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

Chengar Qordath's page

1,490 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

Weapons of Legacy

They need a serious pathfinderization overhaul, but I loved the idea behind them

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.


ChainsawSam wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
So tell me again why you play?
I don't play this game because it's good, I play it because it's popular.
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.

That's a big deal.

Certain utilities exist the better facilitate finding and playing with people online, but meeting strangers across the globe for a game of TTRPG hasn't become a large part of the hobby just yet.

So you're stuck with D&D, Pathfinder, and maybe the group of weirdos that still play WOD games.

Unless you're in Washington state. Then all these bastards play Shadowrun and it'll take you a long ass time to find a group for anything else.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


TOZ wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
So tell me again why you play?
I don't play this game because it's good, I play it because it's popular.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krith wrote:
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."


Scavion wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Just to make this thread intersting, the swarmsuit is actually listed under outfits if you look on the Pathfinder SRD, so it is as valid a use as a cold or hot weather outfit.
If you mean d20pfsrd, that's not an official resource at all. The PRD (which is the official one) lists swarmsuits only under the "Adventuring Gear" heading.
It's close enough for most people, and shows that it isn't all that unreasonable to treat the swarmsuit as clothing. At the very least, it shows that it is on par with the cold weather outfit or hot weather outfit in terms of actual effects in game.
A third-party source really shouldn't be "close enough" in a rules debate.
You'd be surprised at the number of people who claim Hero Lab as a valid source for rules adjudication.

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.


Cheapy wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, even Humans can have a +2 to two stats, with the Dual Talent alternate racial trait.

Yep, but that's actually pretty much proof that the aasimar are overpowered. The humans give up everything for that. With blood of angels, aasimar just get it. For free. And then a bunch of other goodies.

If you don't allow Blood of Angels material, then the aasimar is mostly balanced, except for some few classes.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
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:

Are people disliking the Magus?

Then again, I play mine int focused with decent strength(17+1level) and a longsword. Grab Extra Arcana pool as much as possible and just let the good times roll.

Dex-dervish magi make me throw-up a little in my mouth.

EDIT: Frostbite is the superior spell IMO

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:
Jiggy wrote:
be absolutely sure that they understood your question and that you understood their answer and this isn't all just a matter of miscommunication.
You wouldn't believe how often this can be an issue. I'd do this via Facebook or email and not "just before a game starts" so they have plenty of time to reply with thought.

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:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
I don't see how you related it to alignment. Willfully committing an evil act makes you fall because of the code not because you suddenly changed alignment and no longer qualify for the class's alignment restriction.
True, but you can actually commit enough neutral acts to turn neutral as well. Or chaotic for that matter. It doesn't come up as often but it can happen and you'll fall just as surely as anakin murdering the younglings.

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!


Buri wrote:
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.


Bandw2 wrote:
Arcanemuses wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:
Because "Neutrality" is not the stuff heroes are made of.
This is exactly why I choose to base my homebrew paladin on Aeons. Would they be heroes (just for one day)? Probably not. A TN would be neither hero nor villain, but an anti-hero. Such a character, I think, could be a fun challenge to play.
except what exactly is his code of conduct? to do nothing/stay out of everything? great, best anti-hero ever. when he performs an action non-impartially he will lose all of his paladin powers and fall into, the rest of the spectrum?

Well, since you're asking about a homebrewed class the poster already provided a link to...

Quote:

Cosmic Code

An Aeonic Paladin must be of True Neutral alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil, good, lawful, or chaotic act that does not benefit the overall balance of existence.

Additionally, an Aeonic Paladin's code requires that she ignore legitimate authority, act without passion or compassion, help aeons in their missions, and punish those who harm or threaten “the condition of all”.


Pupsocket wrote:
James Risner wrote:


The answer they are giving is "no you can't" without articulating it more succinctly. They should have worded it like this "you get the feats but only feats you select from a list of combat feats can be swapped out."

Dev team makes rulings without even opening the rulebook all the time. It's maddening. How they should have worded it is by not giving out those bonus feats, and let fighters be proficient with stuff as a class ability. Selling off proficiency bonus feats was a well-known 3.5 hack.

Also, by the current rules, the CRB classes get proficiency as a class ability AND as bonus feats. Meaning that all the proficiencies you sell of with archetypes come back as bonus feats, and that Witches and Arcanists are actually proficient with light armor.

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.


Ssalarn wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

I have found that a PC tank can beat a Eidolon, but it's darn close.

But a eidolon can beat a animal companion just about every time.

Showing builds won't prove anything unless you can show every possible combo.

I'm with DD on this one. The Eidolon is so close to a full PC tank that the difference is largely negligible. And we really don't need 15 pages of "Here's my build" "Here's my build that does X way better" "Well I'll just swap Y for Z and now I do X better" "Well, I'll throw in A to lower...." so on and so forth.

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:
GoatToucher wrote:

What gets me about this debate is that good characters have to be good, but evil characters choose when to be evil. Good has to be good constantly, while evil only has to be evil when it suits it's purposes.

