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. 4,465 posts (4,955 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 14 aliases.


1 to 50 of 457 << 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; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

But it does seem a pretty reasonable interpretation to use Ride-by attack to get the rider's attack with a lance, continue movement, and let the mount get its follow-up charge attacks in even if you don't allow the ride-by attack feat to allow movement to continue after that point.


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

Pathfinder is a fantasy adventure role playing game. The rules are meant to facilitate having fantasy adventures in a relatively easily administered manner - not throw up barriers to entirely reasonable actions via over-pedantic, tortured readings.

So, yes, of course you can charge with a reach weapon like a lance.


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


It took them a while to be right, but FATAL proves their point.

Not really. RPGs aren't some kind of slippery slope that inevitably leads to FATAL or RaHoWa any more than the invention of language is a slippery slope that leads to angsty teen poetry.


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

I actually do allow retries on knowledge checks... As long as the situation has changed enough that the PCs has new inroads into the information. That also usually comes with a new DC too. For example, a PC tries to use know (the planes) to identify a demon based on limited observation (like a glimpse or seeing the effects of his powers), he can retry when he has better and more direct observation, and I even let him retry if they capture the wizard who called it and interrogation reveals it to be a glabrezu.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
jtaylor73003 wrote:
I have complex reason why I value my time, and so anything I chose to do must meet a certain level of value or I wasted my time. This applies all things I decide to do from going to the movies to going on dates, etc.

I almost hate to say it, but I think this will set you up for a lot of disappointment in the future. And not just with respect to gaming.


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


To look at it from yet another angle, imagine that a 20th-level fighter is training alongside a 1st-level fighter. They're each attacking a target dummy 20 times.

In a series of 20 attacks, the 20th-level fighter only hits his target 4 more times than the 1st-level fighter. What the crap.

Keep in mind that your proficiency bonus isn't the only way you're improving. That 20th level fighter has probably got his strength maxed out now while the 1st level fighter probably doesn't. That'll account for another 1-2 successes. He may have a +1-+3 magic weapon. That's another 1-3 successes. He can attack that dummy 80 times in the time it takes that 1st level fighter to hit it 20 times, alternatively, he gets done in 5 rounds what the 1st level fighter takes 20 to accomplish. And that's without even touching the archetype features he might have or the fact that he's a heck of a lot more durable.

If you ignore every other probable advancement, sure, that 20th level fighter only hits a little more often than that 1st level fighter. But then, he also doesn't have to since most opponents have an AC within the 1st level fighter's ability.


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

And compared with 4e, the core mechanics have been made more complicated and the balance made worse.

See, from my perspective, those would be "more interesting" and "better" rather than "more complicated" and "worse".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bluenose wrote:
Kalshane wrote:
Yes, there are saves for all 6 stats, though most effects target one of the traditional 3 of Dex, Con and Wis.
Wait, when did the "traditional" saves become Dex, Con and Wis? Because it certainly wasn't that way in any edition of D&D prior to 2000.

I think 15 years of Fort, Ref, and Will through roughly 3 editions counts as a tradition. That there was another, different tradition before them doesn't negate that.


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

I think there are some things I would call odd perceptions in the original post.

The rules are treated a lot less differently than you think. They're both abstractions that manage how things go on. They have different elements within them that offer some aspect of simulation. I think Pathfinder's may be a bit more specific in some areas such as weapon sizing and the use of certain modifiers in combat (strength vs dex builds and using feats to compensate) yet 5e includes some that accomplish similar simulative goals as well (versatile and finesse weapon properties, disadvantage on small characters using heavy weapons) but with, I think, a bit less overhead and fine detail.

I also wouldn't call skills handwaved. An important distinction between the two games is that the 5e is oriented around a "stat check" (d20+stat mod). That is the game's primary mechanical focus. PC wants to do something that the DM feels needs a check to determine success - he assigns a stat check. Even combat is fundamentally driven by the stat check, as are saving throws. But every situation in which a proficiency could apply (proficiency in a weapon, proficiency in a tool, proficiency in an area of skill/knowledge), the PC gets to add their level-based proficiency bonus. In many cases, particularly with skills and knowledge, the DM has a lot of discretion on which proficiencies may apply and what DC seems appropriate. But this really isn't that far a step from the d20-based PF. I'd even say it harkens nicely back to some of the skill/check guidelines that first came out with D&D 3.0 and drifted away when the content from the PH and DMG got combined and condensed into the single PF Core Rulebook.


