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

Chengar Qordath's page

1,998 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,998 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
... I know I've been told before, but I'm sick, so... "water balloons"?

It was one of SKR's more infamous comments. He essentially said people wanting rule support for slings beyond being a s#%+ty bow were pretty much asking for a functional "water balloon" fighting style and Paizo didn't have time to deal with their insane crackpot demands. All delivered with the condescension such a statement implies.

In retrospect I don't know if it was as vicious as I remember it, but I really don't care enough to look it up. Aw, yeah, screw checking sources!

Ninja'd: Okay, good to know I was pretty much remembering it right.

It is worth noting that after leaving Paizo, SKR threw up a blog-post about his new project where he more-or-less admitted that he was wrong about the whole water balloons thing.

Anyway, back to slings: anyone else want to comment on the issue one-handed reloads when using Ammo Drop/Juggle Load? Given that being able to use them with a shield is an advantage a couple people in the thread have touted, I would like to know if that's something that you can actually do while full attacking.

Pan wrote:
Published adventures. I think it was a combo of not coming up with it myself and fear of going off the page. Once I realized I could use published adventures as an outline and make it my own way I got over it.

Have to second that. Early on in my 3.5 GMing days I always thought published adventures were for GMs who were too lazy to come up with their own material. Then I bought a Pathfinder AP and realized that using it would save me a ton of time.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyrus Lanthier wrote:
Also, can you Ammo Drop and/or Juggle Load a Halfling Sling Staff? Because that thing is one handed, deals Longbow damage (and critical multiplier), and, if these feats are compatible with it, it can be used to full effect with a shield... I know that the Halfling trait doesn't work with the Sling Staff, but do these feats?

Nope, Ammo Drop and Juggle Load specify that they only work with basic slings and the double sling. Because of course halfling racial weapons aren't compatible with halfling racial traits or feats from a halfling-themed supplement. That would be crazy.

Though if the sling staff could get free action reloads, that would go a fair ways towards making slings competitive with bows. They'd still be worse at damage if only due to lack of Manyshot and the two-feat tax for reloads, but the gap would be a bit narrower.

Also, one potential issue I noted with Ammo Drop/Juggle Load, they might not give free action reloading with one hand. Ammo Drop lets you reload one-handed as a swift action, but Juggle Load only changes your standard reload time, with no mention of handedness. It's ambiguous enough that a GM might rule that you can reload with two hands as a free action, or one hand as a swift.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I kind of get the sense that Diabolism, like a lot of other political philosophies, comes in multiple flavors. After all, within the Hellknights themselves you have some orders that are iron-fisted oppressors, and other Orders with Lawful Good folks in leadership positions and paladins within the ranks. It seems reasonable to suggest that there are similar splits outside the order: some Diabolists are big believers in absolute order and organization and just see hell as a model to emulate, while others are just outright serving Asmodeus.
This nuanced approach seems to take into account the conflicting accounts of diabolism and Chelaxian/Isgerian religious life.

Not to mention seeming a lot more realistic than having everyone in Cheliax walking in lock-step total agreement on how the government and society ought to run. I'm reminded of the early USSR, where all the leaders were certain they were communists, yet argued a great deal over what exactly communism was and were very sure that their opponents were not true communists.

meeko wrote:

Crossposting this here. l_trait_warslinger_vs_the/

That's already been FAQed.

Rerednaw wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Rerednaw wrote:

Slings are not bad in reality.

Slings are not bad in Pathfinder either.
The pros have been pointed out.

Now in terms of Pathfinder mechanics they are inferior only because the game system makes them that way. But even with that slings still have a niche as other folks have pointed out.

There's nothing stopping you from making a house rule that grants sling a free action to reload, have it work with the archery feat lines (manyshot, clustered shots) and so forth.

Heck, just say "it works that way" and call it a sling shot.

If you have to houserule it to make it good, it's probably bad.

Exactly. You don't have to house-rule it to make the sling good.

You certainly could house-rule it if you want to keep up with min-maxing/optimization though if that is how someone defines "good".

