including aliases). 16 reviews. 4 lists. No wishlists. 28 Pathfinder Society characters. 5 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 27,371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Blur and displacement were always problematic with stealth because of the observed clause.

Shadow Lodge ****

Kurthnaga wrote:


I think that there is still a discussion to be had on warning lights. I remember buying a book for Pageant of the Peacock(most of Dragonslayer's is fairly irrelevant to PFS), and getting whacked with the ban hammer very unceremoniously. Some advance warning on these things might invite discussion and soften the blow of removing or altering problematic options.

i think that one got sped up because there was ambiguity about how it was supposed to work for a while, the author said it used the insane interpretation of versatile performance on...whatever steroids take when they want to up their game , so it needed to go.

Shadow Lodge

Ashiel wrote:

Blur used for Stealth.

It's like they get up in the morning and say "How can we make this game worse today?"

Notice he doesn't fight like that.

Someone being functionally invisible in combat is way too powerful for a second level spell. (especially if you let people 5 foot and stealth)

There's still shadowdander hips + hellcat stealth

Shadow Lodge

Dhá Sciath wrote:
So I can drop them as part of my move action, but can I put them back on? Would I need both hands free to put just one back on?

I think it would be a move action to pick up and a move action to get on.

Shadow Lodge

Fergie wrote:


Among wealthy whites with college degrees, I think the percentage chance of voting goes way up, and I'm guessing again that Trump is unlikely to cross the 50% line.

I think Trump is a phenomenon of the wealthier, not poorer people, but I would have to really check the fine print of some polls to see what the facts are.

You're assuming that people don't vote against their own best interests.

People vote against their own best interests.

A college degree drops the support for trump a bit among men, and absolutely tanks it for women.

Shadow Lodge ****

I have a guide i threw together for newbies and one important thing i wanted to add was the welcome to pathfinder boon, but i can't find a link to it. I HAVE it as a pdf, but no link for it. Anyone know where it's hiding?

Shadow Lodge ****

Master spy at 15 was the closest i could find.

Shadow Lodge

Ashiel wrote:


What manual is that from?

Ultimate intrigue.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derek Dalton wrote:
The issue I have with Unchained is they made a book when it really wasn't needed. I've read how the classes are supposed to step up in power because they need to.

i think they picked three classes deliberately.

The summoner was too strong
The rogue was too weak
The barbarian was just right.

mmm..poridge.

They wanted to see what they could do to the classes.

The summoner got a much needed nerf bat and mixed reviews
The unchained rogue has mostly been met with halleluja.
The unchained barbarian has been met with.. meh.

So it looks like they can fix stuff thats wrong but not vastly improve things that work.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
I think you've altered the scenario a bit.

It's been a storm on a ship that is in danger of sinking from the getgo. That's kinda what happens to ships in storms but..

Quote:
Initially there was no imminent danger that the ship was going to sink, just that you had a sailor climbing the rigging in a storm.

even then the storm would probably qualify as a distraction, because you're on a ship and getting tossed around. The thing you're trying to climb bucking around underneath you while lightning cracks by your head is definitely distracting.

Quote:
It sounds like now you wouldn't require a climb check for that?

If you can't fall and there's no hurry go ahead and take 10. Victory is assured here. There is no drama. Move along.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:


So, if an experienced sailor isn't in danger of falling, just not making progress for a round, why are you disallowing the take 10 check in the first place?

Immediate danger of sinking. Distraction of being tossed around like the small kid in the bouncehouse. Presumably if I'm asking for rolls he needs to climb the rigging now and nautical term the thingamajigger all the way up there or the boats going to be in danger of sinking. Otherwise it would just be "You've arrived and the city of Harborsville and finally manage to stop puking..."

Shadow Lodge

Anonymous Warrior wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm trying to imagine a strap that you can't just wriggle out of short of a tourniquet.

Well, in the GM's place, I'd reason that if the strap is tight enough that the shield doesn't just pivot on your wrist when struck, then it's also tight enough that you can't just slip it on and off

A move action is hardly slipping, thats a lot of shake and wriggle.

the shield doesn't just pivot on you because you're holding the handle with your hand, and the entire weight of friction accross your forearm, and more importantly bracing the thing somewhere on your body. Its an entirely different direction of force than dropping the thing, which would be out, or if something were to pick you up by your shield and try to shake you out of it, in which case you're holding onto the handle.