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

I'm not sure I'd the rules absolutely require an acrobatics roll for something like this. The PCs are invisible and so won't provoke an AoO, period, and the acrobatics roll is to avoid an AoO. So no matter what people think the rules are saying, we're well into GM adjudication and the right answer is the one that works best for you, your players, and the pacing of the game.

First - all turning invisible and trying to escape is a good plan, and may be a necessary one to prevent a TPK. My inclination is to not make it too hard to accomplish since they're already stacking the deck in their favor by turning invisible.

Second - The orcs won't be able to see and target them with AoO as long as they're invisible. But the PCs will want to avoid giving away their exact position or they'll likely just be in the orc soup again once the orcs adjust. So avoiding contact and avoiding excess noise are both important.

I'd have them make stealth rolls to determine how well their general movement is going to give them away to the orcs' perceptions. This will be important more for the follow-up rounds and how the orcs will adjust.

Then I'd have them roll acrobatics just to avoid making contact with wary orcs milling about their combat spaces, but I would cut the DC down from the CMD that normally sets the DC. The situations are different with the orcs significantly hampered relative to the normal case. Off hand, using the Acrobatics skill as a model, what's the difference between moving through an opponent's square and past them? It's 5. I'd set the base DC at 5 and then modify it by how fast they're moving. I wouldn't add +2 for every orc whose threatened spaces they move through. Most of those can't target them and are irrelevant and shouldn't add to the DC. I'd only add for each actual orc space they move through.

As far as failing, I'd take a look at how close they got to the DC. If they didn't even make the DC I set without any +2s for additional orcs, I'd say they bumped into the first one and halt movement. If they failed at some point but would have passed by just one, I'd prorate how far they got into the mass based on how close they got to the final and then I'd just displace the orcs they passed to carve out a space for them to start in for their next move action. Every orc in reach will almost certainly attack that space (with the 50% miss) but, as long as the PC keeps his head and doesn't strike back, he can try again next round, hopefully with a shorter path to escape.


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

Since rider and mount are both performing a charge, which is movement, then attack, the charge ends the moment either can reach their target.

There is no stipulation in the rules for choice (outside of feats, such as Ride-By Attack and Wheeling Charge).

Why would you interpret the rules in such a way as to make it so dysfunctional? Shouldn't the assumption be that the rules are intended to work?


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

I generally consider it a tendency or preference to respect authority - all other things considering. That doesn't mean that the current authority will always be preferred. I expect a lawful character to be uncomfortable with bucking legal authority without the justification of an authority with a higher priority. And even then, I expect them to try to reconcile them and respect both whenever they can.

That's my take on lawful as a GM.


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

Having been playing a summoner for a while, early access to some spells doesn't seem problematic in adventure time. Haste a little early is a win for the whole party so it's not a question of overshadowing the other players.

The problem that keeps cropping up, as I see it, is the issue of magic item creation. And since that keeps coming up as a problem in many class imbalance issues, my inclination is to see that as the root of many problems in 3e and Pathfinder. Without the ability to make haste as a wand as a 2nd level spell or improved invisibility potions, the issue of summoner spells is contained to adventuring use and, in my experience, is not much of a problem.

It's not for nothing I'm happy to see 5th edition D&D severely curtail magic item creation and availability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert Hetherington wrote:
If you keep reading to page 2 of the thread there is another important post from SKR on the topic.

Personally, I think way too much is made of the "directly toward" phrase. Comparing the 3.0 and 3.5 versions, I assume that the "directly toward" phrase was meant to replace 3.0's declaration that the charge must be in a straight line and disallowing running past to strike from another direction. The interpretive focus that leads to the idea that the squares must be "head-on" at the end (clearly contradicting the possibility of ride-by attacks as well as standard jousting tournaments) is far too myopic to be reasonable.

My rule of thumb: If it can be interpreted to make the game break or product foolish results, that's almost certainly not its intention.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I just don't see how it takes so much effort not to swear.
Maybe you should try an experiment. Have a friend quietly observe you for a few sessions, jotting down expressions you use frequently. Then spend the rest of the campaign not using them under threat of being kicked out.

