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 Society Member. 5,664 posts (6,689 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 21 aliases.


1 to 50 of 714 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


I have a bard that uses this property to *great* effect (in one scenario even managed to distract the BBEG away from the rest of the party to allow the party to regroup).

It's also fun from a style perspective. One fellow player in a Skull and Shackles campaign had glamered leather armor so she could fight in her pretty dress without compromising her defense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Wrath wrote:


In this DMs world, his baddies will flee and drag wounded/ unconscious allies with them. I suspect that given some experience with that type of enemies tactics, players will CdG quite a bit.

Maybe, but the coup de grace in a situation in which the PC is already out of the fight with no real prospect of getting back into it feels a lot like kicking the player when he's already down... and then peeing on him.

Seriously, the paladin's already out of the fight. Even if he stabilizes, he's still going to be unconscious unless someone goes and helps him. Imagine being in that player's shoes. Yes, he's made some bad choices, not ridiculously terrible, just bad. It's only in the aggregate that they become overwhelmingly bad because they all compound. The best he can hope for is that the enemy will shift focus and afford a slim chance of survival. Then the GM slams that door in his face (metaphorically). First level character, party of players who probably don't know each other terribly well, first game session. Yeah, I'm outta there too.


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

Just to add my $.02 - it's time to retire Tarimm as an active PC. If the player wants to continue to develop him, take that off-table for the whole group and adjudicate it one-on-one with the player. That doesn't mean do a single player campaign (unless you have time for it), but give him a chance to set Tarimm's destiny and let that decide whether or not he crosses the path of the main party again in the future.

Honestly, unless you really enjoy PvP and Tarimm's player is looking for a quick redemption, he's poisoned the well. That should spin off another separate story and he should make up a new PC for the main, ongoing story. Tell him his PC just got a spin-off series and now the main series needs a replacement character.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
deusvult wrote:


I suspect you (and Wei Ji the Learner) are bending over backwards to find reasons to disagree with me. I can't otherwise comprehend how you can fail to see how playing in ways so as to deliberately undermine the party's ability to successfully complete the scenario is NOT being a jerk.

What I'm seeing here is less bending over backward to disagree with you as much as giving people the benefit of the doubt that they're not being jerks when they're just not playing well... particularly for newbies to the game. Frankly, the only jerk behavior I'm seeing here is the assumption that poor teamwork and poor play must be intentionally malicious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
deusvult wrote:

Implicit vs explicit. And by implication via other rules. Also, remember context. These "rules" (with hindsight I wish I used the word "expectations" instead) were listed in support of why a player may not play a pregen in a self-destructive way.

3) if an Agent is incompetent, then that Agent wouldn't have been kept on duty. Ergo, you are expected to not be useless to the team. Rules-speak, because that'd be a systematic violation of "Don't Be A Jerk".

I fail to see how being incompetent necessarily means the player is being a jerk. A lot of the discussion in this thread has been about griefing, but what about simply not being a skilled player? The OP mentioned that the problem players were newbies, if not entirely to PF at least to PFS. I can certainly understand newbs not being particularly confident in their PCs' abilities or how to successfully exploit the rules to achieve their goals. A rogue hiding during the bar fight? That hardly seems out of character, particularly if they're not really expecting the fight to end up with everyone dead (it being a bar fight, after all).

And even if a player isn't a newbie, they may misjudge situations and make mistakes. Incompetence doesn't imply being a jerk and we shouldn't think that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Secondly, the Staves grant access to those spells to spellcasters regardless of whether the spell is on their list or not. A Wizard with a Staff of Life is pretty damn scary, especially if he's slugging Quickened Spells on top of it. Likewise, a Cleric with several powerful Wizard spells is equally scary, such as Planar Binding.

Not unless staves have changed since I last looked them up. They're spell trigger items and that means the spell needs to be on the user's list or they have to succeed at a Use Magic Device check to spoof it.

That said, staves suffer from the pricing structure put on magic items by 3rd edition D&D (and now Pathfinder) that tried to balance everything based on relative value and, being extremely flexible about caster level, pay a premium price for it. In a campaign without sweating about wealth-by-level guidelines and magic item market values, you'll see a lot more PCs willing to keep and use staves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I have only heard 'hoes' refer to women as well. The phrase in question is VERY offensive.

