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

Cheapy's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 16,711 posts (17,001 including aliases). 21 reviews. 5 lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 12 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 16,711 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I hope for a Pathfinder 2.0. The underlying rules system it is based on has critical flaws in it and it has not held up well when critically examined compared to modern roleplaying systems. It's 15 years old, and it is really showing its age. We've had amazing innovations in RPG design the past decade during a rebirth of roleplaying games. And PF benefited very little from this.

Hopefully Unchained helps a lot, at least for me.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yea, it says wind environmental factors, without specifying mundane or magical. So it defaults to both.

Given the +2 price tag of it, I'd imagine the point of it is to allow the archer to get around the one hard counter they normally have.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The brawler's fists work in mysterious ways, and I am content with the mystery.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Which parts of unchained do you plan on incorporating into your games?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It sounds like the monk is being slightly, ah, untethered I believe the word is, from the monastic ties it used to have.

In which case it makes a lot of sense for Wisdom to be the one that goes, as high fortitude and reflexes kind of go with the whole "body is a weapon". thing.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The section on class design from the ACG basically states what TOZ just said too.

edit: not the spellcaster snark.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
By the way everyone, I want to advise/caution that while the posters who have their book here are being very gracious in answering all of your questions, they have had little time with the book as of yet, and they may not have answered correctly. In my own skimming, I have noticed two incorrect answers so far. So I guess what I'm saying is: take the answers with a grain of salt.

Black tentacles is actually a summoner cantrip, and the unchained rogue actually gets four times their Dexterity bonus to damage, right?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
donato wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
for things like sneak attack do you get just a single 1d6 of it or the full progression?
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

You want it for the sweet sweet lipstick color, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And one of those new Big Six shall be the folding boat, a seriously underrated piece of equipment that can be used in many situations.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If I recalled correctly, Hama is from Germany, and over there, "licorice" means the black stuff.

The nords love it. It's an acquired taste though.

You could also try Absinthe, which is flavored with black anise (oddly, that's the main flavor of licorice, not the licorice plant).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It tastes like if sin and bitter salt had a love child.

The red stuff is OK.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Any floozy with 2 skill ranks per level can get into assassin by 6th level.

You gotta train better and harder to get the faster killing ability.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I gotta say, even though he strong disliked one of my things, I'm really appreciative of the work Malwing has been doing the past few weeks. Thanks man!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You should check out this book.

It does a very good job of doing the pokemon master concept.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If the monster uses an attack that would be subjected to the -5 penalty for additional attacks due to base attack bonus, it will be precalculated into the stat block.

If the monster just uses natural attacks, they do not get additional attacks due to BAB, so the -5 penalty is not applied.

For example, the bulette. It gets 3 attacks, but they are all natural attacks, so the -5 thing doesn't apply.

In almost all cases, just use the attack bonuses listed, the statblocks will precompute everything for you that are a part of the standard attack routine for the creature.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If the team doesn't know that the rules don't match the intention, how would they change it to match what it was meant to be?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yea, this question originally came from the Vestigial Arm / Tentacle fiasco.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
graystone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
graystone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
After reading Sean's comment I do agree that this needs to be FAQ'd, actually erata'd, because the book does not support the intent of the design team, and I dont know of anyone that follows it. And a rule that nobody knows about, is not really much of a rule.
It should also be noted that that comment was from 2012 so some time has passed since then.
But there has been no rule change, and he said he was speaking for the PDT from what I understood. Even if he was speaking only as SKR I would like to assume he understood the rules of a meeting he was a part of.
Time has passed and the team has changed. The understanding of that previous group may not match the current thinking of the new group. For all I know, SKR may have been the main driver of how that old understanding came about and fresh eyes may have pushed the understanding in a new direction. I don't think it's safe to assume that the team's thought are unchanging.

So then it's a good idea to FAQ this so we can see what the intent actually is :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've been summoned!

I'm generally not a huge fan of archetypes that just take X features from Y class and give them to class Z, but this is kind of an interesting take. The text needs a lot more massaging if it'd ever be fit for release, but since I'm guessing it'll just be a homebrew thing that is used in your campaign, it's obvious enough how things should be interpreted. For example, investigators don't have spells, and they aren't arcane or divine. They do get drug-- extracts though.

