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. 5,849 posts (6,932 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 22 aliases.


1 to 50 of 778 << 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

I don't see anything wrong with interpreting the two working together to provide 1d4+1 rounds with 2 actions per round.... other than that maybe being a bit excessive. If I were running a game with that combo as an option, I'm not sure I'd take it at full potential. When prepping the adventure for play, I'd probably drop one of those powers out of the mix in favor of something else less likely to beat the crap out of the action economy.


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

Truly unwinnable encounters are bad GMing, IMO.

Not every encounter is something your PCs will be able to easily handle, but anything you can throw at them within the rules (and within reasonable homebrew bounds) should be possible to beat.

I totally disagree. I think every encounter should be survivable, but not winnable.


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

There are a number of reasons I prefer rolling:

1) you get to discover your character as you roll it up, which can spark creativity in ways you didn't expect

2) it does a better job at balancing multi-attribute dependent classes with single attribute dependent ones

3) each rolled stat is independent of the others, no dumping one to boost another

4) it seems to me that other players are more sympathetic about a low stat and the complications it leads to if it's rolled than if it's bought and more willing to help you compensate for it


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Indeed, as if the fudging crowd were just as ideological.

I'm really having a hard time telling what you're saying here. I think, from the context, you really mean to imply that the fudging crows IS just as ideological? So I'll respond to that point.

I don't think the fudging-friendly are just as ideological. The absolutism is the real key here. Most of the fudge-friendly arguments aren't absolutist "I WILL fudge the dice" as much as pragmatic - "I may fudge the dice if it looks like it will make for a better game." They're not along the lines of "If you aren't upfront about fudging, you're a cheat and a liar." It's also the anti-fudging side of the argument that usually equates fudging with loss of player agency, loss of choices mattering, loss game integrity, and the argument "If you're going to fudge, why roll dice at all?" Those suggest a highly ideological approach in which any deviation is a slide into chaos or other typically pejorative connotations like cheating and illusionism. And usually, fudge-friendly arguments are advocating nothing of the sort.


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

I'm running some Mutants and Masterminds for friends. I've adapted some Villains and Vigilantes supervillains into M&M3 and I have to confess that I'm a little disappointed that the Mercury Mercenary couldn't make a single, freakin' toughness save last night.

At least Shrew was doing much better. She punched one hero down an elevator shaft as he tried to force open the door. I do take a bit of pleasure at that sort of thing...


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

My favorite Die type is an 8 sided 4 sider. Drives my GM crazy.

My favorite are the 12-sided d4s. They're marked in Roman numerals so they're easy to identify. Plus, if they fall on the floor, no caltrops to stumble over later (making no promises about scattered Legos, though).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Firewarrior44 wrote:

It's a totally valid way to play. Tomb of horrors is written is such a way that it is SUPPOSED to result in numerous deaths to deadly traps and encounters assuming the players are not extremely cautious, it's the entire point.

By changing rolls and or altering that module you are in effect cheating the players of the modules intended play experience. Which is totally fine assuming the game everyone sat down to play was Tomb of Horrors softball edition.

So now it's cheating to adapt a published adventure for your campaign world/players?!?

Some people are awfully enamored of that cheating word.


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

How about if the GM decides the PCs have had enough punishment and omits a deadly trap in the adventuring area the PCs are traveling through?

How about if the GM decides the PCs have been sailing through the challenges too easily and so adds a couple of henchmen to the climax fight?

How about if the GM decides, on the fly, to cut the BBEG's AC down by 2-3 points for the fight? Or his damage bonus?

Do those count as "cheating" or is the anti-fudging mania limited to reading the dice alone?


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


Is everyone OK with you ignoring random treasure rolls?