As soon as you're not holding onto the handle anymore slipping out seems easy.

Shadow Lodge

Displacement won't work. Its like concealment, not actually concealment.

Even blur (which is concealment) doesn't work.

Cover and Concealment for Stealth: The reason a
character usually needs cover or concealment to use
Stealth is tied to the fact that characters can’t use Stealth
while being observed. A sneaking character needs to
avoid all of an opponent’s precise senses in order to use
Stealth, and for most creatures, that means vision. Effects
such as blur and displacement, which leave a clear visual
of the character within the perceiving character’s vision,
aren’t sufficient to use Stealth, but a shadowy area or a
curtain work nicely, for example. The hide in plain sight
class ability allows a creature to use Stealth while being
observed and thus avoids this whole situation. As the Core
Rulebook mentions, a sneaking character can come out
of cover or concealment during her turn, as long as she
doesn’t end her turn where other characters are directly
observing he

Shadow Lodge ****

They were used but you had to be at the right spot at the right time it seemed my group were dodging them.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
"Give them an inch, they'll ...

Sharpen it into a point, use it to shiv the guard, gnaw off the guards legs, sharpen the femur into a point , use that to stab the other guard and take his weapon, poison that with his offal, kill the warden, free the prisoners, and use the prison as a base of operations to begin the extermination of the entire goblinoid race.

Shadow Lodge

I'm trying to imagine a strap that you can't just wriggle out of short of a tourniquet.

Shadow Lodge

witch: save or die was toned down in pathfinder for a reason, it's boring. The witch cranks it up to 11 after they DID just make 10 louder.

Swashbuckler a mobile fighter with... no actual mobility. Is supposed to be a charismatic dexterous cutting figure but works better with a strength build a charsima of 7. everyone martial seems to dip the class for the parry/riposte extra attack.

vigilante I don't hate the class, i just don t like that you have to keep pumping features into the dual identity to get it to work, it should expand automatically as you level up like most of its features. It seems to be the rogue done right.

summoner It's a 9th level pre optimized god wizard masquerading as a 6th level caster that comes with build a bear that's better than most character classes on it's own.

Gunslinger Touch attacks are completely overpowered. AC barely scales with attack. Touch ac doesn't scale at all.
A pirate with a pistol up their sleeve for 1 shot is arguably as period appropriate as plate armor. However, gunslinger rate of fire looks more like someone with 2 six shooters or a browning automatic rifle than a blunderbuss or flintlock.

magus coookie cuuter

Shadow Lodge

Chess Pwn wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough it seems. When in an actual campaign doing actual hero/adventure stuff like most sessions are, would you be able to and want to take 10 on stealth?

Some of those are from PFS scenarios.

Quote:
Or is your view that if you're doing plot stuff, aka actual hero/adventure stuff, it's going to be non-take 10 able?

Actual hero stuff with the stealth skill taking 10 is and should be rare. If you're hiding from it you're probably hiding because it's dangerous.

Quote:
And as to your last point, "sneak past a low level challenge you don't feel like killing." who determines if they are low level and how would your character know? Aka I have my master tracker assassin pretend to be a normal looking guard. So a lv20 pretending to be a lv2NPC class.

Well then i suppose you're rolling and the DM will have to rely on you not metagaming for figuring out why you can't take 10 to get past the peasant.

"but i'm not in immediate danger!"

*Clatter of dice*

"A bright white smile and glowing red eyes appear in the darkness next to you. A moment later Roger's head vanishes in a fountain of gore..."

Quote:
Because if I can take 10 because I "think" it's a low level because of how it looks then it's not the actual situation but the character's choice on if he feels a take 10 is good enough.

You cannot. The clause is when you ARE in danger, which is something only the DM knows. Not when you feel you are in danger.

