|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
While I wasn't completely wild about the implementation, Weapons of Legacy did do a very nice job of giving you unique and interesting magic items, and averting the usual problem of trading out your gear for highers plusses every few levels.
Yeah, about the only recent opportunities I've had to play non-pathfinder RPGs was by having a tabletop wargaming group (40k and Warmachine) who were willing to try out the RPG rulesets for those franchises.
Personally, I've always been a bit wary of any GM that's prone to saying "Well it's not in the rules, but it makes sense that..." on a frequent basis. Mostly because I've played with a couple GMs whose ideas of what did and didn't 'make sense' were rather ... unique.
The other big problem with it is that it can quickly reduce Pathfinder to a game of "Mother May I?" While sticking close to the RAW can prove just problematic and nonsensical, it is at least consistently nonsensical. When it's all down to what the GM thinks makes sense, it's pretty easy to end up in a place where the players have no idea how the rules work.
Yeah, when it comes to setting up/finding any kind of gaming, how popular the system is will be a big factor. It's a lot easier to find a game of/find players for Pathfinder than it is for other less known gaming systems.
I think you're mistaking what an elemental is. It's made up of water as it's being; it's not a continuous fountain that produces water. If it left everything wet, it would slowly (or quickly depending on the amounts left) be killing itself. It doesn't leave it's body parts on other things any more than anything else does. So unless that druid in human form is leaving his flesh everywhere every time he touches something, I don't know why you're assuming he would in elemental form...
Well, technically speaking people do leave skin cells pretty much everywhere they go. It's just in such minute amounts that it's insignificant. Leaving a trail of puddles and mud, on the other hand, would have an impact pretty quickly unless the elemental was replenishing its lost mass just as fast.
Some Other Guy wrote:
Eh, I wouldn't say Aasimar are too overpowered. Humans getting a bonus feat ranges from slightly worse to slightly better than getting +2 to a stat. They also essentially have +2 to Intelligence for non-Intelligence based classes from the extra skill point. Resistances are nice, but I don't feel they are good enough to make much of a difference. Darkvision on the other hand, is a great boon.
Aasimar resistances are also a bonus that tapers off in usefulness as you level. Five points of resistance is great at level 1, but by level 10 you're hitting the point of "I took 45 points of damage from the lightning bolt instead of 50. Yay."
In general, how valid a source someone considers a non-Paizo source tends to be directly linked to whether it supports or undermines their claims. If HeroLab is on your side, then it's totally a valid source, and if pfsrd undermines you it's invalid even when it's directly quoting the paizo rules.
Personally, I would take it as proof that Dual Talent is a very bad value as a trade-off.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I'm a Greyhawk die-hard (wait, is that how they got "grognard"? It sounds kind of similar)
Nah, the term has its origins in the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon's oldest veteran Imperial Guard were known as "Les grognards" (the grumblers) because their status as respected veterans meant they could get away with complaining about things, when normal recruits would be punished for having poor morale.
The initial post gave the impression that the player in question was beyond reason. Thomas's next conversation with the guy showed that that impression was flawed, which is great! I dunno why others are still harping on him, though.
Probably because not everyone caught the followup post/bothered to read beyond the OP before responding.
That said, I'd imagine part of the reason for the strong negative reaction is that we've all had to deal with That Guy at some point, and it's always an incredibly frustrating experience. Thankfully, Thomas' issue wasn't that bad.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
One of the most common complaints I see brought up with the magus is that Dervish Dancing Shocking Grasp magi are so ubiquitous.
James Risner wrote:
Not to mention that, if you do end up taking the matter further up the chain, you provide their reasoning in their own written-down words instead of what you remember from the conversation.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Well, neutral acts are always a bit of a tricky issue, because the vast majority of day-to-day actions are going to be neutral. You rushed your teeth, got dressed, went out to buy food, then cooked dinner. Along the way to the store you helped one beggar and one orphan. That's four neutral acts to two good ones. Paladin FALLS!
I see that post chain got deleted. This is edited as a result. Which, really? What I posted was moderation worthy? The f*~@... Later Paizo.
Apparently because of the way the board works, when the mods delete a post it also deletes any replies to that post, and posts that are a reply to replies to that post, ans so on. So often a lot of inoffensive or even constructive posts get caught in the crossfire.
Well, since you're asking about a homebrewed class the poster already provided a link to...