Full agreement here. Not only does "bros before hoes" mean your male buddies before women, it equates virtually all women with whores or at least as sex objects for men.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
A true professional writer can absolutely make statements quite clear and concise without having to sacrifice brevity.

Since it doesn't say "may", does this mean that they have no choice but to do so?

Professional writers try to do so. They don't always succeed. This isn't a question of "no TRUE professional writer ever writes something too briefly to be clear", it's a question of "not everything works out the way you intended."


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

The whole idea of a GM having to make encounters conform to things the player knows about a region and talks about is pretty silly. No GM should feel they need to do that.

However, a player always chiming in about what they know can be offputting. It's stepping on the GM's toes a little bit in the sense that it's traditionally up to him to be the conduit between the players and the campaign. Also, he may have planned some alternative take on the area that you are pre-empting with our own assumptions.

As a GM, I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. I like the initiative and interest players show by pursuing knowledge outside of the game (and actually remembering it). But it can often come with assumptions or interpretations contrary to mine - and for the campaign, I generally want mine to be the ones the other players know and remember when I present them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Derek Dalton wrote:
My old group found a lot of rules we disliked or hated. Some because they were stupid even by their own logic. A Keen weapon doesn't stack with a Feat that improves your critical hit. By their rules they should stack because they are two different bonuses. Most times we as a group changed them so everyone knew how the rule worked so there was no confusion.

Well, technically, they aren't really "bonuses" to simply be added together. But a bit on the history of the topic...

Back in D&D 3.0, keen and improved crit did work together to increase a weapon's crit range. D&D 3.5 walked that back, much to Sean K. Reynolds's dismay at the time considering he had a blog post defending letting them work together. However, players like me agreed with not letting them work together, in part, because letting them do so slowed the game down and felt too common. Imagine a PC with improved critical (scimitar) and a keen scimitar. He's scoring crit threats every time he rolls 12 or better on his attack roll and then has to roll a confirmation check. For high level characters, that's a fairly long turn with lots of die rolls and slower play. It's a PITA.


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

I'd say it should restore the original spell. The interpretation that it can't recover the slot because it had been converted to a spontaneously cast spell seems like a tortuously-derived, nit picky reading of the rules to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Berselius wrote:
Hmmm...would an Iomedae Paladin have any misgivings about opposing the rule of the Crimson Throne?

Before incontrovertable evidence comes in, they should have plenty of misgivings. Paladins, lawful characters in general, don't revolt at the drop of a hat. It needs more than suspicion and rumor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:


It has "creepy evil flavor".

Has creepy, evil flavor? More like is steeped in it. That may be suitable for a home game but they want PFS to be a bit more family-friendly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
My problems with the 3rd group, the true power gamers, is that in my experience many of them were also cheaters. Not all, but enough that it makes me cautious of them. And often the ones who don't cheat tend to suck the fun out of the game for everyone else. Or at least that's my experience.

The problem here is that's what the term munchkin used to cover, at least in part, yet the term powergamer has drifted there and probably too often. When I first knew of the term powergamer, it referred to players who operated at the higher ends of power - not just by optimization, but also by game content. They'd be the ones playing high level campaigns against tough god-like opponents whether in D&D, Call of Cthulhu, or Champions. These would be campaigns beyond the "sweet-spot" of most campaigns like 4th-10th level for AD&D. They may well have been playing the rules scrupulously, just with the volume turned to 11. Nightmare-level Diablo in hardcore mode.

Munchkins were the players without much conscience - backstabbing their fellow adventurers, twisting the rules, exploiting loopholes, toting around Monty Haul levels of loot, keeping Tiamat in a bottle because the last DM let them get away with stuff, claiming that questionable content in a gamer magazine was 'official'... basically, everything that Knights of the Dinner Table and the game Munchkin lampoon.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Wise Old Man wrote:

It's the GM's responsibility to create a game for everyone, not just for the story.

I'd say that is the responsibility of everyone at the table, not just the GM.