It is giving up at least 1 fairly useful ability, but in return grants them a very versatile feature set, and the familiar is very, very nice. Part of me feels that someone who wanted to focus on versatility wouldn't have been focusing on the combat abilities anyways, but I think this shouldn't be held against the swap.

Not granting the ability to take Extra Hex was very smart.

I find the flavor of the class to be a bit at odds with the mechanics. Given the flavor of facing inner demons, I would've expected it to be somewhat related to the Occult Adventures classes rather than the Shaman. For instance, I'm not certain why studying inwards would let them blast people with fire and require them to meditate with an actual external creature to get their features.

The use of Int for some of the received class abilities but not others seems fairly deliberate, and also not a bad idea. The tricky part with classes that gain versatility is that at some level the versatility needs to be restricted, and I think you did a decent job of that here.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Right, but if I recall correctly, it sounded like Jason had a different idea of how it worked, and the text wasn't entirely clear on that.

Hence the FAQ request.


24 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hey all!

A few years ago, I asked the following question, and after some FAQ clickage, it was marked as answered in the FAQ. Except, I don't see it in the FAQ. The question was born from questions about the tentacle discovery of the alchemist, and there is this FAQ, but it doesn't answer the main question I had, and one that comes up often enough. So, I am reposting the question and asking that others click the FAQ button. The main question is posted below, with some edits to make it less reliant on temporal context.

How do natural attacks an unarmed attacks interact for purposes of number of attacks per round?

We see Sean here trying to explain how this works.

Quote:

And yes, the rules say that if you're using a manufactured weapon or unarmed strikes, you CAN use them in conjunction with natural attacks, "so long as a different limb is used for each attack."

The intent of that was to allow you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary claw attack with your other hand, or to let you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth, or to let you wield a 2H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth.

The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.

(Emphasis his)

There are more posts in there going over it, but that's the main one.

The questions I have boil down to:

Does using natural attacks use up potential unarmed strikes? Can you make full attack with natural attacks and then use unarmed strikes in the same round? If so, under what circumstances? (Is it fine if you use tail whips as your natural attacks, but not fine if you use claw attacks?)

I think this would be a fine candidate for a new FAQ entry, as it seems to rely on an understanding most of us don't have, similar to the THF / TWF issue that came up in the past.

So, most wonderful and level-headed of people, please hit the FAQ button here so that perhaps we can finally lay this one to rest.

Cheers!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree that this is a frequently asked question.

I think the answer will be that it adheres to reality for the former question, and for the second question, that they will apply for weapons that are intended to be used in melee or thrown, unless it does not make sense. For weapons that are not meant to be thrown (Greatswords, etc), I do not think they will apply, as the feats etc represent special training with said weapon, and that doesn't usually include throwing giant swords at people.

Usually.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

mechaPoet hit the nail on the head. Inquisitors get it due to Van Helsing.

Bolt Ace doesn't because of oversight.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am well aware of the difference you mentioned, and I addressed it in my second sentence.

I do suspect however that the average sorcerer is closer to the experiences I've seen in that game than one that minmaxes and utilizes those items. Given that the question is one about how common things are, and that's really just asking about averages, I find it quite relevant.

The 9th level casters in general have a huge skill ceiling, but I suspect that, once you step outside the forums and move away from PFS (whose optimization bent is well known), things are very, very different from the how the forums represent them.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We have a 13th level party where there are 2 sorcerers and a druid, and we usually don't have the spells needed to overcome a problem. Granted, the sorcerers are more focused on specific RP aspects rather than intentionally trying to be as general as possible so they can be relevant to a wide range of situations.

What we do have is some obscene martial might, and that ends to solve a lot of combat related problems, with skills and roleplaying solving most others.

I'm going to be bringing in a Shaman soon, and I am interested in seeing how problem solving changes with that class in the mix.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The game needs Knowledge: Culinary so you can tell which food preparation style any given cook you encounter in the wild is using.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Ivory Tower model is entirely about the intention to let players themselves "level up" in system mastery. Adding certain options intended for NPCs does not fall into this, and plus the only time I can recall Paizo saying a rules element was meant for NPCs as opposed to the PCs was a case where the rules element was much stronger than other similar options (Strix race). I'd be interested in seeing the other cases, at the very least so I can add them to a list :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You will probably be better off with a system built with these things in mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Design paradigm of 3.0 that PF has moved / is moving away from. It's based on the idea of system mastery, and as you get better you are able to better find the intentionally bad aspects of the system and avoid them, so you as a player get better at it.