It seems to be a consequence of the (IMO flawed) policy of only issuing errata in time with new printings of the books. So when rules issues that could easily be fixed by a quick and simple errata show up, sometimes you get messy attempts to address the issue without actually changing the written text, even though it requires making things a lot more complicated than necessary.
Yeah, any time builds start coming out it in class comparison discussion, it quickly derails into a big long debate on every single petty detail of the builds in question instead of the original topic.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Rhe Anti-Paladin code being more flexible does fit rather nicely with the fact that Anti-Paladins are not just evil, but Chaotic Evil. Chaotic alignments generally aren't into ironclad, inflexible codes.
That was my entire point. That was what my initial post you responded to was entirely about. Paladins have less options for character/personality.
I'm not sure what your point was.
Justin Sane wrote:
I'm playing a Paladin. He's not The Paragon, so... Am I doing anything wrong?
Only if you're not having fun.
Because it's still less options than if neither restriction were present.
You completely missed my point.
Paladins can only be The Paragon, as far as character concepts go. Any other class can also be The Paragon, but they also have the option of filling any other characterization niche. One alignment + a strict code of conduct means less options than any alignment with no code at all. It's basic logic.
Disclaimer, since apparently it needs to be said: There's nothing wrong with being a paladin and locked into the Lawful Good and Code-Obeying role, if that's what you want to play.
And the inevitable "PFSRD not official so it doesn't count" remark would be why I gave the page number in the CRB.
The same text (Modified for appropriate classes) is present for the Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiency feats as well. Page 118 of the CRB (5th printing, if that matters).
Looks like another case a ruling being made without fully considering the RAW implications, and dropping a huge general rule to fix a narrow specific problem. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just say "No, Fighters may not swap out proficiency feats" than to change how all armor proficiency works for all classes?
All that said, it's all but certain that RAI is that if you're proficient in light armor from class abilities, you qualify for anything that requires light armor proficiency as a prerequisite.
I don't see where optimization enters into what he said at all, unless we're going DrDeth style and assuming that anyone who says anything we don't like is obviously a dirty optimizer theorycrafter, because only dirty optimizer theorycrafters ever disagree with what we say.
Paladins are a lot more limited in theme and concept than most classes. There's still room to exercise some creativity, but unless you house-rule things every paladin is bound to a single alignment and a very strict code of conduct. "Paragon of Virtue Holy Warrior Who Must Always be 100% Good" is a much narrower niche to work with creatively than "Sneaky Guy," "Sword Guy," or "Spell Guy."
The only thing that is really the same is that they are good and orderly, but most heroes are good and somewhat orderly anyway.
With how much everyone loves playing anti-heroes, lone wanderers who care not for the laws of men, Or characters who are capable of compromising their principles when they need to? If you think the vast majority of PCs are Lawful Good, we must have some very different gaming experiences.
Indentured servitude (even if called slavery) probably isn't inherently Evil at all, though certain uses of the practice certainly could be.
Yeah, at baseline indentured servitude is really just a labor contract. "I will work for you for X years in exchange for..." Pretty standard stuff.
The problems tended to stem from things that were pretty similar to what happened to wage-slaves. Bond-holders would come up with nasty tricks to keep extending the indenture term, or use people who were near the end of their term as expendable labor to be worked to death. It's not so much that the system itself was inherently evil as it was that the system was easily abused without some kind of oversight.
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
If you have a system of objective morality, as Pathfinder and D&D do, the societies and institutions that promote slavery and serfdom have to be considered evil.
That's falling into the old alignment trap of looking at a single action is isolation to determine a character's (or in this case, society's) alignment. Slavery is evil, but it is not the only factor in whether a society as a whole is good or evil. It's as ridiculous as saying that a character is good-aligned because they don't randomly murder orphans.
I think one of the summoner's other issues is that it's very easy to optimize one since most of the best options for a melee eidolon are pretty self-evident. Give it lots of hard-hitting attacks, make it big and strong, pump its armor. Very simple, and very powerful.
Plus, as other people have mentioned, the class can get a bit complicated and easily bog down the game if the player doesn't have all the rules straight. Combine that with easy to optimize, and you have a class that can really mess up games unless everyone at the table has good system mastery and planning skills. Otherwise, you end up with a character whose way more powerful than the rest of the party, and whose combat actions eat up a ton of table time. Bad combination.
Ascalaphus is correct again. When we view as slavery based on the last couple of hundred years is not necessarily the same as slavery in Ancient Greece or Rome.