I'm curious: since you conceded that slings are mechanically inferior to longbows in every way, then what exactly makes them "good?" Because so far, it seems like the only niche the occupy is "Your character can't have a composite longbow, but still needs a ranged weapon."

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
And how does a conservative reading--that is one which attempts to limit assumptions and caveats--of the US constitution take "All men were created equal" to suddenly include "Oh, except these following ethnic, social and religious groups"?
The same way that it allows for slavery, not letting women vote, Jim Crow laws, and the Japanese Concentration camps -- by ignoring that other people are human and the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Plus the fact that "All men are created equal" isn't in the Constitution in the first place. That's from the Declaration of Independence, which isn't a legal document.

Anyway, back on topic:

UnArcaneElection wrote:
From reading various articles about Golarion, I get a strong impression that contrary to the article on Diabolism (which is mostly sourced from documents published by Paizo in 2008/2009, and which conflicts somewhat with its own sidebar, which lists "Promoting Hell" as the main goal of Diabolism), what you describe sounds more like Hellknight ideology. Diabolism in Golarion (at least as practiced in Cheliax and its vicinity) does seem to be worship of Hell and Devils (Asmodeus and/or otherwise). The two philosophies have a lot of overlap but apparently do not always see eye-to-eye (after all, the Hellknight initiation rite prominently features single-handly killing a Devil, and Diabolists must be non-Good, whereas Good people can get drawn into the Hellknights with enough delay before becoming non-Good that they can do stuff and be legitimately reported as being still Good in the meantime). Diabolists are more concerned with enforcing exploitation, whereas Hellknights are more concerned with enforcing order; each is no slouch in the other's department, but it seems that Diabolists would consider it heretical to enforce fairness to any extent needed beyond the minimum required to maintain order, whereas Hellknights would be on the average more tolerant of the idea of enforcing fairness as long as it does not interfere with enforcing order. (The Hellknights that honestly believe that they can enforce fairness under a system organized like Hell are presumably the ones that are Lawful Good. In the long run, this isn't going to work out, but Hell can wait. In contrast, Diabolists really have to be committed to Hell itself.)

I kind of get the sense that Diabolism, like a lot of other political philosophies, comes in multiple flavors. After all, within the Hellknights themselves you have some orders that are iron-fisted oppressors, and other Orders with Lawful Good folks in leadership positions and paladins within the ranks. It seems reasonable to suggest that there are similar splits outside the order: some Diabolists are big believers in absolute order and organization and just see hell as a model to emulate, while others are just outright serving Asmodeus.

Have to agree with the other critiques. It's a one-trick-pony build that takes two sounds of setup, and everything has to line up perfectly for it to actually use its one trick. Not to mention the massive amount of feats it takes.

To toss out another potential issue with the build, using kirin style reliably means putting five skill points/level into knowledge skills to ensure you can ID your opponents. DC 15 + CR isn't an easy check to make, especially since only one of the five monster-IDing skills is in-class for a Fighter. You also need a good Intimidate to use Dazzling Display (which will be hurt by your dumped charisma). So that puts the absolute bare minimum at 6 skill points/level. And that would mean skimping out on other must-have skills like perception...

Granted, a human with Int investment and an int headband will let you fill in the needed skills, but that means a lot of resources that aren't going into other places. A +4 will save at level 12 is not going to be fun.

wraithstrike wrote:
I think that it was a case of "this sounds cooler than it is in play". They still won the the fights, but they came close to running away or dying during a few boss fights. I think they were used to having their way with the bad guys. I did not figure this out until I heard stories of how their previous GM handed wealth out like it was candy(artifacts at level 5, and things like that).

Have to agree about that. Lots of players seem to like the idea of playing in a hard-core no-holds-barred campaign more than they like having their characters killed off by bad rolls/tactical errors.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
I wonder if allowing the use of composite longbows (but not regular longbows) when mounted is an editing mistake that got into the Core Rulebook and never got Errata'd?