Is it even a likely expectation that the GM should use random treasure rolls?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:


1. No one has said its badwrongfun.

2. Fudging is just a nice way of saying Cheating. So whatever.

3. Agency Destroying. It is a little since it does negate some player choice and actions.

4. Subversive. No one is claiming "Fudge" GMs are trying to overthrow a government.

5. Wrong. No one has said it's wrong in general. Only wrong when the GM doesn't tell the players they are doing it.

Even with all that said. Fudging is a fine house rule for a group as long as the group knows it works that way; the same can be said of any house rule.

Of course you're saying it's badwrongfun. Relentlessly using negative terms like cheating to describe it does exactly that.

No i haven't. I've actually said quite the opposite.

If you'd stop getting overly defensive about your house rule, maybe you would see that.

I'm sorry i don't see a reason to sugar coat what "Fudging" is. If you "Fudge" a die roll your cheating what actually happened. Get over it.

Is it a bad practice to use in a game? No.

It's a fine and acceptable use of a house rule in a group of players who know that's the style of game being played.

"Fudging" or "Cheating" is just as acceptable as not doing that in a game. Neither is superior to the other in terms of play style choices.

You're still not seeing the delegitimizing aspect of what you're saying. If it's fine then then stop calling it cheating. Stop calling it sugar coating the term. All of that's just a passive-aggressive way of being pejorative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Brain in a Jar wrote:


1. No one has said its badwrongfun.

2. Fudging is just a nice way of saying Cheating. So whatever.

3. Agency Destroying. It is a little since it does negate some player choice and actions.

4. Subversive. No one is claiming "Fudge" GMs are trying to overthrow a government.

5. Wrong. No one has said it's wrong in general. Only wrong when the GM doesn't tell the players they are doing it.

Even with all that said. Fudging is a fine house rule for a group as long as the group knows it works that way; the same can be said of any house rule.

Of course you're saying it's badwrongfun. Relentlessly using negative terms like cheating to describe it does exactly that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
My question for the pro-changing dice is, why are you fighting so hard to defend your position? What part of changing dice is so important to you that you'd do it knowing the party wouldn't like it? Why does it seem that you feel it is required?

I could ask the same question to you guys. Why do you defend yours so vigorously? It's because it's the way we play and we aren't going to put up with a lot of BS badwrongfunism inherent in calling it cheating, agency destroying, subversive, or wrong.


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


Assuming the illusion is not broken, the illusion of agency is pretty much just as good as actual agency. If the players feel like what they're doing is affecting the narrative, it doesn't matter if what's going on was what was going to happen anyway even if they had made a different choice. So I think this is one of those things where it's incumbent that players don't know. I know as a player, *I* don't want to know.

How is fudging on occasion removing agency? It's not. The players are still making their decisions, the GM is still making his and adjudicating how player decisions are implemented in the game world. Editing the occasional die roll removes no more agency than deciding whether or not a PC's attempt to buy a round of drinks in the tavern gets a cheer from the local barflies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Brain in a Jar wrote:


I mean i get what your saying but that might not have been a good example, since it's literally an opposed roll (Acrobatics versus CMD).

??? It's a roll vs a static target number, the skeleton's CMD. But ultimately that's no different from any other roll whether a skill check or a save. It just happens to be case with LOTS of potential outcomes that can be adjusted in nearly as many ways including some methods I've described.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Firewarrior44 wrote:


To point 2. I would say If the game is producing undesirable outcomes then change the game (via house rules/hacking) so that it will either produce the wanted outcomes or mitigate the unwanted outcomes.

Why? Pathfinder already provides for this by including a GM who can adjudicate all this on the fly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Firewarrior44 wrote:

The dice roll is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of a conflict who's modifier and outcome is based on (at least partially) the actions Players have taken. If you subvert that then you subvert all actions that led to that roll and you subvert all outcomes that that roll produces.

All of the setup you describe is just that it's setup. You are presenting options to the players (or an environment conducive to them). They choose to interact with that setup (whatever it may be) and if you take away their method of resolving conflict (the impartial dice roll) you take away their ability to meaningfully interact with everything you have created.