This is bunk. If you are mostly stable, but willing to do rough stuff when the need/opportunity arises, you are neutral. People set standards for what behavior is necessary to stay good, but none for what is necessary to stay evil. An antipaladin is meant to be the mirror to the paladin. Where a paladin is meant to portray the best of what is good, the antipaladin is meant to be the worst about what is evil. Capricious, cruel, sadistic, commanding through fear rather than loyalty. We're talking puppy kickers here.

Paladins arent special because their way is the most effective way to fight evil, but because theirs is the best example to set to other good people as a representative of good deities. Antipaladins, therefore, should be similar exemplifiers of the cruel malevolence of their masters. This does not necessitate stupidity any more than paladinhood does, but an antipaladin should be on the lookout for opportunities to do evil, to spread misery and fear, to selfishly increase his own power.

An antipaladin in my game would fall (rise?) if he were not evil enough. If you don;t walk the walk, you don't get the goodies.

Except that the Anti-Paladin has built into his code a caveat that allows them to do good if it furthers his more evil plans. Eseentially its like the saying "For the greater good" but in reverse. Doings like say... Put on a face of good ness and helping people out so that the city loves you and elect you as Furor but in the background, setting up a giant magic circle to sacrifice the entirety of a country without them even knownig (FMA reference for the win!!!).

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.


RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Since there is still a large field of options within that alignment and code, why is that particularly relevant?
Because it's still less options than if neither restriction were present.
And? So what?

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.


RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

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."

wraithstrike wrote:
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.

If everyone is wanting to play anti hero loners who care not for the laws of men and compromise their principles, then isn't the paladin more unusual and creative, since it isn't what "everyone" is playing instead of being "the different and misunderstood dark loner" just like everyone else?

It doesn't allow enough creativity because it doesn't allow for the archetype that you say is really popular?

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.

Since there is still a large field of options within that alignment and code, why is that particularly relevant?

Because it's still less options than if neither restriction were present.


RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

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."

wraithstrike wrote:
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.

If everyone is wanting to play anti hero loners who care not for the laws of men and compromise their principles, then isn't the paladin more unusual and creative, since it isn't what "everyone" is playing instead of being "the different and misunderstood dark loner" just like everyone else?

It doesn't allow enough creativity because it doesn't allow for the archetype that you say is really popular?

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.


Nefreet wrote:

Please link to the PRD, and not d20pfsrd. One is official, while the other is 3rd party.

Also, be sure to read the guide below on "How to format your text". When you just copy and paste the URL of a link Paizo often breaks it in half as an attempt to curtail spam.

And the inevitable "PFSRD not official so it doesn't count" remark would be why I gave the page number in the CRB.


AlphaSteve wrote:
heliodorus04 wrote:
No where in the CRB does it say that characters get the armor proficiency feats. It merely says that they start with a proficiency, which is not the same thing as a feat.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/armor-proficiency-light

Quote:
Special: All characters except monks, sorcerers, and wizards automatically have Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

Well, quit building to optimization guides and build to a concept and you might get something different now and then.

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."

wraithstrike wrote:
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.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.


Nefreet wrote:

That question, IMO, was easier to answer. Most people understood the intent.

This question likely involves more research.

Yeah, changing/codifying how weapon damage scales is the kind of thing that could have a lot of implications for the rules.


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.


Corvino wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
ArgentumLupus wrote:

Ok, calling them spoiled was a bit too strong, but you can't say they were mature about it. He was asked to run the game, he gave conditions for his game, they decline, but instead of just moving with a different GM, they "fail" to invite the OP to the new game because he didn't give them everything they wanted.

"You didn't give me what I want so I want play with you anymore" is the reaction of 1st graders, not adults.

If he was their friend I would understand, but from what I hear he was asked to fun via a 3rd party as a favor, and we don't know how that conversation...

Not to mention there could be other factors involved, like the group getting filled up/new GM wants a smaller party.


Sir Thugsalot wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Sir Thugsalot wrote:
Those stupid hats are broke -- for the price of the +5 armor bonus to one suit for Heavy Fort, you could buy five Jingasa, then swap them out of your haversack (Mythic Quick Draw? Hah). On top of that, sunder bosses who smack your hat are only wrecking 5k worth of gear rather than an entire suit of armor.
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.
The hats work on sneaks too.

*Checks the entry* Well that's what I get for working off memory.


LazarX wrote:
Corvino wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was Socrates own bloody-mindedness that got him killed rather than anything else. He was charged with "Corrupting the Youth" as Marcus says and was sentenced to death. However, the prosecutors offered to drop the charges if he stopped teaching. At the sentencing he was given the opportunity to propose an alternative to death, but instead he made a joke at the jury's expense. He later had the opportunity to escape, and was urged to by his students but chose not to. Smart people can be really stupid.
Or just plain old stubborn. Then again, exile from Athen simply may not have been acceptable to him. Athens was THE place to be if you were going to be a philosopher. Might as well ask an actor to accept exile from Hollywood.

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.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Bacon666 wrote:

Cheers all

After playing since 3.0 came out I've been thinking... I don't think I ever seen a character use an item that grants spell resistance.

