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

Bill Dunn's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,617 posts (5,189 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 15 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,617 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Nerfing save DCs and capping attribute bonuses, without changing monsters and converting SR into save DCs nerfs casters to boring as heck. Also I wouldn't make casters better at damage; that's the whole distinction, casters bf control better/martials do more damage. There are higher level spells with higher dice damage caps; that's fine. Arcane casters shouldn't be about blasting other than when they've already thrown out a few control spells; but taking enemies out of the action is what casters should do, damage should be the province of martials.

Frankly, they need a bit of a nerf. But I'd be capping monster stats as well, just a bit higher, depending on the type of monster and its size.

As far as being better at damage, the spellcaster needs more credible reason to do classic caster things - like cast evocation spells. The hit point bloat of 3e and PF really undermined evocation compared to 1e and 2e. The dice caps made some sense in 2e, but the assumption that led to them was blown away in 3e.
Arcane casters should be about whatever they want to be about and that includes blasting away with flashy magic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


3. Stat caps. 5e settled on 20, I would consider 24.

Why?

I mean, I've done something vaguely similar by stripping most of the value out of the stats [to the point I'm now considering going all the way and simply going statless aside from HP, BAB and Saves] but I'd still like to hear your precise reasoning here.

It keeps the number bloat down in general. It also keeps a heavily invested prime stat from outstripping the infrequently buffed secondary and defensive stats. Optimization is less of a problem when there's a natural limit to the degree of optimization relative to everything else. Plus, keeping limits on all of the incoming factors - stats and everything else that affects a DC (or an AC), keeps the overall game easier to manage, particularly when there are differences in optimization level at the same game table.

I don't want to strip the value out of stats. I want to contain them.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Quote:
9. Possibly gut the wands entirely into combat-application wands only.
Why?

Gets rid of the caster overshadowing skill users for super low cost (like those wands of spider climb, knock, and invisibility. Wands in 1e largely served the purpose of weird utilities (like treasure finding and enemy identification) or combat. They served to allow the wizard to be up close to a fight and use spells, something fairly hard to do at the time. It's about time we got back to it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Pair up the stats into 1 offensive/1 defensive. Strength/Constitution, Charisma/Wisdom, Intelligence/Dexterity. Yep, make Int the quickness/deftness offensive stat. I'd consider reskinning it Acuity. Con/Wis/Dex affect saves, Str/Cha/Int affect attacks and spell DCs.
This intrigues me greatly.

I started thinking along this way after 4e gave us picking your defensive stats between the stat pairs. I totally think they zigged when they should have zagged, but it did spark the idea. So I guess my purchase of that edition wasn't completely wasted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The part of my wish list I can think of right now:

1. Get rid of small weapons and 3.5's irritating weapon sizes. Sure, it added an element of simulationism, but it's the only edition that did it and it's a pain the the butt for small characters. PF doesn't need to follow that path.

2. All saves are based on 1/2 HD, even weak ones. Strong saves gets a +2 class bonus added at end. Simplifies multiclassing and boosts weak saves.

3. Stat caps. 5e settled on 20, I would consider 24.

4. Cap on anything that can add to a DC. Spells can add max of 9 already, nothing coming from HD or level should exceed +10 (keep the DCs of high HD monsters in check).

5. More MAD. Pair up the stats into 1 offensive/1 defensive. Strength/Constitution, Charisma/Wisdom, Intelligence/Dexterity. Yep, make Int the quickness/deftness offensive stat. I'd consider reskinning it Acuity. Con/Wis/Dex affect saves, Str/Cha/Int affect attacks and spell DCs.

6. Pare down the clerical combat buffs

7. Scale the combat feats so they get better with levels

8. Reconfigure magic item costs to increase cost of Big6 and make upper level healing over the cure light wand viable. That may mean scaling magical healing more like magical spell damage.

9. Possibly gut the wands entirely into combat-application wands only.

10. Reform SR into bonus to saves rather than all or nothing.

11. Boost evocations by getting rid of dice caps, keep at standard action. Most other spells go to 1 round casting times, particularly the save or sit spells.

12. Give save or sit spells an alternate effect like daze or sickened, lasting no more than a round, for successful save so that they aren't wasted actions when they fail, but so that they aren't crippling either.

13. Give fighters 4 skill points/level. Maybe sorcerers too. Strongly consider some of the skill options in Unchanined like the 2 tiers of skills.