Not too likely, it's in the 3.5 PHB as well.

Not to mention that a 3.5 rogue is probably not going to have all that many levels in the actual rogue class, since you'd be hopping into prestige classes by level five or so.

Edit: Just googled a 3.5 optimization handbook to see what it said, and ... yeah. Most of the suggested builds have all of 3-5 rogue levels before they start jumping into other classes, and a couple only have 1 rogue level.

Skeld wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Before you kick him out, ask the other players. Gauge their feelings.

Then kick him out.

I've had to do this before and this is exactly the route I took. I had lunch with each of my players one-on-one over the course of a week and asked each of them their thoughts about the problem player. To my surprise, all f them said he was being a disruptive jetk and needed to go, including the one guy that had been friends with him since forever. It made the decision much easier to know everyone was in agreement.


I have found that is often the case with problem players. Everyone's a bit hesitant to be the first guy to bring it up, but once one person mentions their issues the rest will quickly follow suit.

Gauss wrote:
Yeah, it was a FAQ that wasn't really a FAQ. They really need to revisit this. But, in my home games I use this FAQ since it is a good idea and seems appropriately balanced.

I really hate Paizo's policy of only issuing errata when there's a new printing of the book.

Imbicatus wrote:

It's good for campaigns where your don't have access to magic mart. If you are only relying on your GM to give you a magic weapon, there is a good chance your bow may not have adaptive, and you can't just spend the gold to add it.

Or, if you want to be able to pick up and use any bow regardless of what STR rating it has.

In either case, it has uses.

It's not like its Caustic Slur or something.

I think any time your defense of something's viability starts with "Well, if all the better options are banned..." then it's not much of a case.

I'm going to stick with suggesting Beast Rider or Monstrous Mount as the solution. Admittedly no bears or rocs on the list, but there are several dinosaurs in Beast Rider, and the griffon and hippogriff make for very nice mounts.

Gaberlunzie wrote:
The only reasons why slings would be preferable to throwing weapons is range (which I'll admit is relevant) and being cheaper when you have to get magic ones (but at that point a mightly longbow is a relatively minor expenditure).

That last point is what really kills slings for me. Ultimately, the only real niche for the sling is "Your character wants a ranged weapon, and can't afford a good bow yet."

Rathendar wrote:
Where the heck would talon's even be coming from? /confused but honestly curious.

Polymorphing to a Popobala brings in the talon and wing attacks.

Mystic_Snowfang wrote:
... just take boon companion at level 5, that will bring your companion up to level and spend one feat

Paladins already get a full-level mount, so Boon Companion would do nothing.

If you do want to run a Paladin, there are a couple options for expanding your selection of mounts:

First, if you're a half-orc or have a GM who doesn't mind a little house-ruling, there's Beast Rider. You can also pick up Monstrous Mount to add a couple nice choices, even if they took away the best features of those mounts because Martials Can't Have Nice Things.

Paladins, ironically enough, would probably be pretty good with vicious weapons. Swift-action self-heals are handy that way.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Only because the hideout was apparently set up so they could get in and get to the hostages, but were then expected to fight their way out.

Bet that doesn't happen again. :)

Indeed. If the GM designs an encounter with such an obvious and easily exploitable flaw, the PCs can't be blamed for using it.
There are plenty of flaws that are obvious in hindsight or to an outsider. Some of these flaws are much easier to exploit if the party has access to abilities like pseudoteleportation much earlier than expected. This is not to say that the PCs should be blamed, simply that if an unexpectedly powerful PC ability is making it hard for the GM to run a fun game, that ability should be moderated, hopefully through group consensus.

True, no GM can perfectly predict every trick the party can come up with. I've certainly had players catch me completely off guard a couple times. But whenever that happened I figured out what went wrong, and adapted the campaign and my tactics to deal with it.

The problem is, at least from what the OP has said, that the GM in this case is mostly annoyed that the party is using intelligence and creativity to bypass encounters instead of staying on the plot railroad. Like some other folks in the thread have pointed out, there are plenty of level-appropriate ways to bypass encounters.