That said, it would be nice if all players were compatible in their play styles and how much they mix their optimization vs concept vs role playing vs whatever. But practice shows that's harder than it looks and something for someone has to give to reach the point of compromise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:


The same logic applies even more to a healer cohort. Most players don't want to play the healer. So why not let those duties fall to a reliable NPC?

I, in fact, encourage the use of the leadership feat to fill gaps in the party make-up. I'd rather they recognize their own shortcomings and adapt the group to the campaign than have to adapt the campaign because everyone is too stubborn to shift their concept to cover useful adventuring skills and powers.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Rogar Valertis wrote:


The game is about a small group of heroes fighting against hordes of monsters (and let's not forget stealing their gold) or generally going against the odds even in social situations.
It's not meant to be played by chatacters commanding armies of minions. That's something NPCs do. So basically Leadership inserts a new dynamic into the game, one the game is generally ill prepared to handle barring special efforts from the DM and players.

In a word: No. The game's about a lot more than that and most of the D&D family always has been. Henchmen (cohorts in previous edition terms) and followers have been around since at least 1e AD&D. The particular mechanics of PF make it a pretty potent choice for certain styles of play, but it doesn't have to be problematic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
lowericon wrote:
Zedth wrote:
equivalent to that of a dragon one size larger.
That's certainly more reasonable. Thanks for the suggestion.

That also might be good fodder for a decent survival check - harvest without the check (or a failed one), use the standard rule. Make a reasonably difficult check and treat the dragon as 1 size class larger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I think a race's weaknesses are what gives them character. Not every race needs to be optimal at every class.
Every race should be competent at enough classes to defend its civilization and have a civilization to defend. Someone needs to stand in front with a spear and shield.
That argument doesn't hold any water. Races learn to fight with respect to their strengths and weaknesses. Their armies will differ accordingly and use different strategies.

Moreover, a -1 on checks and rolls relative to other races isn't enough to critically condemn their ability to defend themselves whether with archers or shield walls even if they chose to use them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:


Yes, but are the penalties there for a good reason? The extra feat that Humans get (along with the flexible stat bonus) makes them the best choice for almost every class. A lack of a bonus to the major ability of a class makes an other race a poor choice (like a Dwarven Wizard). A penalty to the major stat basically prevents a player from choosing the race for that class (a Dwarven sorcerer). That's destroying a lot of options, and I'm not sure that it's a good or necessary thing.

Yes, they're there for a good reason - to give these races distinctive character compared to humans. And no option Is destroyed, just made a little more challenging to build in the same way. There's absolutely nothing preventing someone from playing a viable dwarven sorcerer other than their own personal approach to the trade-offs inherent in the game.

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

So tell me... Do you believe that the Humans are balanced with the other races, or do you think it's more challenging to make a build with a different race? Do you believe that the "Second +2" tradeoff is worth it? What do you think would make the Humans balanced with the other races if we removed the -2 from them? Are we talking "+2 to Sense Motive" or "+1 to all Saves" for balance?

Yes, I think humans are well-balanced with the other races. You have to be aware than in pre-3.0 days, demi-humans were balanced against humans by having level limits, a rule house-ruled away by lots of groups, leaving very few reasons to play humans. Humans had nothing else going for them. Since 3.0, humans have gotten positive benefits and if that means that players are having a harder time justifying to themselves playing something other than human, then it means the balance and trade-offs are working as designed.

Any replacement of those trade offs needs to be carefully considered otherwise you end up with too many mechanically advantageous options. Getting rid of the second +2 would be an absolute must to wipe away the -2 penalty.


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

We don't generally think of it as sacrificing someone for the greater good. It's avoiding everyone dying and, thanks to the circumstances, someone can't make it. The game's sometimes like that. Most of us are understanding when we get left behind in those circumstances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
jimibones83 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
@BigNorseWolf You can take 10 while walking a tightrope over lava. The lava is also there now. Now doesn't matter at all.

If the dm says you can't, then you can't. Sorry. SKR's post died with the not an FAQ. You're walking a tightrope over lava. You're in immediate danger. Pray to the polyhedral gods!