14. Implement something like backgrounds from 5e.


A hit! But just a glancing blow. The remaining troglodyte seems to have some fight remaining in him.

I just noticed, Masamune, that you're subtracting as if sickened - but your 22 Fort save was a success - I should have made that clear before. Still, this is the first time you've actually hit, but I think the damage should be for 5 not 3.


Rawnie does more than merely shock the creature, she lays it out. It convulses on the floor a few times before falling completely still.

The remaining troglodyte is dazed and can't fight back. He shakes his head to clear it.

Party's turn again!


Will save: 1d20 ⇒ 5
The eyes of the troglodyte between Masamune and Alara glaze over.
He is dazed and will not be taking an action this turn. His defenses are, however, unaffected.

Masamune and Alara are unable to tag their scaly opponent.
Anything from Rawnie and Ash?


Will save: 1d20 ⇒ 20
The troglodyte targeted by Piper's spell easily shrugs off his magic. And luck doesn't seem to follow the rest of the adventurers. Perhaps the air is too thick with the stink of lizard musk.

And speaking of musk, while Alara is the only one badly affected by it, you can all feel at least a little burn in the eyes and nose. You can even taste it, it's so strong.

The troglodytes grab up their clubs to vigorously try to repel the home invaders.
Trog 1 Club: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (9) + 2 = 11
The first takes a swing at Masamune, but the samurai is far to quick to be caught with that blow.
The second scrambles partly around, partly over, the conference table to get at Ash but has no better luck.
Trog 2 Club: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (2) + 2 = 4

The scramble of the second, incidentally, does bring his stench radius closer to Rawnie. So, I need a Fort save from you, Rawnie.

And the party is up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The context makes which enhancement bonus the rules refer to, the magic bonus, pretty obvious. If he is being stubborn, go over the magic armor rules. They refer to the same +1 enhancement bonus and masterwork armor doesn't have an enhancement bonus.


Nudge


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TetsujinOni wrote:

Here's one piece of why that's what I won't do: "No, you can't take 10 on that stealth check because of the risk of failure"... to tell them there's a combat about to erupt.

Well, you shouldn't anyway since risk of failure isn't what prevents someone from taking 10. If he's not distracted by anything at the moment, I don't see why he can't take 10 on the tealth roll. I'm not just sure it's advantageous unless the PC has really maxed it out.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Have things (in general, not talking about individual rules) really changed?

Massively. There are more FAQ in 2014/2015 than the entire run of 3.5 and most of the 3.5 had no authority. They would answer how they would rule but not often how the rules worked. So people demanded Errata or "shut up".

You may think so, but I'm not seeing a significant change. I've got the 3.5 FAQ PDF from 2006 and it's 80 pages long and the vast majority of it is written in as authoritative a style as the PF FAQ. And that's without going into the 3 years of the "Rules of the Game" articles that went up on the WotC site that went into how various sticky parts of the rules worked in considerable depth.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Elodie Hiras wrote:


I've been wondering how it would work to disguise yourself as another class, what kind of penalties would be appropriate. As we all know, fighters wear armor and carry big weapons, rogues are all stealthy, monks wear martial arts outfits, wizards and sorcerer wear robes...

What if the Wizard disguised himself as a monk (a class with high Saving throws progression) to discourage enemies from targeting him with fortitude save based spells, while the monk in the group (high Fort save progression) disguises himself as a wizard to divert the fort based saving throws off the wizard's back and onto himself (and his high fortitude save)?

Of course you can disguise yourself as a member of another class and, until you expose your own abilities (or shortcomings as a member of your projected class), the disguise may not be that hard. As others have pointed out, within each class, there can be a substantial amount of diversity and the means you use to disguise yourself may easily be useful in making yourself appear like a number of other classes.

You also should consider exactly how much you can infer from just looking at another character (or NPC) in the game. Disguising yourself as a monk to convince enemies that you're hardier than you are (as in better Fort saves) sounds pretty metagamey. Do others really understand that monks are good at saving throws? I'm not sure that's easy to infer from seeing someone dressed like David Carradine.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Risner wrote:

Komoda, I seem to have the opposite experience. Before PFS (in 3.5 WotC days) the forums were miserable. There were no winners. People seemed to enjoy reading rules in the most absurd way (PunPun etc) and WotC rarely ever solved the debate.