Shadow Lodge

Chess Pwn wrote:
Big question for you is, When would take 10 stealth work according to you? When would you be able to and want to take 10 on stealth?

sneak into a bar where the bouncer is just going to throw you out

dine and dash (assuming the habachi chef isn't a halfling thrower that likes to dip his knives in the pufferfish first...)

not be noticed around town when you wouldn't want to be seen.

sneak out of the wait staffs room the morning after

sneak in after a late night out (assuming you haven't had enough alchohol to be a distraction)

sneak past a low level challenge you don't feel like killing.

Shadow Lodge

Chess Pwn wrote:
What danger is the sleeping dragon? He stays asleep and nothing happens to me. He can't be the danger stopping me. As he's not dangerous while asleep. It can't be that he may wake up natural regardless of my stealth because you should be able to take 10 trying to stealth against an awake dragon.

You cannot use your conclusion as a premise. I like chasing my own tail and that's still circular by comparison.

Shadow Lodge ****

claudekennilol wrote:

If I have a +30 and you have a +25, are you going to complain that you're only adding +2 if you decide to aid? If you decide to aid are you going to complain that your +25 is no more helpful than someone else's +9?

Complain about the inadequacies of the system? certainly (i think i have made more than a few rants on that in the lamplighter threads, about the uselessness of being a bowling ball)

DO anything about it? No. Because the rules are pretty rock solid on what aiding another does.

But there are both rules and rational arguments for stumpy grumpy and stabby's aid another diplomacy checks of -1 for tossing in a penalty.

Shadow Lodge

Chess Pwn wrote:

yeah no. If you succeed your check then you're in no danger.

By that argument no roll when you're not just going to die no matter what is ever in danger, because if you make the check you avoid the consequences.

So, yeah. no. You ARE in immediate danger. Break out the dice and pray to the polyhedral gods.

Shadow Lodge

Aranna wrote:
hmmm... The dragon is the same as the pit of lava while it is asleep, at least as far as danger goes. Your fine... Just don't fail. Well unless it has a fear aura, in that case danger or not the fear aura would be very distracting.

1) It's more like bubbling lava in a volcano that's shaking : it could blow/wake up at any moment. You can't just sit there all day.

2) I no longer buy SKR's post and the convoluted logic that you are not in immediate danger while jumping over lava. Even the not an FAQ post superseded that.

Shadow Lodge

nosig wrote:

Requiring someone to roll at a skill most of the time just means the player needs to invest MORE into ensuring the skills success. I mean, that's what I do with my Skill Monkeys.

DC is 25? then the PC needs a +24. At least, maybe +30 just to be on the save side. Disallowing Take 10 just means the PC will be assured of success on fewer things (they become more "Hyper-Specialized"), but they can then do that in ALL circumstances. Even when "distracted" by other things (until the judge starts imposing circumstance penalties. "You're plus what? Ok, you get a -2 circumstance penalty for being smug about it and another -2 for over-confidence.")

If you want a 100% rate then yes, you have to invest that much.

Settle for a less than 100% success rate.

(mind you, i did not follow this advice on flutter. I made sure she could wild empathy critters on a 1)

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:

Pathfinder sailors have a +5 or +7 climb skill, rigging is a DC10. So, forcing a roll means either a 20% or 10% risk of failure per check for general crew. Add in modifiers for the storm, and obviously those risks go higher, up to 20-30% for a +2DC. That's a ludicrously high risk of dangerous failure for any actual human activity.

You don't fall if you miss a climb check by 5. you just have to stop for a second. With a +5 you can't fall on rigging. With a -2 you only fall 5% of the time, which in a d20 system is as low as your odds can get and still be real- which is why the experienced sailor should be the one up there when the storms blowing.

Also remember pathfinder is a dramatic adventure simulator, not a reality simulator. If there's a storm on an adventure you know a redshirts going overboard just to show how dangerous this is.

Shadow Lodge ****

claudekennilol wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
2) Someone with a +5 diplomacy should be more useful than someone with a -2 in, even in a group with a +8 diplomacy. It encourages skills somewhere in between nose picker and diplomancer
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make with this one. They are more useful. Someone with a +5 will only fail to aid 20% of the time. While someone with a -2 will fail to aid 55% of the time. 80% success vs 45% success seems more useful to me..

It's not nearly enough difference.