Yeah, a lot of people tend to assume all slavery is like 19th century American chattel slavery. Probably because it's the most recent and well-known example.
Kadasbrass Loreweaver wrote:
I wouldn't say that slavery was evil by itself in the ancient world, otherwise good alignment communities would not exist. But there are a different degree of slavery and how slaves are treated. For the ancient Greeks, slaves were a requirement for having a caste of free citizens as only by having slaves could a small portion of the population afford to devote the time for education that a stable democratic state requires to exist.
I think it's fair to say that whether or not a society practices slavery is not the only factor in whether one should consider it evil.
Not to mention there could be other factors involved, like the group getting filled up/new GM wants a smaller party.
Sir Thugsalot wrote:
*Checks the entry* Well that's what I get for working off memory.
Not to mention that Socrates was just plain old for his era, given that he was in his seventies. Exile isn't easy for a young man, let alone one Socrates' age.
Also, since most spell resistance items grant SR at a fixed number, they don't scale very well as levels increase.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I've practiced in real life sheathing a sword specifically for the purpose of not looking clumsy when I do so. The fastest I ever got was about two seconds, and that was with a free hand and no one attacking me!
That's cool. What level Samurai are you? Do you already have the Quick Draw feat? How big is your resolve pool, and how many challenges do you have per day? How many years did you dedicate to training before you leveled up for the first time? How often have you used your sword against Orcs and dragons?
Heroic fantasy characters should not be limited to what real-world non-adventuring amateurs can do.
Sir Thugsalot wrote:
Well, there is the fact that swapping hats mid-combat is probably hard on action economy. Plus Fortification works on sneak attack as well as critical hits.
When in doubt on Barbarian feats, you can almost always find something nice to take with Extra Rage Power. Witch hunter ans spell sunder are both popular choices for a build that already has superstition.
There also the usual filler-feats like like Toughness, a save booster, Weapon Focus or improved initiative.
Matthew Downie wrote:
That is one of the reasons knowledge skills are handy. It removes the metagaming dilemma by having a clear way for the characters to know the relevant facts.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Houserule it if you want. You could tie this into the campaign -- Asmodeus is secretly becoming more LN than LE, and having a select few LN clerics able to channel positive is a reflection of this. Reasons? Whatever you can think of. Maybe he feels guilty about killing his brother (Ihys).
Maybe it's a reflection of Asmodeus' Pragmatic Evil tendencies? Channeling positive energy is more useful than negative, so...
Mark Seifter wrote:
Guys, as you can see from where Joe quoted me above, the point of the FAQ is not only to clarify but also in some cases to sort "ready an action for errata" if you will. Official errata can't appear unless there is a reprint. That's a rule that comes from higher than us. But sometimes, a book takes 3 years to sell out or never sells out. And so it can be helpful to have an FAQ in the meantime.
This actually makes me rather curious about where the rules comes from and why it exists.
Joe M. wrote:
@Chengar: you might enjoy the recently announced Pathfinder Unchained.
Intriguing. Details/relevant link?
Joe M. wrote:
Or is it just a labeling complaint? Would you be happier if they tagged these "FAQ" entries as "pending errata," or consistently apply the "this change will be reflected in the next printing of X" language?
I think it's mostly a matter of semantics, yeah. Technically speaking, an FAQ should be for clarifying rules, not making outright changes to the written text. Also, while it's not an issue with this one, some of the previous stealth-errata FAQs, most infamously the Free Action one, broke the game in an effort to avoid changing any written rules text.
There's also the fact that a lot of people think tying the issuing of errata to prints runs of the books is a bit outdated in the digital age.
It's not a shock that Paizo tends to be very conservative in its design decisions, given that company owes much of its origins and initial customer base to hatred of the changes introduced in 4th edition. Starting Pathfinder off with the mantra of "Change is Bad, Stick to the Old Ways!" does not encourage making major breaks from the established dynamics.
Paizo's heavier focus on APs and Modules has also lent itself to much more conservative designs, since Paizo wants to keep their adventures as accessible as possible. Anything that breaks from the basic paradigms of the CRB would make adventure-writing a lot harder, ergo Paizo doesn't break the mold. Not to mention it affects a lot of their mechanical thought process; Crane Wing probably never would have been nerfed if not for it's ability to wreck a lot of unmodified published material.