We have disagreements now, but over much more trivial things. We have Errata and FAQ regularly. It is good times.

I also experience a different view of the resulting FAQ answers. If memory serves, I've got the wrong guess only twice. So for me the logic makes sense. For others it doesn't.

Have things (in general, not talking about individual rules) really changed?

Throughout the 3e era, there was the Living Greyhawk organized play campaign and WotC issued FAQs and other forms of rule clarification. Throughout the PF era, there has been PFS and Paizo has issued FAQs and other forms of rule clarification. And throughout both eras, there have been players on the boards reading rules in what I consider to be the most absurd way without the games' respective publishers moving into solve all debates.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Komoda wrote:

Why is your idea the Wizards made a bad ruling in the past more relevant than my opinion that Paizo made a bad one now?

The point that Wizards made a different one before clearly shows that it was not designed with the unwritten rule that Paizo mentions. The actual designers of the original game, of which Paizo changed no wording, have stated that Armor Spikes do work with THW and TWF. If nothing else, Paizo should at least own up to the fact that it is an actual change and modify the actual rules to indicate such.

Just because WotC's official line was different from Paizo's doesn't meant there isn't a designer guideline working behind the scenes that was present at the beginning. It may just mean that Paizo stuck to it while WotC did not.

You seem invested in feeling aggrieved by this. While I'm not a fan of either the FAQ decision or the justification, I don't have any reason to think any of us were done wrong by it or that some deception is at work.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And I disagree that DS9 only started the longer story arcs only after Bab5 showed people wanted them. The whole background of Bajoran politics and reconstruction was there from the get-go.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:


I think he is correct in the US.
But in England DrWho was doing this long before DS9 did.

Are people forgetting soap operas and nighttime soaps? Long drawn out story arcs were pretty common well before DS9 on American TV.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Quatar wrote:
By that definition show me any character that isn't min-maxed. Because by that logic I can surely point my fingers at something that you min-ed...
Does that surprise you?

No, and that's the problem.

If our definition is so broad any character is min-maxed, then saying that a particular character is min-maxed is about as informative as saying that a particular person is a "food-eater." That is, not at all.

Which doesn't mean that you can't refer to an amount or type of min-maxing (crippling overspecialization, heavy stat dumping, etc) but just telling someone that they've min-maxed is only meaningful if min-maxing is something that not everyone does.

The term is not really a problem. Just spewing a label like "min-maxer" is the problem because it doesn't really inform anybody what's being minimized and what's being maximized. Ultimately, the same holds true for "optimized". Optimized for what?


Sadly, the stench is off-putting enough that Alara's blow fails to penetrate the troglodyte's scales.

Thought I'd throw that update in to give you some quick feedback. Also, anybody moving closer than Piper will need to make a Fortitude save vs the stench or be sickened like Alara.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thaX wrote:


Really. Do you really want another book as thick as the CRB that only has all the "Unwritten Rules" for everyone to look through when there is an argument about silly stuff like this?

I wouldn't expect you'd need another book as thick as the CRB, not when judicious use of sidebars to illuminate designer rationale every once in a while would suffice.

But seriously, one person's "silly stuff" is another person's point of interest. Being dismissive of it isn't going to make the issue go away.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quatar wrote:

By that definition show me any character that isn't min-maxed. Because by that logic I can surely point my fingers at something that you min-ed...

Does that surprise you?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:


If min-maxing can refer to that stat array, when the 10s are placed in stats that a character uses less frequently, hasn't the term lost its meaning? Certainly it shouldn't be pejorative in that case. No one wants to play characters that are all 13s and 14s, and no one expects fighters to run around with higher mental than physical stats.

No, the term doesn't lose its meaning at all. Min-maxing doesn't necessarily produce an absolute set of outcomes - rather, it's a variety of strategies. You can maximize your maximum benefits, you can maximize your minimum benefits, you can minimize your maximum vulnerabilities, and so on. Is a PC min-maxing by setting his lesser needed stats at 10 while pumping his primary stats as high as he can? Yes, he darn well is. He's maximizing his maximum benefits by boosting his primary stats while also minimizing his maximum vulnerabilities by not buying his secondary stats into negative modifiers.