80% of +2 is 1.6
45% of +2 .9

7 points of diplomacy should translate into more than a .7 bonus to the roll.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:


If the PC wants to do a routine job sneaking past the dragon - why not let him?

Thematics wise: because a routine job of sneaking past a dragon is supposed to be an oxymoron. Its not supposed to be a routine job its supposed to be an adventure filled with danger and excitement. If your adventure is "routine" something has gone horribly wrong.

Rules wise: You are standing next to a flippin dragon that could wake up at any moment. You're in immediate danger.

Balance wise: Either I set the DC so low that your take 10 makes the check or i set it so high that you're probably going to fail. Neither of those is a good option. If the dragon's perception is high enough that take 10 won't make it, then rolling probably won't make it either and I do not like setting dc's that high.

Taking 10 in that situation is an ADVANCED rogue talent: something you need to be level 10 and burn a very powerful option to be able to do. It's not something to be handed out lightly.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Unless storms are dramatically different in Pathfinder, was it historically common on sailing ships that riggers fell about once every two minutes during stormy ocean travel here on earth?
You really shouldn't be making those checks on a per round basis.
How often then? Once per storm? Once per voyage? The point holds. If you want to achieve anything approaching verisimilitude, unless it represents some sort of cumulative risk over a long span of time, you shouldn't impose checks that represent, at best, even a 5% failure chance. That's actually pretty huge.

1's are not automatic fails on skill checks. 1 missed check does not mean that your ship flounders and crashes. if i was making it as a challenge this is how i would set it up.

Survival to see the storm coming in advance: +2 to your first roll as you batten down the hatches with extra time.

Best of three skill challenge at dc 18. If you make a 23 you get a +2 to your next roll as you keep the ship extra steady. 13 or worse and you get a -2 to your next roll as you take on water or get too close to the rocks or something.

Something like this is usually how i see those kinds of checks set up in adventures.

Quote:
Something tells me when the PCs encounter an NPC pirate ship, 25% of the pirate crew do not have broken bones from falling injuries.

D&D pirates have access to healing magic. RL counterparts not so much. It took a while for lime technology to be developed.

Mortality rate on sailing ships was upwards of 50%...

Shadow Lodge

Aranna wrote:


Is the dragon awake or asleep? An awake dragon is definitely an immediate threat... But a sleeping one is not.

Tell that to bilbo.

He's not batman. He doesn't take 30 minutes to get dressed and become dangerous. He wakes up, you fry. That's immediate.

From a rules sense perspective, you can't take 10 when your adrenaline is pumping and your heart is racing, which is the sensation you should be getting trying to sneak past a dragon. (of course if you're a 20th level adventurer and the dragons still got a bit of egg behind the ears that wouldn't apply)

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
spastic puma wrote:
From Kimmel's perspective, white males address this lie they've been sold with impotent rage and lash out at minorities who stole "their" jobs, threaten "their" freedom, and feel like they are drowning under the rising tide of equality around them.

Well, they didn't get to that conclusion on their own or at random.

Donald trump is more than the republican candidate, he's the ontological manifestation of the republican party itself: a corporate billionaire CEO that undercuts American workers, makes shady deals, bribes politicians to get what he wants, and uses the legal system to avoid paying their bills and then diverts attention away from their own behavior that is actually the cause of the problem with racist rhetoric towards those who are not.

Shadow Lodge ****

If it was just one event, you could contact the DM and have them put your old number into your new event instead.

Shadow Lodge

Fergie wrote:


I would be inclined to say that white men (and a few white women) are Trump's only supporters because that is the only group he hasn't directly insulted. I also have to look into some numbers because I think Trumps support among whites is greater among wealthy whites or possibly more educated whites, but I could be wrong.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in June found Clinton leading Trump among college-educated whites 50 percent to 42 percent."

But the gap is smaller among college educated white males than non college grads so.. either college is working or its just that people with college degrees are younger.

Shadow Lodge

MeanMutton wrote:


The arbitrary "inflate DCs" GMs are BY FAR the absolute worst types of GMs.

One of the reasons i hate take 10 is that it doesn't really leave an option for lower DCs to be meaningful. Someone inveting in skill focus should be increasing their chances of success by about 15%*, not auto succeeding OR running the red queens race because the DC's get jacked up.