I don't know... If swearing is such a deeply ingrained behavior that you simply cannot control yourself, then it will probably cause problems in other areas of your social interactions.

-Skeld

Edit: what I mean by the above is that swearing can be situationally dependent; there are times it's more socially acceptable than other times and that's dictated not only by the setting but by the audience as well. Swearing in the wrong setting and/or audience can leave others with the impression that the swearer lacks self-control. Whether or not it's ok for others to make those types of judgements is another topic.

The point is - what polite society calls profanity is part of the vernacular in some parts of society. People who think it's easy to change the way others speak have probably never tried it themselves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I just don't see how it takes so much effort not to swear.

Maybe you should try an experiment. Have a friend quietly observe you for a few sessions, jotting down expressions you use frequently. Then spend the rest of the campaign not using them under threat of being kicked out.


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


I can't believe Paizo thought that extending the duration by a factor of 10 wasn't broken!

It's not particularly broken. As others have said, most combats are over long before that duration comes up. And if PCs are looting and searching areas, the monsters will finish up their durations faster than you think. If they want to use them for multiple combats, they need to keep the pressure on and that probably undermines healing between combat as well as other buffs.

The main overpowered aspect of the master summoner for a PC really is being able to use the summon monster SLA concurrently. The main summoner can't and can't even do so with his eidolon around. I'm playing a summoner in Skull and Shackles and there are quite a few times I wish I had been able to do multiple SLA summons at the same time but have had to settle for sequential.

The master summoner has a role in PF but that role isn't right for every game. He's great for war-oriented campaigns since he can spam a lot of troops that the GM can deal with narratively rather than roll dice for and he's great as an enemy for PCs. But his summoning powers and how they work don't work with traditional 4-man dungeon-crawlng very well.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
The guy's a bard, there is literally no way he could be useless in an encounter unless he is making a deliberate attempt to do so.

But that usefulness is probably not related to how the player saw the PC as he was building him and that means the interests he built into that character aren't being served. It's like playing Johnny Storm in a fist-fight. He can do it, but he's the Human Torch, man! If you are denying him any chances to "Flame on!", you're going to make the game suck for him.


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

Construct-heavy adventuring areas may be thematic, but they can also be monotonous, particularly for PCs geared up for other kinds of enemies. Include a bit more diversity in your encounters.

The only real balance issue with RPGs, as far as I'm concerned, is balancing the focus each PC gets in opportunities to have fun, to hold the spotlight and shine, and be treated as an equal voice in the game. So give the bard something to do that is as worthwhile as fighting constructs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Joey Virtue wrote:
I got screwed out of mine cause i had Left over dungeon and dragons subscriptions that I rolled over to start them but I have been here since the start.

That's weird. Changing my Dungeon sub to PF was what got me my charter subscriber title.


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


I truly believe that the AoO on a prone person trying to stand up happens BEFORE the person trys to stand up. I believe this is the reason a trip lock is not possible. I believe that is the point of both the 3.5 and Paizo FAQ's on the matter.

If this is the case, then what provoked the AoO? What did the prone target do to provoke the AoO? Apparently nothing since it was before he tried to stand up. Does this really make sense to you?

The mainstream interpretation (and I'm going to boldly say, the correct one) is that the prone target starts to move in a way that provokes the AoO. Now we get into a situation in which they must be resolved in a particular order. That doesn't mean they fully occur in that order - since the triggering move action starts before the AoO (otherwise no AoO could be provoked) and finishes after - just that they are resolved in that order. And if the AoO's result makes the rest of the move invalid, bye bye move action. If it does not, the move action continues to its resolution.


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

I could've sworn I remembered seeing an age suggestion on the Beginner Box. Amazon says 13+.

When a company tells me what age range their product is for, I believe them.

Reconsider that. For most physical products, including games, the age suggestions are set substantially because of product safety regulations. Products for kids under 13 are expected to go through more rigorous (and expensive) testing. So even if a product is suitable for kids under 13 (like the Beginner Box), many will say 13 just to avoid stricter standards.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Uwotm8 wrote:
Obo wrote:
If you are gming you are not paizos copyright police. Your job is to officiate a game.
GMs in PFS are specifically tasked with these duties. Yes, they are Paizo's copyright police, as you put it.