Whether or not it should be used pejoratively is up to the individual. This may be a milder form of min-maxing than others, but it still fits the meaning.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This is actually already covered in the FAQ.
Spring attacking from ally's square


Initiative
Alara: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (8) + 3 = 11
Ash: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (6) + 1 = 7
Masamune: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (5) + 3 = 8
Piper: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (11) + 2 = 13
Rawnie: 1d20 + 1 ⇒ (10) + 1 = 11

Troglodytes: 1d20 - 1 ⇒ (8) - 1 = 7

Woo, a flurry of generally low initiative rolls, but with the entire group of PCs up first!

The troglodytes are slow to recover their wits and the adventurers manage to continue to have the drop on them.

Go ahead and post in any order.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Welcome to trade-offs. If you don't think you can tote enough gear with a 10 strength, increase it or prune back your gear. Simple as that. And, yes, it is supposed to work that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Our long national nightmare is over.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Between the barbazu beard and the gillman sea knife, you kind of get the impression that not all designers and editors are working off the same unwritten rules, don't you?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Triune wrote:


1. It seems to reference a rule that doesn't exist.
It says that since you are using an off hand to wield a weapon, you can't make off hand attacks. Where does it say this in the rules? In fact, the rules only say you can make off hand attacks with your hands full for IUS. So it's specific to weapons? If the entry is going to introduce a new rule, introduce a new rule. It shouldn't pretend like it's already there, it only leads to confusion as to guessing what the content of this new rule is.

Having witnessed the initial thread's discussion and dev clarifications, I whole-heartedly agree that the current FAQ entry isn't very helpful, in part, because it does refer to an unwritten rationale. What they should do is complete the circle. When a FAQ generates confused discussion in which a dev intervenes to provide rationale, the FAQ needs to be updated to include something about that rationale. The whole need to provide the rationale in the discussion makes the deficiency of the FAQ entry self-evident.

GMs and players might still disagree with the ruling, but at least they'll have an informed basis for including it or rejecting it in their games. Information is a good thing.


Piper Stealth: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (19) + 2 = 21
And assuming Alara is taking 10 on stealth

A large table lies in shambles in the middle of this room, while crumbled suits of armor bearing decorations of dragons twisting around castle towers lie in heaps along the walls. A flight of stairs winds up along a curved wall to the north. The air in this room feels stuffy and carries an eye-watering reptilian stink.

As Alara and Piper push the door open, a pair of reptilian men gawk at them. A bloated giant tick, held between the two, drops to the floor with a loud squish.

Surprise round
Alara and Piper have the drop on the troglodytes in close proximity - close enough to need to make Fortitude saves against their incredibly thick musky stench. Please roll me a save and take a standard or move action.

Masamune, Ash, and Rawnie are far enough back to not have to deal with the odor. They can take the same kinds of actions as well.

The map is updated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malwing wrote:


Out of character I know this is a bad idea. Without the enchantment I will kill the party and raise an army of kobolds and lizardfolk at the first opportunity.

... why? Why would your character, at the first opportunity, kill his adventuring companions - who are probably pretty effective at helping him enrich himself - and then raise an army of kobolds and lizardfolk when you're on a trajectory to raise an army of more reliable humans and even carve out a small kingdom for yourselves? Is his alignment Evil or Foolishly Impatient?

There's an old story, the version I know comes from Robert Duvall's character in Colors. There are two bulls, a young one and an old one. The young one says, "Let's run down to the valley and screw a couple of cows." The old one says, "No, let's walk down and screw them all."


I'm pretty much ready whenever you are - in the game play thread...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Heavy is the head that wears the crown...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MiggidyMack wrote:


Am I missing something about the Monster Cohort rules? I feel like I must be misreading them, or maybe a 3HD Skeletal Champion is awesome in a way that makes up for his +7 to hit and 17 HP.

That Skeletal Champion, having DR and undead traits, has defenses up the wazoo compared to your typical humanoid with levels. And those defensive abilities add a lot to the creature's value on the PC-side of things since they will be used fairly often compared to when the creature is encountered (and usually killed) by the PCs.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think you may have to realize that criticism of a point isn't necessarily hostility. Frankly, I can't see any hostility in the example you just linked to and that suggests to me that you're presenting us with a position based on hyperbole or at least an idiosyncratic interpretation of what you're seeing on the messageboard. So I don't think you should be surprised if you don't find a heck of a lot of sympathy or advice beyond speaking frankly with someone, be it a VC or the messageboard community, about your concerns.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Byakko wrote:


Somehow a creature in stealth is both undetected (denying their foe's dexterity bonus to AC) yet not invisible (they gain none of the usual perks of invisibility). This distinction should have been more clearly spelled out and described, imho.