Perhaps it's personal bias, but I don't like GMs whose first response to a useful PC skill is to break out the banhammer.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:

So basically you were saying that not only did you use shadowwalk to eliminate the distance to the hideout, you used it to circumvent the hideout itself rescue the fair maiden and escape, pretty much negating the entire adventure?

I'm with your GM on this one.

Only because the hideout was apparently set up so they could get in and get to the hostages, but were then expected to fight their way out.

Bet that doesn't happen again. :)

Indeed. If the GM designs an encounter with such an obvious and easily exploitable flaw, the PCs can't be blamed for using it.

Ascalaphus wrote:

Alchemical Allocation is pretty powerful, in that it basically makes something free that would otherwise be living beyond your means (regular use of higher-level potions). I'm not convinced publishing it was a good move. Of course, now that it exists, I'm using it too.

And then there's this Elixir. I'm fairly confident that whoever wrote the elixir, and whoever wrote Alchemical Allocation, did not expect those two to be used. I mean, now that both of them exist, it makes sense to use it, but it's not likely something that the writer(s) planned. It's just an unexpected combination.

I can see how a GM would be frustrated that you bypassed an adventure. The first time, it'd be annoying but the right thing to do would be to say "well, I didn't see that coming.. you're not getting loot from the encounters you never ran into of course, but you're well on your way with your main mission". The second time, he could've been ready for it;

- You still actually need to get to the hostage. He could plan the challenge of the adventure more around getting in than around getting out.

- You might have encounters on the shadow plane. And given how you're getting there at relatively low level, that could be scary.

- Since you don't have a lot of control on where you exit, you might stumble into a random encounter on exit. That could just be a fight, but it could also be something more creative, like in the middle of a tense negotiation between two organized crime cartels. Who now both think the others hired the PCs for a double-cross, so there's this confusing three-way battle.

Have to agree with this. Part of the GM's job is to roll with the punches when your players come up with something legitimately clever.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
K-kun the Insane wrote:
No one seems to take into account that you can use a loaded sling as a melee weapon, whereas you can't do that with a bow and REALLY SHOULDN'T do that with a crossbow.

Probably because you have to spend a feat to be able to do that.

Ichthyodactyl wrote:
A bit of a tangent, admittedly, but how viable is a mounted slinger?

About as viable as a slinger on foot. None of the sling's issues are fixed by being mounted instead of on foot, nor are any of the bow's advantages decreased.

graystone wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

We had answers to questions before. Now, those answers are worthless, and we start over from square one.
You also had multiple and often contradictory answers. You also had answers that ended up NOT matching the FAQ when they came out. And they where only answers for those that combed the message board posts for them and collected them up. The average casual poster didn't have the same answers unless they happened upon them and even when they did, had no idea if there where others that might shed a different light (or where newer). I'm not seeing it as a better solution than having an ACTUAL FAQ section for answers.

The problem being that the actual FAQs generally come out at a positively glacial rate, exacerbated by the horrendously slow errata process. I think it's rather shameful that half a year after the release of the error-riddled ACG the only significant issue that's been addressed is Pummeling Style.

Robert Carter 58 wrote:

You guys argue and argue and argue. The only way to prove anything is to actually do a rumble with a Mythic Fighter vs. a Wizard. Set parameters for builds. Set terrain. Someone GM. Make sure builds are fair and reasonable. We all watch. I'll get the popcorn. Otherwise it's all theory and theory and theory and blah blah blah blah blah. Because, I can do this. Well this counters this. Oh yeah, well how about this. But I got this. And rock beats scissors. Well paper beats rock.

Edit: I for one would be interested in seeing an actual battle play out, and seeing two builds, and seeing the whole deal go down.

On the one hand, I have to agree that the argument is getting a bit circular and ridiculous. At this point it's less about the classes and more about arguing over how specific spells work and who can come up with the most ridiculous tricks to win a hypothetical battle and/or counters for the other guy's ridiculous tricks.