You know, I really don't think they are. The requirement for a player to have the appropriate resources at the table is pretty much written in terms of making sure the rules are there so the GM has a source to review for running the game, not strictly to enforce copyright or ferret out rule-breakers. The PFS guidelines are pretty softball on the issue to the point that I think taking a hard nosed approach is setting a dissonant tone and is probably bad for PFS in the long run.


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

I broke down and bought HeroLab a little over a year ago and it really makes things a lot easier to manage - particularly at the table with a live HeroLab app going (although, on the iPad version, my iPad 2 is a bit crashy with it). Buffs and other niggling details make PF a lot easier to manage, particularly as characters get level up and get more complex.

That said, I only use materials in HeroLab that I also have in other formats and I tote my PDFs around on my iPad. If I paid money to attend a convention event (where marshaling a table is difficult and chaotic enough) and was turned away because of either the iPad or HeroLab, I'd be pretty pissed off and the event organizer and Venture Captain/Lieutenant would be alerted.

If PFS at Gen Con can get along with the PF Character Creation Station at the Lone Wolf booth, then I think pretty much any PFS GM should be able to do so as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Prestidigitation is one hour, not permanent like Mirror Polish. Plus it's debatable Prestidigitation can even provide such a level of reflection...

Actually, making something dirty or clean by prestidigitation is pretty much permanent (pending getting cleaned up or dirtied again). But I agree that cleaning isn't the same as putting a mirror shine on a bit of metal.

Mirror Polish is probably still too specialized to really be a useful spell for most adventuring characters, though.


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

When most people say 'it is not a rule' they are not saying 'it is a soft rule' or something similar.

The problem is that when some people say it is not a rule and then call it a guideline (if they even do that) they are dismissing it as if guidelines are completely not worth their, or anyone else's, time. (I have seen this time and again in any discussion regarding WBL.)

I disagree with that assumption. I suspect it has more to deal with encouraging people to not slavishly follow the table because it's a guideline, rather than get hung up on the rules as written fetish that's common across the internet. At the very least, that's why I refer to it as a guideline rather than a rule.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mirror Polish. Spend a 1st level slot to do only one of the things Prestidigitation already does. Yay?

It does seem a bit specialized, but I wouldn't assume prestidigitation could make a mirror out of any substantial metal surface area. Cleaning something isn't the same as giving it a mirror-worthy polish.


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

Overblown complaints about Drizzt clones far outnumber actual instances of real Drizzt clones. They're more obnoxious as well.

And it's been that way for over a decade.

They're more obnoxious now because we've been taking care of the Drizzt clone character players (who have been around for over two decades now) with a vigorous aerial spraying campaign. It's the only thing that works...


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


That's because Smaug himself was never made to be a final 'boss monster' that the main characters defeat, the story was more concerned with the journey and interaction between the characters. Like many old fairy tales, the big evil monster is defeated by exactly the thing needed to do so at the very end almost as an afterthought, and the story is brought to a happy conclusion.
Also, Speak With Animals is kinda a thing, and this is why. ;)

And, to my personal dismay, so much of the journey and interaction from the book ends up poorly represented on screen - swallowed up by too much action filler. In order to support the pacing and break of 3 movies, Bilbo has to win over Thorin's admiration too soon - necessitating a bizarre confrontation in the pines - rather than wait for Bilbo to take the leadership role in Mirkwood and Thranduil's dungeons.

Beorn and even the spiders drop to secondary status in the overall story to make room for dragon-targeting A-Teaming and a barrel thrill ride. Kili and Fili's sacrifice (briefly described but poignant in the original) is transformed by the cross race love story that, at once, justifies the presence of a female character while also making her dependent on a relationship to a male character for her significance.

Meh. I'm glad it's done.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Again, why look at the rules when you are aiming for a certain fluff?
I wish I knew. I have had discussions with this guy in my group about stuff like this all the time. His answer is, "I just don't think Pathfinder is a 'refluff it' kind of game." WTF does that mean?
Maybe: "Look, you are coming dangerously close to openly revealing my lack of imagination. Do not do that!"

Or he prefers it when his fluff and crunch have a unified meaning. Let's think about other possibilities before insulting the man.

Personally, I think fluff and terms have significance too, not just mechanics. They're what forge a shared vocabulary between different gaming tables so I take as much care in reviewing, using, and revising them as I do for mechanics.