My guess is that it's due to prize being too high, and I've therefore consider house ruling it for my next campaign, but would like to hear your experience with SR items...

Have you ever used them on a character?
Are they common in your group?
Do you think the prize is too high?
Are there other problems with SR items than prize?

Nope.

Not common because...
Price is way too high for little benefit.
They block buffs/healing from allies in combat.

Also, since most spell resistance items grant SR at a fixed number, they don't scale very well as levels increase.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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:
Slacker2010 wrote:
Heavy Fortification can be somewhat circumvented by Jingasa of the Fortunate soldier. Its only once a day but I find that tends to be 70% of the crits. Granted depends on your home game (YMMV)
Those stupid hats are broke -- for the price of the +5 armor bonus to one suit for Heavy Fort, you could buy five Jingasa, then swap them out of your haversack (Mythic Quick Draw? Hah). On top of that, sunder bosses who smack your hat are only wrecking 5k worth of gear rather than an entire suit of armor.

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:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Ideally you can actually convince players not to metagame. In my personal experience most players are actually mature enough, if you call them on it.

I find having to 'not metagame' reduces my fun factor. Say I'm in a situation where I know a creature has fire immunity, but my character doesn't know. Should I cast a fire spell? I simply don't know what I'd do if I didn't have the knowledge I have. I think maybe I wouldn't, and that I might guess that this evil-looking extra-planar creature is resistant to fire, but maybe I'm biased because I know that casting a fire spell is going to endanger the party, and I'm looking for an excuse not to cast it. Or maybe I cast the spell for no reason other than I know it won't work, because I'm worried about looking like a metagamer.

If the GM is able to keep me from knowing things my character doesn't know, I'll be able to think about it from my character's viewpoint, and focus on trying to win the battle, which is more fun.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:

I think this change speaks to a philosophy that is against ingenuity. Want a different ability? Better gain that level or go through weeks of in game retraining. But on the fly? No, sir...

One of the larger critiques a friend of mine has against Pathfinder is that to do anything mechanically different is tedious as all hell and then it's essentially unchangeable if circumstances change such as say from one round of combat to another. I'm starting to see his point. It's one thing to create rules and have to live with them but to back track like this speaks to a philosophy of thought. Spontaneous invention is bad.

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."


StreamOfTheSky wrote:

This pisses me off. The only thing broken about Paragon Surge was using it to spont. cast entire spell lists on a whim. Using it as intended to simply get whatever feat you need at the moment (ad qualify for) was fine and not in need of fixing. Instead, they left that Energy Attunement feat in for a handy loophole and nerfed the spell to hell for gish/martial types trying to use it.

All they had to do was say, "You cannot gain spells known through use of this spell" and it'd have been fine. Ugh, this reeks of when they realized the gun rules were broken and rather than nerf guns, decided to nerf free actions in general.

And the tin foil hat guy is on to something. This nerf makes the Arcanist look more appealing. It also makes the Brawler's spontaneous grabbing of a fighter feat a bit more unique and special. It really does seem like some of these nerfs are driven by the desire to make the new classes more appealing.

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.


Kelarith wrote:

I waffle on this. I generally make any kind of roll that has immediate impact on a PC (To Hit, damage, NPC Saving throws) out in the open, but rolls that can be used easily to metagame (bluff/sense motive, knowledge rolls) I'll make behind a screen, so that the PCs still have to react. I try to avoid the "the creature rolled high on his bluff, and my sense motive roll was low, so I'm not going to try and bluff past him now." kind of thing. Even so, I try to give some indication of the roll through description, "The card player regards you with a cocky grin, and seems very glib with his answer." Generally indicates that the NPC has achieved a high success roll. It's not a matter of cheating the player in that case, it's more a manner to maintain some mystery in the outcome.

Then again, my players are very aware that even if they do die, if they still want to play that character they're attached to, we'll figure out a way within the story to bring them back. So they trust that I'm not out to kill them arbitrarily.

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."


Umbranus wrote:

4) Yes

5) I'm not sure about it but using the armor spikes might turn the natural attacks into secondary. By attacking with them it would be clear. This usage... not sure.

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.


Ascalaphus wrote:

In addition, you complain about the player not trusting you. But if you're going to be more secretive, then that player will just trust you even less.

Me personally, I have difficulty trusting a GM who rolls a lot behind the screen. I always wonder if he really rolled that hit or made that save. Somehow I always feel that GMs that roll behind a screen are cheating the players. I doesn't have to be true; that's just how it makes me feel. I prefer it if the GM rolls those critical threats where everyone can see them.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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)."


Toujours wrote:

I've only had one psionic character that I've DMed, barring 4e mind you. It didn't go well, it was partly my fault and partly the players. I was swamped with DMing and couldn't read through them carefully. I am allowing a Soulknife in my new game but that's only because the player built the character before I had a chance to inform them that I won't be using Psionics.

On principle I don't have a problem with Psionics, my favorite setting uses them quite a bit, I just am in the dark about them for the most part.

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.

1 to 50 of 1,490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.