Except, of course, when you use it to validate a result such as when a player's plan is sound, he's taking steps to improve his odds, and yet those impartial arbiters decide he's still completely blown his attempt. As GM, I can fudge it to ameliorate the results so they're not as negative as the dice would indicate and do so because the plan was good, the dice were just the arbitrary bastards they always are.

For example, rogue PC tries to tumble past a triceratops skeleton to get to a better tactical position but fails to beat the CMD. I roll the AoO and score a crit threat. The PC has a good plan but those dice have not only hosed it, they'll probably kill the PC because a crit from a triceratops skeleton is no small thing. There's no need for the penalty for blowing the roll to be quite so bad so I can fudge. I can ignore the threat and just make it a basic hit or I can roll the crit and "forget" to add some of the damage modifiers and make it survivable. The results are and have been still variable based on dice, but I can edit them by ignoring certain ranges of results.


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

If fudging is accepted around the gaming table, outsiders referring to it as cheating is a dick move because cheating is a pejorative term.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:


I disagree with the premise that "chronic" fudging is even a problem.
To some groups chronic cheating is a problem.

And to some groups, referring to a GM's fudging as cheating is blatantly insulting.


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

I typically roll in the open mainly because I'm too lazy and my part of the table is too cluttered to set up my screen. That said, my players don't scrutinize my rolls. They do use results to gauge an enemy's AC, but that's by observing their own results.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
P.S. Are you so defensive over your choices that, when someone points them out as being equally legitimate to their own, you somehow see that as some kind of attack and make snide replies? Might you be projecting just a tad?

Alternatively, your post actually came across to him as condescending. I can totally see his point. You mention players being more passive or coasting on rails. It's pretty easy to interpret those as negative connotations despite saying that there's nothing wrong with that. Particularly when the terms you use for your preferred games are so dynamic and positive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Nothing - though most often in such fantasy there's little to no indication he could. But you're mistaking the "punch out a rhino" argument. Normally it's not "level 20 fighter shouldn't be able to", it's "level 20 fighter can (really by level 7/8 or earlier if designed for unarmed) and that's superhuman, so why resist letting them be superhuman in other ways?"

It's always been a question of degree - how superhuman is enough or has the right feel and what your perspective is. The ones who think fighters aren't superhuman enough always downplay the aspects in which they are superhuman. Meanwhile, the ones who think they're superhuman enough are always pointing out the ways in which they are superhuman. And there's not a whole lot of agreement between the two perspectives - that's why I think the positions get so entrenched and the internet debates so heated.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Not everyone buys the Inner Sea World Guide, JJ. I know it's the campaign setting book, but I'd say most of us experience the setting through playing in it. :P
Isn't that kind of a problem between you and your GM? He's your conduit to the history of Golarion.
I personally wouldn't hold it against a GM for not owning a particular splatbook. RPG books ain't cheap after all.

I wouldn't either, but it's hard to conclude Paizo isn't conveying when Aroden died well when you're not using the setting sources either as a player or as a GM. How would you know whether they are doing so or not if you don't use the sources?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Not everyone buys the Inner Sea World Guide, JJ. I know it's the campaign setting book, but I'd say most of us experience the setting through playing in it. :P

Isn't that kind of a problem between you and your GM? He's your conduit to the history of Golarion.


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

I think you misunderstood both me and Kevin Mack, Bill Dunn. We're fine with unclarified mysteries. The problem is that Paizo is determined to have the One True Answer. It's actually not that big a problem, but it indicates a fundamental failure to understand what makes a great uncertainty.

We aren't complaining that there is mystery. We're complaining that Paizo acts like it has The Answer, when in truth, they don't. If they don't want to clarify their canon, that's fine, but they don't get to have their cake and eat it too.