They're not using an invisibility power, but that may be different from having the invisibility condition. If you can accept that being successfully stealthy renders the PC visibly undetectable (at least for the Perception rolls he's beaten), then everything falls into place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Welcome to the downside of pinning down the developer team - you may get an answer you don't want. It's a lot like dealing vague federal regulations. You generally don't want to seek out clarification because... you might get it.


Odo speaks even less now with his facial changes, but his courage is unchanged as he starts to ride forward to get a closer look a the makeshift bridge.

I've added a pony token under mine on the map.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Byakko wrote:

Almost works, but:

Invisible attackers get +2 to hit... a bonus, I believe most of agree, stealthy characters don't receive.

Also, there's also a whole slew of abilities and powers which reference the invisible state. They shouldn't generally apply for someone who is merely hiding, imho.

Which leads to the questions what should apply? and why?. There is no hidden status. Invisibility works as a status for quite a few of us since the explanation "visually undetectable" should apply to anyone who successfully makes their stealth roll.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CapeCodRPGer wrote:


Like I said before, I have aspergers, its high functioning autism and a developmental dissablity. I can't read facial cues, vocial tone, ect.. I never will be able to do that. RPGs were my one escape and plessure growing up. Playing them I was not teased but accepted. Now people are saying because I have no social skills I can't play a character they way i want?

Discriminate much? Reading here how some people force others to play a character when they are playing everything by the rules is really turning me away from a hobby I used to love. Thanks.

If you're not playing at their table, why does it matter? Find a table compatible with the style of game you want to play.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It could work. The off-hand stunning fist could come first before trying to smack them twice with the sword with your iterative attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arnwyn wrote:


Then why do you allow the player at the table to choose a wizard's spells? They aren't wizards, can't cast spells, and aren't (necessarily) super intelligent. Why do you allow the player at the table to choose a fighter's tactics? They're not (necessarily) tactical soldiers.

Apples and oranges. Picking tactics or spells poorly usually doesn't block progression in an adventure. Being unable to solve a riddle or puzzle tends to be a blocker. That justifies additional treatment to enable PCs to get past the obstacle.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MC Templar wrote:

Attacker it Invisible

Attacker is… Melee Ranged
Invisible +2 +2
* The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.

Definition of status
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you.

Probably too much of an extrapolation but our group uses this combination of basic rules to proceed with ("no line of site" = "visually undetectable" = "invisible" for purposes of attack is table)

so, if you can manufacture a condition where you can see your target, but he can't see you. you are functioning as invisible for combat modifiers.

That's been my take on sneak attacking while using stealth since 3e. The invisibility power (via spell, Su, Sp, or whatever) is just one means of becoming visually undetectable.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

I've always found the use of grid Lines in spell calculation to be rather weird.

In the first campaign I played in we used grid spaces rather than lines and intersections and it felt so much more intuitive.

Grid lines and vertices work pretty well for areas of effect based on a radius. Using spaces usually puts the center off kilter or widen the effect by 5'.

As far as the issue of a line going straight down a gridline - just pick one side or the other to have the effect. As long as it's not both, it works out. Simple.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:

So, I point out that you are literally judging people's performance. You disagree, but then confirm that you are indeed judging people's performance.

Got it.

If that's your table, power to you. I've already stated why I don't like it.

You're talking like you don't judge what people do at your table. That seems odd to me - someone in the role of GM who won't judge? I know that as GM in any RPG, I'm doing that a lot - I judge how successful the PCs' actions are all the time. And I suspect you really are doing quite a lot of it too, but perhaps not recognizing it under that term because of some negative and possibly misplaced notion of what "judging" someone is.


A number of varieties of scalyfolk speak draconic because of the relative ease with which their reptilian mouths can handle the sounds. Lizardfolk, kobolds, troglodytes... The voices sound too deep, though, for the small size of kobolds. Best bet Piper can make, given the reptilian stink in the air... they could be troglodytes, who are known to produce a pungent musk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:

Yeah, you're not alone. The Alexandrian is well known for picking and choosing numbers to match his articles needs, and to use those to write very controversial articles.