However, the issue with going to specific builds/battles is that it will inevitably just shift the conversation to debating the builds and/or the conditions of the battle. Versus threads just seem to never work out.

Ashiel wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
But most of the feedback was ignored.
This is how Paizo playtests work. The most honest playtest Paizo has had since its Pathfinder run was Pathfinder itself.

Yeah, during playtests the dev team sometimes comes across as being more interested in getting validation and/or building up hype for the upcoming release than in actually finding and fixing issues. Though I suppose we'll have to wait and see how the final version of Occult Adventures turns out to see if that's continuing: that playtest had a fair amount of "I'll look into this/think about the issues you raised." Which might mean they're actually doing that, or it might just be a polite way of saying "Nothing is changing, so shut up."

Kain Darkwind wrote:
Seannoss wrote:
And Anzyr... thanks for all this (seriously!) I do not play high levels much and after this discussion have zero interest in it ever. And if I run something at higher levels, this will give me a list of things to ban/nerf.

This right here is one of the only reasons I ever bother to engage Anzyr on these boards. Not for him, but for those out there who are buying into his product. He portrays one very specific possibility for high level play, Seannoss, and dismisses all other possibilities as 'not the rules'. His specific possibility is not fun for everyone, but it is presented as just 'the way things are'.

You don't need a giant nerf bat to have fun with high level games. Just like you don't need a houserule to determine that a given question is 'hard' despite it normally falling under 'easy' sans mitigating circumstances. There are plenty of other ways to use the rules. Hopefully you don't let Anzyr drive you away from something that has been rewarding and fun for thousands of quieter, less obstinate players across the world.

Whenever you start frothing-at-the-mouth rants about how another poster is evil incarnate and must be opposed for the good all Pathfinder, it's a sign that you need to step away from the keyboard and calm down for a while.

Bandw2 wrote:

I personally change Kobold's stats to -2 str, +2 dex and +2 charisma

charisma due to their alleged dragon heritage.

That seems like the a very good houserule to me. Really, the kobold's main mechanical issue is their abysmal stats; give them something less brutal and they can do pretty well.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
The GM changing things against the Wizard is itself proof that the Wizard would win.
No. It is only proof that some of the wizards exploits are too toxic for any narrative.

Presumably they're "toxic" because they're game-breaking auto-win tricks, right? Which is kinda the whole point Anzyr is making: that wizards get cheap, unfair, and horribly unbalanced game-breaking auto-win tricks.

LazarX wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


CRB wrote:

A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his opposed schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice.
Blood Money is a 1st level spell. I choose it. There is no rule that prevents this.
GM not allowing can do so. GM's are not required to accept avery spell in all of Paizo's non-core books. He can especially argue that his games are not set on Golarion and that spell IS setting-specific. He can also specify that the only strength a caster can burn for that spell is his own non-augmented total.

True, but by the same token the GM could just bad the wizard class, then declare the fighter winner by default. Or vice-versa.

Artanthos wrote:

With artifacts, the lines between caster and martial become blurred. Even a straight fighter can access substantial spellcasting ability.

The fighter with an intelligent artifact has access to Geas and Wish. Alternately, he could have Invisibility, Greater Invisibility and Mind Blank, meaning he is not a valid target for most SoS spells.

Of course, if the Fighter has to become a pseudo-caster in order to actually beat a caster, then that says something all by itself..

BigDTBone wrote:
If you are talking about just using both numbers and not trying to do some kind of average or (even worse) weighted average then I can get behind the idea.

Yeah, I think there's definite value in knowing how much DPR you get in a standard action as well as on a full attack. Really, if you have the time/interest it's worth calculating DPR on all your relevant attack modes just to get some idea of how they all compare to each other. How much each of those values matters depends on the character; obviously standard action attacks matter more to a melee character who has no tricks to help get full attacks than they would to an archer.

Jiggy wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I suspect a lot of it stems from the crowd whose thought process can be summed up as "Optimizers mention DPR, therefore it is EVIL and WRONG!"
Umm... I think the number of alternative positions in this are very slim. I'm not going to say they don't exist, but I can't imagine there being very many.