Why do you think they don't have an answer? Basically, it's my understanding they've got one based on the original setting's conception and effectively redacted it for publication. That's a call for the GM to explore the idea and fill in the answer themselves, should they choose to do so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kevin Mack wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

James Jacobs has openly stated that Paizo "knows" the "true" answer, but will never share it, and that it's not guessable.

And thats the part I think they misshandled. You have an answer to a mystery your never going to reveal thats fine but dont tell everyone you have the answer and are never going to tell them it.

I think that depends on your psychology. To me, that's them telling me "Here are the keys. It's yours now. You decide how Aroden died for your Golarion."

But then, my other favorite campaign setting is Greyhawk, another campaign setting that sketches in a lot of framework but leaves a lot of definition up to the GM.


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

So far at Paizo they've consistently said they aren't going to reveal their answer to what killed Aroden. So I really don't think you'll have any trouble with invalidated canon. My recommendation is to decide for yourself and go with it.


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

There are probably quite a few issues at work here. In some cases, a bad idea comes from a bad impression of what's going on in the GM's brain. Miscommunication in RPGs is pretty common - if the players get a very different impression of what's going on compared to what's in the GM's head, you're going to see a lot of things come up that are really bad ideas.

But even if there is good agreement between what the GM thinks he's communicating and what the players are receiving, players may just want to try doing something fun - whether it's rationally a good idea or not. That's part of the point of RPGs - getting to do things that don't make sense in our real world (or at least would come with potentially crippling and life-destroying consequences).

And then there are some players who just don't get it. It may be they don't understand the style of the game or its genre conventions or something else. They are the ones who probably don't understand that their ideas are bad - like why a superhero packing a pistol is fairly pointless when her mystic blast power is going to be more effective almost all the time. Those are the ones you need to really educate and, if they continue to not get it, are probably never going to fit playing certain kinds of games.


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

I think one of the challenges is that we're translating a narrative medium into a game where the abilities of characters go from being vaguely defined and as useful as the narrative requires them to be to being defined in terms of utility and power and at the beck and call of the player rather than presented to the reader. That's an enormous leap to make cleanly and trade offs must occur. If we preserve the narrative power of magic, characters capable of using it have a lot of power to control the narrative, make shortcuts through or around problems, and so on. If we nerf it back too much in favor of balancing better with non-magical character, we lose a lot of magic's character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
cannen144 wrote:

Looks like I was wrong about Torag. This is what Mr. Jacobs had to say on the subject:

James Jacobs wrote:

I think that fits with the dwarven hatred ability quite well. I think that orcs, as presented in Pathfinder, are intended to be a bad guy race and have been for over 10,000 years. If they suddenly have a shift and become less about trying to murder all the time, it'd be a shock but at that point I suspect Torag would shift his position from "kill them all" to "negotiate peace but keep wary." But at the current time, that's not an option, and he's about protection and protecting his worshipers, and if that means wiping out the tide of evil orcs that have been trying for thousands of years to destroy those people, so be it.

Now of course this stance does cause some of the other good gods, particularly neutral and chaotic good gods, discomfort, and they do use the words genocide to talk about it, but I doubt Torag would. From his stance and the stance of the dwarven people, not killing out orcs will eventually result in their own race's genocide, so there's not really a choice.

It's certainly a complex issue, and it's one that gives a lawful good deity an interesting gray area to play with in a way that does NOT undermine the whole core concept of that deity. That's a tricky thing to pull off, and we've failed at it before, but I think we got it right with Torag.

I think an important point to make is that the orc/dwarf relationship is a trope of fantasy literature (specifically Tolkien-inspired fantasy). The relationship isn't meant to reflect a misunderstanding between cultures or simply fighting over resources - it's about a life and death struggle for survival, mainly for the constantly in decline dwarves. If that doesn't work for you in your version of Golarion or your campaign, I suggest you also tweak Torag's paladin code.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Threeshades wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


So don't add the invisibility modifier when it's not relevant, such as when there's no line of sight to the invisible character.

that's not the issue. The issue is that a character that is invisible gets +20 stealth, when a character that is completely obscured from sight, and therefor just as good as invisible, does not.