I mean- a genius blacksmith? When they are known for their great strength? Not that you couldnt have both IRL, but in a game where you get a array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, (or even 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) it's pretty hard to justify a high Str AND a high Int. Not to mention a decent Con.

It's just possible for a 5th level human to have one 18, assuming elite array, but first of all, elite array should not be assumed, and then that leaves a 14 for the next highest stat.

His numbers are bogus.

He also leaves out Aragorns other activities later, such as being totally fearless in the face of a undead army.

To be fair, that 18 Intelligence blacksmith is called out as exceptional - an Einstein of his field. He also has an average blacksmith with an Int bonus of +1 to illustrate that it's not that hard to get a +10 right off the bat. Somehow, everyone fails to remember that in their haste to apply the snark...

And that's without even mentioning that Alexander would have statted him with 3 levels of paladin - and thus some pretty good powers against fear.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:

Here's the number one solution to balancing the system without completely rewriting it: remove size modifiers from the equation. You see, the reason that monster CMD scales so ridiculously quickly is that every monster is double-dipping their size benefits; for example, in following the rules on the monster creation chart a colossal creature would see a 32 point increase in its strength over a medium creature, but only a 4 point decrease in its dexterity. This means that just by virtue of its size, the creature has already seen a net 14 point increase in its CMD. Add in its size bonus to CMD and a colossal creature is getting a +22 to its CMD before factoring in BAB and any other relevant factors. That +14 is an achievable number through feats and class abilities; the +22 much less so, especially when many maneuvers are already unuseable against such creatures due to limitations on the size of creature you can affect baked into the maneuvers themselves.

Remove the additional size modifiers from the CMB/CMD equation, and everything balances much more smoothly (though poorly balanced archetypes that attempt to cheat the system, like the Lore Warden, will need to be revoked or rebalanced; I'd suggest as a quick fix, halving the bonus to CMB granted by such archetypes).

You notice the issue, but I think you conclude to change the wrong thing. The size modifiers are pretty mild for PF. It's the strength score bloat due to size that bothers me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would also suggest that the 5' step has roots in the game even earlier than Player's Option. In 1e, a PC normally had to move to engage as their action if beyond a 1" range (10 ft indoors, 10 yards outdoors because of differences in indoor and outdoor scaling). Once within that 1" range, they could engage their enemy. That 1" is a bit like a 10 ft/yard step because as long as there's an enemy in range, you could shift over to him to attack without losing any attacks or having to spend your turn moving. It's a bit different in that it's not clearly usable to slowly, round by round, maneuver around your opponent. AD&D just wasn't down to that degree of tactical detail.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CapeCodRPGer wrote:

Me: " I want to be charming to the bad guys girlfriend when I see Her at the party so she will give me the key code. I rolled a critical success."

GM: "What do you say to the women at the party to charm Her and have Her reveal the key code to you?"

Me: "Well since me, the player, has no idea how to handle myself in this situation, I don't know what to say. But my character has done this hundreds of times before, and I made the roll, so my character says the right thing."

Thats how it should be handled.

In the games I run, it falls a bit short. I don't ask for a heck of a lot more, but I would be pushing for more details about it. What kind of charming are you trying to be? Seductive? Friendly? Formal? I'm not going to require you to give speeches or anything if that's something you can't do, but I expect a degree of analysis, strategy, and tactics just as I expect it in combat and exploration scenes. And I reward it as well. Frankly, I'd get just as annoyed at a fighter's player who doesn't understand their feats or a skill monkey who doesn't use their skills.

If all detail is going to be stripped from any particular element of the game, including social interaction, it's not a game I'm going to run.


Normally, taking 20 on anything dynamic doesn't make much sense. The assumption is you get pretty much the whole range of results on the die and that probably includes some failures - as something dynamic changes, your perception can't retroactively hear things it missed. However, there are relatively consistent aspects of what you are listening that a long listen can glean.

There seem to be two creatures arguing, not in a manner that suggests an immediate throwdown and fight, more like bickering. Piper is able to pick some words out of the discussion. There are a lot of references to "bloat" and "eating" something particularly juicy.

In the time it takes Piper to get this good a read on the situation, no other voices speak up. If the two speakers aren't alone, whoever is with them is very quiet.

1 to 50 of 4,617 << 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.