Much as I like the ACG classes, it's rather telling that they're all just hybrids of existing classes with a couple tweaks. While Paizo has added a lot of fun stuff to the game over the years, there hasn't been much in the way of real innovation beyond the micro-scale. New archetypes for existing classes that usually push them into a specific narrow role. New classes that largely combine existing mechanics, albeit in new ways.
Interesting variations on what already exists can only go so far. Eventually I would like to see something that's just completely new, instead of stuff like "Oh, now we have an arcane equivalent to the Paladin/Ranger niche of full BAB and 4-level casting, and a spontaneous caster using the druid list."
Yeah, as I noted up-thread the PDT has a bad habit of making broad, sweeping changes to address narrow, specific problems.
My main point of annoyance with the FAQ (other than it being an obvious stealth-errata) is that it seems like a very broad change to a very specific problem, which has been a frequent problem with the PDT. If Paragon Surge's interaction with the Expanded Arcana feat was a problem change that specifically, not the entire spell.
That said, I think the change keeps it useful enough as a once-a-day "I really wish I had this spell" option. Very nice to have, but not so overwhelmingly powerful that it makes creates a huge gap between Paragon Surge Oracles/Sorcerers and ones who couldn't use the spell.
Bluff vs. Sense Motive is probably the best time to use secret rolls, since it's hard not to metagame that to some extent. Even a player who's trying to avoid metagaming could easily fall into the trap of overcompensating and going too far the other way. I would say rolling in the open should be the general rule, but like any general rule there will be exceptions to it when there's a good reason.
Of course, like you said, there's a a solid foundation of trust between you and your players. That doesn't seem to be the case for the OP's game.
On a side note, I quite agree with your philosophy on character death. Always giving them an option for survival, but with some kind of story consequences is a lot more fun than just telling them to roll up a new character. "Jim the Wizard survives, but now a demon has a claim on his soul" can be a lot more fun than "Jim the Wizard dies, and is replaced by Bob the Sorcerer."
I would lean towards them not making the natural weapons secondary, so long as he's not making any attack rolls with them as a manufactured weapon.
I think when it comes to handling animals, "Nature, red in tooth and claw" is a perfectly valid way to play it for a druid of the appropriate alignment. Obviously a neutral good druid is going to shy away from that sort of cold brutality in favor of something nicer and more nurturing, but it seems like a valid way to play a neutral druid, and downright fitting for an evil one.
Granted, a neutral druid would probably at least show some respect for the companion's sacrifice, and even an evil one probably shouldn't give pointlessly suicidal orders (if only because it's needlessly wasteful and inefficient). I could certainly see a non-good Druid ordering an animal companion to buy them time to escape: leaving someone behind to buy the others time to escape is a fairly standard tactic, and the animal is usually the most expendable member of the group. It's the kind of pragmatic logic I would expect from a neutral character.
Definitely have to second this point. If trust between the GM and player is already shaky, hiding rolls is likely to just make things worse. Any time the rolls go against the player, they'll wonder if the GM is singling them out.
If the monster rolls an 18, 19, and 20 on three saving throws in a row against the same PC, but all those rolls are out in the open, everyone will laugh about how lucky the monster is and/or how the player has offended the Random Number God. If all those rolls are done behind the screen, the player might well be suspicious about the monster always saving against his abilities.
Also, taking away relevant information from the players makes it that much harder for them to make tactical decisions. It's hard to make an informed decision about using power attack, combat expertise, dazing assault, or any other feat that hurts your to-hit chance when you don't know how easy/hard it would be to hit the monster.
To some extent, figuring out the math behind enemy stats is inevitable. If a 16 to-hit misses, but a 17 hits, it's not hard to guess what the bad guy's AC is. Hiding as many rolls as possible only delays the process, and has the risk of making things feel a lot more arbitrary when the random number god decides to show some favor or disfavor.
From an in-universe PoV, it's also not unreasonable that the characters gain some idea of their opponent's capabilities as the battle continues. AC is just an abstraction, but a character could certainly work out things like "It's really hard to hit this guy, we need to aim our swings more carefully (not use power attack) and try to flank him so he'll have a harder time dodging (get a flanking bonus)."
Soulknife and Aegis are good classes for GMs/groups that are interested in psionics, but don't have a solid grasp of the rules yet. They're still psionic classes, but they don't draw nearly as heavily on all the psionics rules, so you won't get completely swamped with new mechanics to learn.