Either both should have +20 to stealth or neither.

That reasoning is based on a false equivalence - as well as other aspects of perception that are important to consider. There are already modifiers to perception checks for obstacles like closed doors and walls that would be more applicable than the invisibility modifier.

Then there's also the way visual stimuli affect how we interpret the world around us. What we see can substantially alter what the other senses think they're perceiving. That's one reason why I consider the invisibility modifier reasonable. Basically, the PC's in the same room with someone while his eyes tell him nothing's there, the rest of the senses will try to play along...


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

But ehats the in universe significance of nightcrawlers knowing the trade language of avistan? Does it have to do with the fact that rovagug is on golarion? I mean its not like rovagug is chilling out in taldor.

Didn't you originally mention that the languages the nightshades know may be based on the languages known by the first nightshade? If so, there's your answer. They know Common because the first ones created did. That "Common" language, for campaigns set in Avistan is Taldane.

Ultimately, Common, in D&D and Pathfinder, is a convenient way to enable PCs to communicate with a broad range of NPCs and intelligent monsters without having to resort to complex language rules. Don't sacrifice too many brain cells over it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Aaron Bitman wrote:


* Damage Reduction. In 3.0, you just needed a sword +1. In 3.5 and PFRPG, you need to carry a golf bag of weapons, like a silver weapon for lycanthropes, cold iron weapons for fey, and who knows what else.

I think both 3.0 and 3.5 versions of damage reduction were problematic. In 3.0, any material-based DR was overcome by a +1 weapon (like in AD&D) which makes them really weak forms of DR given the ubiquity of magic weapons. You almost might as well make everything DR #/+1 at that point. But worse was the issue of overcoming DR without the required + on your weapon. Making it a flat amount of damage ignored was a big step over AD&D's total invulnerability, but too many DR levels were set so high the effect might as well have been the same. If you don't have a +3 weapon, good luck doing 50+ hp of damage to that iron golem. It's probably about as invulnerable to you as it was in AD&D.

3.5 corrected that latter problem by setting the numbers much lower all around. Lacking the right weapon to get through DR is an annoyance, but it's not a virtually all or nothing prospect anymore. Trouble was, magic DR got so devalued there was relatively little point in investing in better than a +1 weapon - most people started going for the non-plus special feature enchantments like holy, bane, and elemental damage.

PF, as I see it, fairly nicely compromises between the two. Numbers are still fairly low and there are lots of types of DR, but there's a way for higher plus weapons to punch through other types of DR. And special material DRs aren't so devauled that every magic weapon punches through them, just significantly better ones.


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


Also when the two books were combined we lost over 100 pages of content, most of it from the Dungeon Masters Guide. The Dungeon Masters Guide was dense with material. I liked all the sidebars with discussions about how the game worked and suggestions for optional rules.

This is probably the biggest and worst loss from having the two books combined in one.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Treat Paizo as an Adventure-publishing-company that dabbles in rules, rather than a Game System Company that publishes adventures.

And considering RPGs like Pathfinder are refereed, cooperative games, that's generally enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Captain Kiani the Blue wrote:

I also think that the answer is "Yes", but if the Circlet really works this way, then it is one of the most OP items I've ever seen.

I think this has less to do with the item being OP and more to do with swapping stats being a problem.


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


In some ways, I miss the old 3.0 skill system. It would take forever to assign ranks but it gave so much flexibility. Every skill that is removed just further reduces players independence to make their characters as they want them.

Gotta disagree, at least partially, here. Consolidation of some skills, notably Spot/Listen/Search into Perception and Hide/Move Silently into Stealth, actually improves things because a player who wants to make a character good at stealth no longer needs to invest in two skills to do the job that should have been accomplished with one. And opposing it with only one skill (perception) actually makes the opposed rolls system functional. Otherwise, with two opposed checks involved, the chance a PC envisioned as "stealthy" was quite unlikely to actually function in that capacity with any success.