The main problem with it from PF's perspective is that things that weren't intended to be bad can be seen as bad, and people will assume that it's intentional.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, if that's a problem, I guess that means we found all the serious issues already :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Uhhhh, chatroom? You're supposed to come back to life on the 3rd day, not go down to a bot attack.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's more-so that any system that allows players to pick and choose their traits fully will have balance issues when placed in a system that has semi-rigid capabilities, like PF. "Pick everything, including natural attacks" is far, far away from "Pick rage powers, here's the barbarian framework."

Also, they kind of screwed up a few times, like releasing the wrong spell list and not restricting number of attacks for natural AND manufactured combined, as was intended.

ANYHOW, this 3pp book has an ooze base form. I'm personally using the Hut base from there to basically create a living crystal mech that my gnome summoner pilots, but don't have an experience with the ooze base form.

In non-3pp land, you could make this with a quadruped base form. Just make the legs really low to the ground. Like, really low to the ground. Covered in a blobbyness.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also, haste as a level 2 spell.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Do you guys take bets before blog posts on what the responses will probably be?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Welcome, Amanda!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've seen many characters make great use of Combat Expertise to save their bacon in combat, especially low level combat.

The hate given towards the feat seems a bit irrational, but it's just the flavor of the month at this point. I'm sure it'll be back to monks once Unleashed is released.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I had kept the tab open over night.

The last thing I saw was Treppa emoting "Treppa needs to find a way to off Karelzarath :plot:".

I don't think it was Oladon this time, boys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Huh, I just realized that 2 years ago at PaizoCon, when asked what was the #1 thing they'd like to do if they got to re-do something in PF, Jason Bulmahn answered "Oh god, re-doing the monk would be my top thing." to which Stephen agreed enthusiastically, and Sean just grinned.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ryan, I had similar thoughts. Doesn't hurt to get the ACG classes list done soon, but I think a release could wait for the new classes to come out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Question: are there plans to release spell lists for the new ACG classes that get their own spell lists? Or is it left at "ask your GM"?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Wow! Nice review! Congratulations Ssalarn!
Thank you! I was obviously really excited to get such amazingly positive feedback. I'm actually working on Volume 2 now, with additional feats, archetypes, and more!

Remember that for those archetypes, they shouldn't trade out bravery!


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Incidentally, this continued meme of how PFS ruined it forever is why I wouldn't be surprised at the lack of explanations of further big changes.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Azten wrote:
Wasn't that the archetype that didn't have the paragraph or something missing that made it so it didn't work?

It worked, just that the archetype referenced an ability that was cut. Based on some pre-errata information released by the PDT, it is getting an ability back with the same name.

Strumbleduck hit the nail on the head though. The cleric spell list is in many ways focused on self buffs for combat ability and reactive spells. A priest type caster will require either: more offensive focused spells (domain selection will help with this to some extent, if you have an archetype that allows you to prep the spells in non-domain slots) or something to do between the rounds.

It's a similar problem to a caster bard: the class is built around the idea of buffing yourself (and your allies) to be able to kick butts. But if you take the class and make a caster character, you'll run into the issue that you don't actually have decent enough spells to fill in most rounds (although, this was a much larger problem during the APG days. It might actually be fine now).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'll be there!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The idea that a company would use that as a design principle.

I mean seriously, do these people believe that Jason Bulmahn was tortured as a child by a fighter in spiked armor, and from that very moment he set out to be a game designer so that he could take away all the nice things of martials? That a company has an agenda to take away all the "nice things" from the the very game they made as a way to deny joy?

It's mind-boggling. And that's not even getting into the fact that most of these things are just absurdly overpowered by any metric in a game where the gap between martial prowess and spellcasting might is so much smaller than in previous editions.

Rant off.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hmm, etymology online says the origin is unknown.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"Martials can't have nice things."

The mental gymnastics necessary to hold this view are downright dizzying and would even get a 10 from a Russian Olympic judge.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It was too good in 3.5, so it was nerfed in PF during the conversion.

That's the reason.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hey,

How is this similar to the Shadow Assassin or Shadow Warrior from Rogue Genius? How is it different?

Do they have a main class ability? Are they a 6th level caster?

The shadowy-type character is one of my favorite archetypes, so I'm quite interested.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Seginus,

Sent a question over to ya on the announcement thread.

1 to 50 of 16,711 << 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.