That's funny, because I'm pretty sure I've read the developers themselves use it as an example of something you could indeed take 10 on. I'll post it after work if I can find it

If you're on a tightrope walk some significant distance above lava such that it's not a threat any more than the ground would be, you should still be able to take 10. Now, if that lava were bubbling so fiercely that splats were reaching up to the level of the rope and it was in danger of being burned through and snapping any moment... then that really is immediate danger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hah! You no longer look like a spoiler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:

I have a lesser and a greater rod. I try to use the lesser one for empowering my quickened fireball. Does it work? No. It would be a level 7 spell since that is most disadvantageous to me.

Now I try my greater rod instead. Does that work? No. Since the greater rod can't handle a level 3 spell, that is more disadvantageous to me.

Now, see, I was interpreting "least advantageous to the caster" as requiring the use of the more expensive rod to empower the quickened fireball rather than assuming the intent of the rule was to be outright broken.

Going in assuming that the game is supposed to work rather than assuming the most pedantic interpretation of the rule text is right seems to work a lot better for me. Maybe you should try it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
GM Rednal wrote:
That sounds about right, Claxon. It's kind of a weird corner case. ...Though, I'm not sure why you couldn't just take Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword and use it two-handed anyway... XD I mean, if you're proficient in the weapon to begin with, it shouldn't matter if you're one-handing or two-handing it...

Welcome to the silliness of the bastard sword and its exotic proficiency - something that exists entirely to keep the bastard sword from being a dominant strategy over the long sword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Nicos wrote:
amethal wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Protection from evil to seal an unholy pact with a devil prince?, a good act in the multiverse.

I think you might be missing the point a bit here.

Effectively they are (at least) two acts. One is good and the other is evil.

Well, yeah, you are right, Just cast the spell five more time and we are cool. A good thing that the spell level don't count for those rules.
The assumption that all acts are equal is false, just FYI.
The rule is there, cast several times a good spell and you are good. Don't be dishonest.

If you want to be honest, then don't ignore the rest of the sidebar that presents mitigating factors.

Frankly, I thought things were going well with that sidebar until they included specific numbers of spells cast that could cause a 180 on alignment and be counted on one hand. Numbers that low are pretty much ridiculous.


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

You can also check Base Attack Bonus in the glossary on page 11 of the Core Rulebook.


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

There are some definite challenges and frustrations that can come with small melee characters (or any martial characters, really). The typical -2 to strength, and lower die size for smaller weapons will be noticed but so will the typical -10 ft movement rate. All three of those factors can frustrate a player who doesn't give them some thought and that's why I make sure players are aware of those limitations when I GM and they are looking at small PCs.

I don't have a problem with small characters in general - heck, I play a halfling paladin in PFS. But even I feel a little frustrated to effectively be -2 on all melee damage, all other things being held equal. And some skill checks will be trouble too with lower strength and, particularly for jumps, lowered movement. Some players really can't handle that bit of frustration, even though it's not exactly a huge issue. They should be advised away from small melee characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

There is no hard and fast rule to this. Some people are ready to GM right away, some are never ready. As long as you have a willingness to give it a try, the flexibility to experiment, the forgiveness of friends for the inevitable mistakes (they will happen, that's OK), and the time - I'd say go for it.

As Hmm points out, start simple. PF is well suited for that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The thing is... Carol Danvers is like Wolverine... she's a veteran in both the superhero world, and in the old-school black ops world as well. I'd prefer an actress that reflects that maturity.

She's also older school Women's Lib so she always seems a bit more contemporary with that era to me. I have nothing against Brie Larson, but a woman with a little more mileage would fit my preference better - some one like Lena Heady.

But I figure they're going with someone more coming into their prime and having an origin story. I can see why they'd prefer that. Just hope they keep some Mar-Vell connection


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

One issue with the law vs chaos divide is that behavior may not appear all that different between lawful and chaotic characters in the short run. They just have different worldviews that drive how they look at situations and rationalize how they behave. This can make things pretty murky, particularly for newer players or ones who don't have as much time on their hands to mull over this crap as I do.