Shadow Lodge

thorin001 wrote:


My issue is not with the GMs who actually use judgement to decide when you can and cannot take 10. My issue is with the people who say "It is a long way down, so no take 10 for you." Or "No take 10 for sneaking past the dragon because dragons are dangerous." In other words people who use GM's discretion to effectively ban take 10 because comedy drama.

So you have an issue with the rules then, because sneaking past a dragon is as in immediate danger as it gets.

And with the design team, because thats the exact sort of thing they called out as grounds for the DM to require rolling.

And people that listen to one or the other.

I don't think arbitrary means what you think it does.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
Unless storms are dramatically different in Pathfinder, was it historically common on sailing ships that riggers fell about once every two minutes during stormy ocean travel here on earth?

You really shouldn't be making those checks on a per round basis.

Shadow Lodge ****

Nosig wrote:
so... the actual difference we are looking at is what? about a +1 per extra player? so the difference between a 4 player table and a 6 player table is about +2... or am I missing something here?

+2 and increased odds of having a dedicated diplomancer, assuming you don't pick up a few people that are reasonably good at diplomacy.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spastic Puma wrote:


The difference is that white males feel ENTITLED to success because their legacy and fathers before them acquired it so easily. They built masculine ideals around the concept that one forges their own destiny and makes a living for themselves (The Self Made Man).

EDIT: I wanted to add that I agree that the problem is not limited to one group of people though. I just think this particular demographic warranted discussion because it is trumps only support.

I really hate the word entitled. It doesn't fit.

believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.

If you go to school, work hard, bust your rump, then getting a decent paying job isn't supposed to be a privilege (unearned benefit) or special treatment, it's SUPPOSED to be what happens to anyone.

That has of course, not been true for a long time (if ever), and certain segments of the population have known that that wasn't true for a long time. But people are looking for and expecting some sort of fairness from the system because that's what the system used to be to them: fair. You did the hard work, you got the pay. It was earned, not given. If that's not happening anymore then someone is cheating. Calling people that literally broke their backs to do their job privledged or entitled is not true, not fair, and most of all not helpful.

Someone IS cheating. Huge corporations can invest in robots or move their factories overseas where chinese workers work harder under worse conditions and loser environmental standards. They can then buy our government to promote their interests. There is no way some mythical "american spirit" is going to make up for that, and it's hard to tell people their religion is wrong. American manufacturing has increased while the jobs have increased. Logging jobs are down but timber production is up. Paul Bunyan had to compete against a steam powered chainsaw, todays logger has to compete against a [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YXivsxDj-c[/url] with two whirling arms of death that can toss trees around like match sticks.

..and this problem is about to kick into overdrive. White collar workers looking down on blue collar workers for not maintaining valuable skills are in for a kick to the gut when AI starts doing to their jobs what robots did to manufacturing in the 70s. They're already picking stocks.

Shadow Lodge ****

Jeffrey Fox wrote:


Many times if the social encounter is important to the story and progress the 4-player adjustment for the scenario will reduce the DC's.

by 2, not usually by 4. With 6 players you're both more likely to have a dedicated diplomancer AND 2 people to aid. With unlimited aiding you're looking at least a +6 even if you're snowwhite and the 7 dwarves.

Shadow Lodge

Snowblind wrote:
w many PCs or NPCs, upon regaining consciousness from a mortal wound, lie on the ground perfectly still, not looking around and assessing the situation in any way, shape or form? I find it really sus that a creature suddenly decides to act that way - it reeks of metagaming.

Or training. You know. To be an adventurer

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

He grew up in arkansaw in the 50's. I;m pretty sure most of the population there had a mentor with suspicious holes in the sheets

Shadow Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:


But to the OP, yeah, I've seen this sort of PFS aid-another stuff. It's the players that don't want to role-play, they are just playing a board game.

keep in mind that you don't know WHY someone is just tossing their +2 in there. It could be disinterest, or they could be trying to not be rude and interrupt the actual role playing going on but still want to contribute to the groups success.

Shadow Lodge ****

Alexander Augunas wrote:
"I want to increase their chances of failing my check."