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

*sigh*

I understand the importance of not getting one's hopes up especially in light of the last trilogy, but YEESH..tough crowd.

Well, the lower your expectations, the more likely they will be exceeded. The higher they are, the more likely you are to be disappointed. I figure this is why Attack of the Clones appeared to be so good at first viewing despite its horrible shortcomings (I think it is the worst in the series by far). Phantom Menace had calibrated expectations to be very low.


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


Or we could turn it around. Have the players say what kind of games they are looking for, and have the GMs come to them--kind of like it works in real life sometimes.

There are people who try that - and a very few may actually succeed. If their request is fairly standard like wanting to play in an AP or other particular modules, I imagine they can have fairly decent success. But I also expect that the further from the mean the player wants the game to be, the less likely he is to find a willing GM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Trigger Loaded wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I had a 1e character once say OUT OF CHARACTER a word that would cause instant death. The DM said it didn't matter, that it "transcended realities" and no matter who said the word would die, even if someone in another dimension said it, such as my "alter ego in this universe". I believe that was the last game I ever played with him as DM.
Something campaign-specific? Or the old Call of Cthulhu standby Hastur?

Appearance Check: 1d100 ⇒ 58

Whew!

I actually do make rolls when my players say that name regardless of what game system we're running and the context. It's been a running joke for some years now. Or so they think...


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

There are all sorts of issues that may have come up that have made the DMG's support of 4e-style play (or any other edition's style) not reach the same result you were hoping for. That doesn't mean they lied to you or stabbed you in the back, OP.


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

In my experience, they don't fight as well as the PC fighters and other fighter types. But they do serve to increase the number of actions targeting the enemy, which can make a single BBEG very sad very fast. Of course, in a turn-based game, solo enemy encounters are usually going to be overwhelmed by multiple PCs anyway, this really just increases the tendency.

One other thing they can do is bog down play with one player, the player whose PC summoned the monsters, getting a lot more play compared to everyone else. So it's incumbent on the summoning player to have his crap together and work swiftly and efficiently as much as he can.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hama wrote:
And instead of using the Thrawn trilogy, and digitally de-ageing the stars, he chose to disregard 30+ years of extended universe. Nice job. JJ. You putz.

Best move he could have made. Unequivocally. Cleared the slate as much as possible.


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

To people defending the GM:

You realize he is basically saying "I demand that 50% of your turns are wasted, no matter what.

<snip>

It's like being under a non-removable Bestow Curse, and also only having half the normal number of spells per day.

You know, this is kind of what high level spellcasting was like back in 1e/2e days. Saves were based on the hit dice/level of the target and couldn't be made more difficult by the PC. LOTS of save or lose type spells failed and left the caster with an unproductive turn. And, frankly, PF could use a bit more of it than it has now.


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

Looking forward to it - I hope it's up to the challenge Anthony Daniels laid down. I don't think any other actor has had as much contact with Star Wars at as many levels as he has so I think he's got an informed perspective. A lot will depend on editing and post-production but I've been cautiously optimistic since Lucas sold out to Disney.


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

Entitled or have a right to?

Entitlement always seemed like a kind of a bad word.

Ultimately, they mean the exact same thing. It's just one has been spun into negative connotations.


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

Hmmm...so I canceled my DMG pre-order over on Amazon today, mentioned it on [redacted], and was promptly called a liar.

I think I need a new hobby. :-/

That's kind of what you get from some users who spend a fair amount of time on [redacted]'s sister site - the less moderated messageboard. And this user also swore up and down that the sister site wasn't toxic (psst ... it pretty much is).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Spook205 wrote:

In certain situations I let my party get away with pre-casting haste, just so the summoner doesn't need to 'waste' his initial turn with the requisite buff and can get into the 'fun stuff.'

When you feel like its your job to cast that spell, and you need that spell, thats when something starts feeling a bit off.

While I'm sympathetic to the idea that haste may be a dominant strategy, I'm not entirely convinced that it's bad that a character feels it's his "job" to cast it. Welcome to the burden of effective teamwork, summoner, and stop your whining.

Plus, that summoner probably already has an eidolon out there giving him an extra action anyway. And even if he doesn't and has to use his summon monster ability for his combat effectiveness, he'll get plenty of game time actions to make up for losing one to casting haste. I play a summoner in a Skull and Shackles game and I'm quite familiar with the trade-offs. My sympathy for any summoner complaining about wasting an action by hasting his fellows is very limited. It does my group a lot of good to have the ranger, inquisitor, rogue, and eidolon hasted up as soon as I can manage it.