So I try to provide a bit more oomph to what it means to be lawful or chaotic. I tell people to think more along the lines of collective vs individual when looking at lawful vs chaotic. Lawful characters see themselves fitting into collectives as important pieces of the machine of society (or pieces of the puzzle, whatever metaphor turns you on) by their nature. Chaotic characters think of themselves as unique individuals and, if they fit into society (which they can), it's not by nature, it's by choice.
And it's not just any single society for either of these questions. It's a bunch - nation, ethnic group, religion, guild, company, order, whatever. As someone who is a part of these societies by nature, the lawful character tries to conform to the expectations of all of the societies they belong to - prioritizing competing expectations only when they need to. Those instances may be difficult, but conformity is otherwise relatively easy on the psychology. The chaotic character picks and chooses which tenets of which societies they will follow - this irons out many of the internal philosophical conflicts a chaotic individual might face, but lead to more outward conflict as they buck traditions and expectations they don't like.

Once I define things that way, I have no problem seeing paladins in Cheliax, paladins as Hellknights, and paladins living alongside slave owners. They may be good and belong to the Church of Iomedae, but they're also Chelaxians and don't trust willfully disrespectful and unreliable Andoranians. I also have no problem with chaotic characters following consistent codes of behavior - they're just idiosyncratic codes of behavior - suitable to themselves. This is also why Batman is Chaotic Good, not Lawful. He does things HIS way, not the way everyone expects him to behave (that's LG Superman).

Once I put things in those terms, lawful and chaotic are a lot easier to deal with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Mulgar wrote:

Why all the hate for what they are doing? It's legal, well it is now with the changes made in this thread.

They are doing it because they want to.

And quite simply it isn't for us to judge. What they are doing is legal, let them go have fun.

While I don't think I'd call it hating, I think there's plenty of dog-piling going on here. The criticism of his plan been made, the OP is doing his thing with his players, let it drop.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Alternative viewpoint: Summon nature's ally and the animal companion are powers granted by nature to its ally, the druid, to be used to protect the life of that druid and not be eschewed because of some human moral consideration.


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

Trade-offs are a good thing. This game needs more characters with abilities based on multiple attributes, not less of it.


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

Feats like power attack don't bother me at all. Sure, a player could say that they'd like to swing wildly to get the same result, but I don't think I'd agree that simply stating that desire should generate benefits without investment. They simply don't have the developed ability to make consistent and predictable use of that ability - their otherwise untrained attempts being adequately covered by variance in damage due to rolled dice.

It's the feats like Call Truce that I find more concerning since they put a defined mechanic to an otherwise undefined event that any number of GMs could and would adjudicate differently for any number of reasons. If I have a player in my group with that feat, it puts pressure on me to make untrained attempts at doing the same worse in some way so that the feat is worth the PC's investment. But given my instincts as a GM, I don't think I'd make parleying any more difficult (or less binding in the result) than the feat does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
swoosh wrote:

I've been mulling over a few ideas for switch hitting characters lately and I've been kind of stunned at how incredibly hard it is to build someone who can use two or more weapon styles effectively.

Even with access to fighter bonus feats or ranger styles or something similar it still takes quite a while to get online and you still end up hitting some sort of roadblock eventually. With a rogue or investigator or cavalier or barbarian or swashbuckler or something else I've decided it's more or less a lost cause to even try.

This seems really weird, especially given how common the concept of someone with two or more fighting styles is in fiction.

It really seems unnecessary.

Is this a question about being "effective" or "optimized"? I don't find it that hard to be effective with a couple of styles, but lots of people have differing definitions of effective.


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

I don't directly penalize lack of role playing - I do, however, reward role playing. Good role playing tends to make task DCs a bit easier because I have more information to base my adjudications on. Backstories and thought-out motivations give me more opportunities to engage the player via that PC's connections and motivations.

Players who don't role play miss out on those opportunities and benefits. If they're OK with that, I don't have much of a problem with them. But I generally don't stop trying to draw them out a bit more.

And for my purposes, role playing isn't synonymous with acting or the craft of thespianship. That's a subset. It's more about playing the PC with the PC's distinct character in mind. It could be all in the 3rd person as far as I care.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll leave any refreshing baths to yourselves and we can pick up with further investigations - or any other plans you want to pursue...