Reasons to think DPR is unhelpful, other than "optimizers mention it so it's evil and wrong":

• Thinking it's like the "damage" column in the Monster Creation chart, where the number is how much damage is dealt if EVERY attack hits.
• Thinking it's being used as the only tool for character creation, rather than being applied only to specific elements of it.
• Simply not understanding that it includes accuracy and other factors.

Okay, I thought there were more, but it turns out most of them are just different ways to misunderstand exactly what DPR is (and is for).

But still, plenty of room outside the finger-pointing box.

True, there are plenty of ways that someone to misunderstand what DPR is.

Of course, I was commenting on where a lot of those misunderstandings originate from, not claiming that only anti-optimizers dislike DPR. Helps when you read things in context. I think it is fair to say that the rabid anti-optimizers spread a lot of misinformation about things like optimizing, DPR, etc.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Rather the opposite is likely, the reason he thinks it is worthless is because he believes that is what it is. There is a bunch of misunderstanding regarding precisely what DPR is. Which is odd because it is a straight forward topic.

I suspect a lot of it stems from the crowd whose thought process can be summed up as "Optimizers mention DPR, therefore it is EVIL and WRONG!"

Uwotm8 wrote:
The paladin gets an 8th level spell at spell level 4 that I can recall off the top of my head. The summoner is far from the only to get those antics.

But the summoner is by far the worst offender.

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Oh man. Level 1, I would advocate not using power attack.

Agreed: a lot of the enemies you're likely to face at level 1 can be one-hit killed by a good martial. 6 HP goblins, 4 hp kobolds, and 5 hp dire rats should only survive a hit if you have low strength for a martial and roll poorly on your damage dice.

wraithstrike wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
avr wrote:
There are characters who don't need to plan. Any full prepared spellcaster, especially wizards, can throw 100% of their skill points and feats away and still be effective. Banning planning just makes life relatively harder for the fighting types.

Spoken like someone who's never played a Wizard.

Have you noticed that a lot of the people that say you have to plan to be effective are usually the same people who say published materials, like modules and scenarios, are too easy?

Actually the common idea is that they are too easy for really optimized players and/or those with a high system mastery. That is different from saying they are overall to easy.

I am GM'ing two groups right now. One of them would stomp most AP's IMO, and the other would likely struggle.

Quite. The difficulty curve on APs is generally aimed at casual players who only make the most baseline competent builds. The pregens/iconics are the sorts of characters APs are built around, because that's what the most profitable target audience. It's not like its hard for a GM with a highly optimized group to crank up the difficulty a couple notches. When I ran Rise of the Runelords for an optimized group I just added a few more goblins/ghouls/ogres/giants/whatever to battles that were supposed to be challenging.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rathendar wrote:
My players typically do both. The majority will have a general plan on a 1-16 or so progression. Feats, spells, Multiclass/PrC's, etc. Yet they don't see it as a straightjacket. Many times as a campaign unfolds they find themselves tweaking those plans or incorporating alternate choices as the adventures develop.

That matches with my experience. Having a plan is a must thanks to how Pathfinder rewards specialization and filling out feat chains, but your plan should be so rigid that you can't adjust to changing circumstances.

Ms. Pleiades wrote:
ragudaddy wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
ragudaddy wrote:
-Take the Adopted trait, choosing Tengu's Swordtrained trait, giving me access to the Katana and allowing me to use it one handed.
Even though the special abilities that members of a race get are called "racial traits", that's not how Adopted works. It gives you a character trait (the same "traits" that you normally pick two of at character creation) that have to be from the "Race" category (as opposed to the Combat, Magic, Faith, Social, etc categories).

Ah, got it. I can't help but wonder how many other players make similar mistakes :p

I may have to dip into Sword Saint earlier than planned to get access to the Katana in that case. Thanks for the clarification.

I'd say it's gotta be at least 50% that make that mistake about the Adopted Trait.