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

Not for every character, no. I don't see losing that first (partial) action due to surprise a huge problem either since, thanks to the range of the d20, it's quite possible to not get the first action anyway due to unlucky results on the initiative roll.

The way adventures are constructed, having someone in the party well-versed in perception is probably a must simply to deal with traps, secret doors, and other hidden goodies. But that applies to other skills as well, none of which absolutely need investment from every PC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
LucyG92 wrote:
So if you were picking a climate from a bestiary, would you go with any temperate/temperate hills/temperate plains?

That would generally fit the bill. Looking at the map, north of Korvosa is mostly plains to the Storval Plateau. Cross the river directly south and you get hills and then mountains. Any temperate, temperate hills, temperate plains, even coastal, all sound perfectly fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


Eh, personally I'm content with organizations, religious and otherwise, only teaching certain things to reasonably devoted members of said organizations. Gotta keep your trade secrets secret, don't you?

By all means try to keep your 'trade secrets.'

Claim ownership of them even though others might either steal them or develop them independently.

Just don't break the fourth wall and beg the GM / Game Developers to protect your 'trade secrets' for you.

I'm not aware that we're the ones doing the begging here. Seems like the game designers are on board with organizations keeping their secrets secret and you're on the side begging for those secrets to be out in the wind. And GMs don't need to beg for it because they can always dispense with that requirement should they so choose.


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

Or she might grant a "Glaive Aura" that lets the glaive be treated as a finesse weapon. (Or whatever else this feat does.)

Just like Desna could grant a Star-Knife aura that lets you use charisma to attack and damage with them.

And these would be super special auras that aren't affected by antimagic. :)

Eh, personally I'm content with organizations, religious and otherwise, only teaching certain things to reasonably devoted members of said organizations. Gotta keep your trade secrets secret, don't you?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Xathos 7 wrote:

The problem is that it is not clear. The wording in the text suggests that the feat is lost. Nowhere does it say what you want it to say. The wording of the introduction to the Zen Archer implies that it trades its training of the body as a weapon for the bow instead.

Now, I understand why the Zen Archer would retain IUS, but the description is not clear.

The secret to understanding these is to look at the Monk entry in the PF Core Rulebook under the heading Class Features. Each class feature starts with a title in bold typeface.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency
AC Bonus
Flurry of Blows
Unarmed Strike
Bonus Feat
Stunning Fist
Evasion

...and so on.

Unarmed Strike is a separate class feature from Bonus Feat because it falls under a separate title. Since the Zen Archer archetype makes no reference to the class feature titled Unarmed Strike, no change is made to that class feature.


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

Well, they can be separable. The problem with the D&D approach is that they've got them tied together, but theoretically separable.

Compare to something like Hero System, where the fluff is completely separate. You buy mechanical powers and you make up the special effects that go with them. And all the background about how you got them and everything else that goes with it.

D&D's some kind of weird hybrid when it comes to crunch and fluff.

Hero and Mutants and Masterminds are modeling the superhero genre and that fairly requires a lot of customizability (as well as undefined adjudication by the GM). But they're not really the standard when it comes to RPGs. They're the outliers. Other RPGs, from Traveller and Warhammer to Cyberpunk and Shadowrun, tend to follow a more D&D/PF-ish model of meeting fluff with crunch. Abilities are available through professions or archetypes and not necessarily available to everyone. Nomads and physical adepts don't get great netrunner or decker abilities. If you want to tote around a powerful gun (like a Plasma Gun Man-Portable or PGMP) in Traveller but aren't at the highest tech level, you're going to have to be in battledress powered armor - no exceptions. And retirees from the Marines don't get Scout-class ships when mustering out.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ranishe wrote:

Rules & setting fluff should be strictly separate. Just because it's the standard fighting technique of one faction to use a set of feats in no way means another cannot learn the same, especially as the rules are (or should be) an abstraction.