A bit on the alleged murder site:
Eodred's Walk is a row of shops along one of the streets that helps define the Gold Market, the largest open market in Korvosa. Along its run are:

Aram's Crown - a small tavern that sells weak beer and wine for the market crowd but breaks out stronger spirits after sunset
Basha's - a small book and map store
Doom and Gloom - an old Varisian woman who gives Harrow readings
Galloping Ghost - tack and harness store
Gemshare Jewelers - gem/jewel sellers (and resellers)
Hedge Wizardry - magical supply shop
High Bridge Haberdashery - more than just hats, also clothing shop
Kep's - fishmonger
Fair-Fished Baitshop - fishing supplies
Pinking Shears - barbershop
Slicing Dicers - bladed weapons
Smoked Foods - smoked meats and cheeses
Time Stop - clocks and watches
Trapper's Hole - hunting, particularly archery, equipment


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:


Usually when the rules don't mention something, it is because it is not allowed (though I'm not of the opinion that this is an absolute as some things would fail common sense - dead characters taking actions).

That is utter and complete BS in role playing games. If something isn't mentioned, it's because RPG rules cannot, literally cannot, cover everything that can possibly happen in a game. This is why we have referees who can adjudicate cases that come up that aren't in the rules but fit the genre or make sense to the situation at hand.


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

You, the parents, and everyone who knew the li'l fella have my sympathies. I'm a parent of 2 kids and I can imagine the pain you're all feeling.

My suggestion: Scrapbook that character portfolio along with some photos to make a nice book of memories for the parents. Do it soon so it doesn't hang out there as an unfinished project and so the parents can have it as they work through their grief.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Neither does the new Jingasa. Because you probably used it on the greataxe wielding cyclops a few levels back.

*shrugs*

Sell the old one, buy the new one. Do the same thing with scrolls and potions and other 1 use Wondrous Items.

A helmet is a bit of the wrong vehicle for a one-use magic item - a small charm of some sort would be much more fitting. I think a +1 luck bonus to AC would have still made for a much more flavorful item than the jingasa is now. While several of the fixes were, I think, good in coming, the jingasa is really a useless wreck of wrong design now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Blue Moose wrote:
Well, I have 100 of these in a variety of colors from the Kickstarter. Completely removed all the cubes from my dicebag.

I did something similar to replace my d4s.

12-sided d4

Reading them is a bit more intuitable than a tetrahedral d4. And they don't turn into caltrops if the cat knocks them to the floor in the middle of the night.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
NobodysHome wrote:

On the one hand, I think every responder is in 100% agreement that yes, a ghoul can CdG with its claws.

On the other hand, being a pedant, I'd like to keep hammering away at the point: The rules make a very clear distinction between "natural weapons" and other types of weapons, not only in my quote cited above, but in spells like Magic Weapon (does not work on natural weapons) and Magic Fang (only works on natural weapons).

So the notion that natural weapon = melee weapon is not supported anywhere in the PRD. Note that Protoman's post only proves that a natural weapon is a melee attack, not necessarily a melee weapon.

Yes, I agree the statement should be true, but I haven't been able to find any concrete statement that it is.

Is it referred to as a weapon (as in "natural weapon")? Is it used in melee? Then as far as I'm concerned weapon + melee = melee weapon. That's so obvious to me that the explicit "natural weapon = melee weapon" is unnecessary. Weapon + melee = melee weapon.

It's only the persistence of the term "natural attack" without using the term weapon that, I think, should give any pause here. But since natural weapon is explicitly used in some places like Magic Fang, I think it's pretty clear that natural attack = natural weapon.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
swoosh wrote:
Harleequin wrote:
I have only been playing PF for a short period of time but one of the things that I find most astounding is the staggering ingratitude shown towards GMs
You're playing a game. For fun. Why the hell do you need gratitude? That's pretty damn pretentious.

Oh, you know, to honor regular old human decency when someone puts in extra effort for the enjoyment of all...

Fortunately, my players are pretty good about it. They're all long-term players and/or GMs and know and honor the work that goes into the process.


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

Communication may be a free action, but free actions are generally considered to be available to a character as it takes its turn. I'd treat them differently for perception rolls to avoid surprises. For other cases, like actively searching an area, I'd have one rolling to aid the other.
I don't think treating the summoner as if his perception checks are "take two and keep higher" would be appropriate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"NO! NO! You're looking for a reason to fight them! And I don't want any fighting over me!" she sobs.

1 to 50 of 714 << 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.