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

The way they've developed Tony Stark in the MCU, I really don't see him easily supporting the superhero registration act. He's been played up as highly distrusting of the government - would a switch in favor of registration be credible? I don't see that being likely yet.

Maybe they could spin Stark's openness about being Iron Man into heroes being open about their identities. But I think it's a stretch to see that turn into a pro-Feds Stark. They'd probably have to kill off Pepper like with the Civil War's Nitro-school detonation to accomplish it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:


The first time I herd toon I immediately understood why it was used. I did not think it silly. I can't control what people think. What I can control is what I intend. If someone insists on inferring something not intended, then that's their problem.

Unless there are other entirely understandable inferences that are made that are not intended or that lead to misunderstandings.

I find "toon" a jarring bit of jargon for a character for a number of reasons:

- it has been used before in the Toon RPG - specifically related to cartoon characters so every time I see someone using the term, I'm thinking along the lines of a bunch of Animaniacs and not D&D or PF characters

- it refers to a visually animated medium whereas most pen and paper RPG characters are fundamentally imagined or represented with miniatures or counters that are static images

You may not be able to absolutely control what other people think but you can do a lot more than just throw your intentions out there and that's because many of the implications of the words you use are predictable. Descriptive language pretty much depends on it.


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

Marc, there is space in between "I'm have a conscious, intellectual desire to choose the most efficient terminology in all cases in an effort to shave a few seconds off of my conversations" and "I'm lazy".

<snip>

People using shorthand for common terms is normal, and you do it too.

People do, and misunderstandings often ensue depending on the context. I work with ROI - but if I say that at different areas of the company I work for, it means two different things. Using the abbreviation POC is even worse because it now means three things.

If you're discussing things face to face, it's easy to ask for and gain immediate clarification when unknown jargon is used. But when engaging in written communication, clarity is important. On a messageboard, it may take hours to get a clarification if your readers don't understand what you meant the first time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dennis Harry wrote:
Interesting. I have been running 3.5 for a long time and my players have always looked at their surroundings for advantages to assist in what they are doing.

That's the case with me too, but I will acknowledge that the presentation of a game, its tone, and other elements around it can profoundly change a player's orientation toward the game - and not always in rational ways.

Some groups found that 3e's focus on rules caused their players to do so as well - even myopically. Some groups found that 4e's focus on powers turned the game into a skirmish board game of shuffling power cards. And in both cases, some groups found the structure of those games liberating from problems they found with previous editions (that many other players never even had).


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

How does the economy work in the REAL world?

Anyone who claims to know is lying to you.

Q: What do you when you take all of the economists in the world and lay them down end to end?

A: Everybody pointing in a different direction.


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


I've never seen anyone try to get away with less. Ever. Rather, what you describe here is the group of people who are feeling (accurately or not) pointed at when certain posters talk about people who don't care about roleplaying.

I've seen it and didn't like it, so that's why I push any player trying that to do more when I run games.


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


There are people who want to play a character that they themselves are not capable of representing completely, who nevertheless care a great deal about roleplaying, immersion, and the fun of the other players; and are interested in far, far more than just "diplomacy-ing people", punching faces and counting loot.

I don't understand why it is hard for you to accept that this category of people exists.

I think people are getting a bit overly emotional about his issue right now. I can totally see where the secret fire is coming from. If a player takes no effort to role play - and like he said, we're not talking rhetoric here - when other players are willing to make the effort then I think the game suffers for it.

And here, I'm not talking about always talking in character or with flowery speeches that exactly fit their Charismas. I'm looking for an effort to put together the major points of an attempt at diplomacy, the tactics used, and all fitting with the PC's perspective and what they could and would understand of the situation. If the player can do it in character, all the better.

But if someone wants to just say "I use diplomacy on him" and roll... they can do that at another table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:


This

This what?


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


Casting Purify food and drink is enough to make it kosher?

I wouldn't think so. Process is extremely important. Taking something processed in a non-kosher manner and using magic to purify it doesn't change the process involved.

Now, purifying the food/drink could be an important part of the process...

1 to 50 of 457 << 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.