Really, that's on Paizo for making "Race Traits" and "Racial Traits" different things. Makes confusion inevitable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say it's more likely a matter of the sheer complexity of the issue. As a lot of the discussion in the thread has indicated, Simulacrum would basically need to be rewritten from the ground up in order to function smoothly, and would probably have to take up half a page more than it currently does. The devs like to focus on simple changes over complicated ones.

Spook205 wrote:
Yeah I don't want to open this kettle of fish, but the fact someone's trying to say fireball or cure light wounds is a worthless spell is kind of ridiculous. Its like saying 'Pickups are worthless' when your universe is driving the autobahn every day, whereas a guy who has to lug junk around considers them a staple.

Have to agree here. When I hear "this spell is worthless" I tend to assume that the spell under discussion should actually be worthless. As in, it has absolutely no value at all.

Instead, what we're seeing a lot of is "This spell may not be the optimal choice in all circumstances."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So here's a side-question that might clarify things: if a monk is using Feral Combat Training, does he gain the benefit of the Weapon Focus and Specialization feats when they're applied to his natural attacks? Or would he not be able to use them since he's applying his unarmed strike damage? Or for that matter, any other feat that specifically applies to natural attacks.

LazarX wrote:
That's way beyond the pale of what I would allow. I allow ONE Free action per turn that can be taken whenever it's appropriate for said action.

I feel sorry for anyone who tries to play a ranged attacker in your games, then. Drawing ammunition is a free action, as is reloading for a lot of weapons.

Oh, and touch spells would take two turns to use, since you can't prepare your component and touch someone in the same round.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps the Knowledge (Local) debate should be taken into a different thread?

Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Mind fog has always bothered me, since it's meant to penalize Will saves, and yet requires a Will save to function properly. Therefore, casting it to lower a Will save so you can then hit them with a Will save effect is self-defeating.

It's good to cast on a crowd and then select failures for single target save or dies.

The use depends on whether or not you know who fails.

Except how do you know which one passed and which one's failed without metagaming?

If I recall correctly, you can only "sense" it when it is a targeted effect without any obvious visual cues, which mind fog is not.

It is not very clear cut.

You could also use it to soften up a crowd for lower DC area spells. Like from a scroll.

In this case I would say a lot depends on how you visualize it all. While there's no RAW either way, I could certainly see someone arguing that a person affected by mind fog would have some visible indications like glazed eyes or generally looking less aware of their surroundings.

I think in order for a spell to qualify as "most worthless" it shouldn't have any circumstances where it's useful, or requires circumstances that are so contrived that they might as well not exist.

I'd say that True Strike's position of "useful for some builds/circumstances, but not for others" is actually a pretty good balance point for a spell to have.

CraziFuzzy wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
The barbarian has no opportunity to recognize the magical properties of an item being used by an opponent. Even a wizard wouldn't be able to until a spell or ability was used, and then a spellcraft check would be needed.
So long as he's not raging, why wouldn't a barbarian be able to use spellcraft to identify magical effects? Assuming he has ranks in the skill, of course.
What part of the Spellcraft skill are you thinking would allow him to do so? The only thing close is the "Identify the properties of a magic item using detect magic". This requires casting of Detect Magic to do so.

Admittedly, unless the barbarian has gained access to detect magic any identification of items is going to be a matter of GM discretion. I could see an argument for it being a knowledge roll rather than spellcraft, and a non-caster would probably need to see some of the item's properties in action.

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
I was assuming the barbarian is going to be raging if he's trying to sunder an opponent's gear.

True, but no reason he couldn't roll spellcraft and pick his target prior to raging.

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
The barbarian has no opportunity to recognize the magical properties of an item being used by an opponent. Even a wizard wouldn't be able to until a spell or ability was used, and then a spellcraft check would be needed.

So long as he's not raging, why wouldn't a barbarian be able to use spellcraft to identify magical effects? Assuming he has ranks in the skill, of course.

1 to 50 of 1,998 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.