Absolutely not. One of the worst things to come down from the publishers of D&D was the sense that "fluff" and "crunch" were some kind of separate entities. These are RPGs, not board games. The "fluff" is as important as the "crunch".

That said, the setting-specific stuff is as reskinable as it has always been, which is to say, infinitely reskinable.


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

I like PFs options, I just wish it were more balanced. I wish a lady in plate with a broadsword and no magic could be as relevant as a 300 year old elf wizard dude. I wish I could make a shurikin-only build that was as relevant as said elf wizard. Or a defense focused character that wasn't irrelevant in a world of nuke tag.

PF has options. Most of them are bad.

The question is: relevant for what? An elf wizard may overshadow a woman in platemail with a sword and no magic in some situations, but they don't have to in others. And a campaign doesn't have to limit itself to the ones in which he does.


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


That left a bad taste in my mouth. Sure it was a legitimate course of actions for a person in a fantasy world to take, but it removed any sense of player agency from the proceedings. The NPC was vastly more powerful due to an item that we would never be allowed to use ourselves. Sometimes legitimate actions people in the game world could take aren't fun. Enemies could build traps that no Rogue could spot or disarm with a little bit of creativity- thereby removing any sense of agency from the player.

I'm really not sure I follow the logic here. How does the wizard breaking the staff remove any sense of player agency? Aren't the players the ones who drove him so hard that he took a last, bitter stab at them? Does failure to secure the juiciest piece of loot from the wizard's dead body remove player agency? That doesn't make sense.


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

This thread (and threads like it) makes me profoundly grateful for the group I play with now. I know most of you guys don't often browse the message boards but if, by chance, you're here, take a big heartfelt thank you*.

*This gratitude is in no way an indication of my softening as your GM. You will be crushed next session, this I vow, as I vow every session. For on your tears I live and in your howls of anguish I find solace.

And don't forget the post-TPK Jig of Triumph that you must perform upon the gaming table.


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


As for "book on the table" I NEVER have a such a thing when I'm running - its all on my laptop ready for review in .pdf form - players dont need to know what adventure they're going on - and most likely I've modified lots of stuff anyway.

I'm not entirely sure that's always a good idea. For example, I'm not going to run an Adventure Path for my player without them knowing which AP it is. Aside from the fact that I want them to read the Player's Guide, I want them buying into the general premise and making PCs reasonably appropriate to the AP. It's an effort to try to make sure the character really isn't a bad fit for he campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Goblin_Priest wrote:
Obsession over 18s and near 18 scores are the main reason people dislike point buy, and imo, it's an unhealthy obsession.

You might want to be careful about ascribing that sentiment too widely. There are quite a few reasons people might prefer rolling characters including:

1) You get to discover the PC as you roll rather than just building

2) Character classes often balance better against each other with rolled stats than point buy, particularly multiple attribute dependent classes compared to single attribute classes

3) It makes for a fun session 0 to generate PCs together, cheer each other's high rolls, jeer each other's poor rolls

4) Each stat is an independent variable without a high value mandating a dumped value elsewhere to pay for it, something that makes it easier to get a PC with quirky stat distributions that would show up as a major boost in point buy totals but will have a relatively small impact on actual character power


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

We've used 2 methods in the groups I play with:

1) Roll 4d6, drop lowest die. Do this 6 times then roll a 7th. You can either swap one of your first 6 for that 7th roll or trash them all and roll 6 times.

2) Roll 4d6, drop lowest die, in two sets of 6. Pick which set you prefer.

In both cases, players have been able to play the general PC they wanted. Nobody's felt short-changed on their stats. While optimization differences have come up between players though play and equipment choices, I can't recall any time in which stat disparities have been an issue.

1 to 50 of 778 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.