I can think of a few reasons.

1) lots of people talking at you is, realistically, annoying, not helpful

2) Someone with a +5 diplomacy should be more useful than someone with a -2 in, even in a group with a +8 diplomacy. It encourages skills somewhere in between nose picker and diplomancer

3) Lots of players trying to get in on the face's spotlight time with die rolling get annoying.

Shadow Lodge ****

Fromper wrote:


It might be a perfectly fine house rule for your home campaign, but it's a mechanical change to the rules. You're not allowed to do that in PFS. Period.

Thats right...

Fail- If you fail the check by 4 or less, the character’s attitude toward you is unchanged. If you fail by 5 or more, the character’s attitude toward you is decreased by one step.

If you fail the aid another check by 5 anything less than dropping the targets attitude a full step down, (thus probably ensuring that they cannot be moved within the range required by the scenario) is thus against the rules and unacceptable. you MUST play this way or you're cheating!

No more softballing with these -2 penalties. Give them the full attitude drop because that's what the rules say! Actually, drop the full attitiude AND give them the -2 miscellaneous circumstance penalty from page 403...

This is sarcasm of course, but be careful what you wish for when you insist that people play by the rules: because english and the pathfinder rule set are certainly vague enough that the rules can be word WORSE for your players.

With that said, it's an unusual way of doing it and a bit of a curve ball if players aren't used to doing it that way, something you try to avoid a bit with groups changing their dm

Shadow Lodge

jimibones83 wrote:
In that sense, the entire game is a GM option. That's also ridiculous.

No.

This is objectively not the same thing. Pretending that it is is conceding any pretense of a rational argument.

Quote:
It's a player option when not in immediate danger or distracted. You probably like them vaguely defined so you can disallow them as often as possible.

It's a perk.

Quote:
That's fine for you I guess, but there seem to be plenty of people here who would like the terms defined clearly.

Since we're casting aspersions on motives here, it's the ones that want to always take 10.

Quote:
It's not about tying anyone's hands, it's about consistency. Consistency is fair.

No. Its not.

"Fair" is getting the answer you want. If that answer was never that would be unfair, but consistent.

Quote:
Also, our quotes seem to conflict. I'm going to have to go with the one in the rule book

I've quoted the rules directly and the player design team's not an faq. If there's a conflict between that and the notes you're wrong, sorry.

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:

Implying that there is a strong correlation between high IQ and leftist political views was pretty much me being a smartass. The left is -- sadly -- riddled with anti-vaxers, the well-meaning but totally naive, and the crystal/healing energy/astrology wackos. Among others.

But we don't let them make policy.

The right does.

Trickle down economics has more evidence against it than crystal faith healing. Guess which one makes the national stage?

Shadow Lodge

jimibones83 wrote:

@BigNorseWolf How does nothing there hint at player choice? It says you clear as day and refers to the reader as the player character.

"PRD" When your character [b wrote:
is[/b] not in immediate danger or distracted you may choose to take 10
Nothing there hints at GM choice, at all. Player option, clear as day

If the character is in immediate danger or distracted.

Who determines immediate danger or distracted?

The dm.

You're confusing the players option to take 10 or not when not in immediate danger with their ability to decide whether to take 10 or not all the time.

No FAQ Required:

The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.

Shadow Lodge ****

Neil Markey wrote:

I usually help the party diplomacy by waiting in the other room.

gnome, with -7 diplomacy...

who did you launch out of a catauplt?

-1 for charisma
-4 for wasting oracle...?
??

Shadow Lodge ****

what exactly is "the meta" i keep hearing this in gaming and its gotten like special snowflake where people just pile it everywhere.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you're ok. Pathfinder tends to view using a shield as a much more passive thing than it is.

SKR saying the shield is ok, but unexpected

Sometimes i wonder if the devs have ever SEEN their player base... if you put them in a room with a poodle some sulfer charcoal and rotten oak logs half of them are going to try to make the poodle bomb out of it

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Under elf

Keen Senses: Elves receive a +2 racial bonus on Perception checks.

While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision)

No SU EX or SP given. It's still explicitly lost.

1 to 50 of 27,371 << 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.