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

2,713 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,713 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

gnomersy wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Again, I'm not trying to be the BEST at anything, just trying to contribute my 25% of a 4 person party...

And this is why you aren't going to be good.

Yup. At the end of the day Pathfinder (and pretty much all cooperative group RPGs) are designed to reward specialization. Spreading your character too thin is fighting against the system, and gives you a guy who's mediocre at everything.

Basically, imagine the characters are all applying for a job that requires a college degree. The guy who actually picked a major, focused on it, and got a degree is a lot better off than the guy who has 10 years of college education, but never graduated because every semester he picked a new major.

Fergie wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergie wrote:
I can easily build a fighter with a good diplomacy and/or sense motive skill, who has a good AC, and can do well with a melee and ranged weapon, and still have feats to spare. But he won't be competing with Falchion Fred in the DPR contest, so many people would consider that unplayable...
Yes, you can tank the one thing you do well in order to do something else half-assed. Then the higher-tier classes can generally do them both, better then you can do either one. At least Falchion Fred has something he's good at!

I think this gets the to heart of the issue - As a 10th level fighter, am I ruining my effectiveness as a PC if I spend 2 out of 10 feats on non-combat benefits?

Is a full BAB, a decent ability score, two feats toward a combat style, and weapon training class ability considered unplayable?
I can have:
two feats toward ranged attack (point blank shot, rapid shot)
two feats toward melee attack (weapon focus, power attack)
two feats towards defense (iron will, improved iron will)
two feats towards combat maneuvers (combat expertise, improved trip)
two feats toward diplomacy and/or sense motive (persuasive, skill focus)
and If I am human, I still have two feats left over.

Is this character really so weak at combat that I have ruined him?

(Note: I'm not saying this is going to equal out the tiers or make the fighter into a god wizard by any means, just asking how much a fighter needs to be effective in combat?)

I don't think anyone would say that build is unplayable, but its definitely going to be on the weaker side of things. That feat distribution gives you classic "Jack of all trades, master of none" problem, and if you want the ability scores to support it you're going to end up looking very MAD too.

Strength: Needed for melee
Dexterity: Needed for ranged
Constitution: Needed to not die
Intelligence: Need at least 13 for Combat Expertise + trip
Wisdom: Needed for Sense Motive + Will saves
Charisma: Needed for Diplomacy

Basically the character is spread so thin that, while they'll be passably competent at a lot of things, they won't actually be good at anything. They'll always lose to someone whose feats/class abilities/ability scores are more focused.

N N 959 wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Reply to Point #1

I think you're right that Paizo has a very different idea of what constitutes balance than most players. After all, going by what SKR said after he left the company, the very unoptimizated iconics are the sort of characters they do internal playtesting with, and their games run with a long list of unwritten rules and gentleman's agreements. So it's no surprise that they have a different idea of balance than someone with good system mastery who plays without a hundred pages of unwritten houserules.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, a more balanced game helps everyone. I've seen more than one casual beer&pretzels style game get thrown off by accidental optimization. The player just stumbled onto a reasonably effective combination by picking abilities that looked cool to them, and next thing they knew they were dominating combat.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
It's one of the reasons why there's been a lot of requests for mount-less Cavalier archetypes.
I thought that's part of what Samurai was. It's a Cavalier who gets out of, and is therefore less dependent upon, their mount.
Resolve is nice, but the Samurai still gets a mount and a couple mount-focused class features. That's still a long way away from not having a mount or any mount-related abilities.

Other than the mount itself, all Samurai get it the ability to ride without taking armor check penalties & Mounted Archery (which sucks considering the rest of the class is melee focused).

On the other hand - the bulk of a Cavalier's abilities are mount focused.

Not saying that the mount isn't a significant class feature for the Samurai, but not to the point where they're gimped without it. Plus, since they have a focus on a more standard melee weapon, you're unlikely to go for the lance feat tree.

Bottom line is, it still has a mount and some mount-focused feature. Yes, it's less dependent on the mount than a cavalier. But when there's a desire for a cavalier variant with no mount at all, having less mount features doesn't satisfy the goal.

Now now, we all know that believing Pathfinder is not perfect in every way is the worst sort of thoughtcrime.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
It's one of the reasons why there's been a lot of requests for mount-less Cavalier archetypes.
I thought that's part of what Samurai was. It's a Cavalier who gets out of, and is therefore less dependent upon, their mount.

Resolve is nice, but the Samurai still gets a mount and a couple mount-focused class features. That's still a long way away from not having a mount or any mount-related abilities.

Guru-Meditation wrote:
Irranshalee wrote:
Why must everything be so MMO.

Ahh, the good old "Reductio ad MMOorum" rhetoric figure.

My side of the argument is promotic "true Roleplaying" (TM) while the other side just wants to play WoW offline. Therefor i win.

Ahh, truly a classic ... to derail every - until then - civilised and on-topic discussion.

In fairness, the OP seemed to be setting up for a classic "How dare anyone think Pathfinder is not completely perfect in every way!" rant from the very beginning.

Nox Aeterna wrote:
Not really , in the end we mostly see the same weapons being picked over and over , but that doesnt mean having options that only appear rarely is bad , the more options the better to me.

Agreed in principle that more choices are always good, but at the same time options that aren't worthwhile choices shouldn't really count as options. Ideally, every weapon in the game ought to have something going for it.

Val'Ross the explorer wrote:
I know I am missing something. I like humans but when I get a mount, It has to be left behind when we go underground. GM make it difficult to enter with the mount.

That is, in my experience, the biggest problem that the Cavalier and any other mounted character run into. I really think nobody should play a mounted character before first asking the GM if that's going to work in the campaign. Because the Cavalier does kind of suck without their mount. It's one of the reasons why there's been a lot of requests for mount-less Cavalier archetypes.

Not to mention that the wizard is, in all likelihood, going to eventually exceed the rogue in skill ranks anyway since they'll be pumping their intelligence into the statosphere. Practically speaking, it makes a lot more sense to have a good skills so you can save your spells for when you really need them, rather than burning a second level slot to open a DC 1 lock.

Since both sides get the skill ranks, it comes down to whether skill unlocks + rogue talents can beat 9-level spellcasting. Something I think has a pretty obvious answer.

I do thinks it's kinda sad that one of the reasons nobody wants an FAQ on this is that we have little faith that the PDT to make a good, coherent ruling that fixes any ambiguity in the rules and doesn't have any problematic secondary consequences.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And I would say to never make their method of escape un-counterable or pure GM Fiat. I once ran an NPC wizard that ran from the fight by casting teleport. So the next time the party ran into her, they immediately had the Monk grapple her, then hit her with a Dimensional Anchor spell to make sure she wouldn't get away this time. The players were very satisfied when they managed to take the NPC down, since they'd all been frustrated by her escape and put a lot of thought into how to stop her from pulling it off again.

Nicos definitely has a point on not over-using it. I would also add to not have the bad guy return until your party's got some means of stopping whatever trick they used to escape last time. It's very satisfying to see the enemy try the trick that worked last time, only to have it fizzle because the players out-played him.

Also, making sure your PCs have a counter for the NPCs escape tactic ensures he won't get away more than once. One escape can make for amemorable nemesis. Multiple escapes makes the NPC start looking like a pet the GM won't let the party kill.

MeanMutton wrote:
Avaricious wrote:
Loot upon distribution are bid for by necessity (as in will you use it NAO?!) and consent by group. It is now yours 4evah to do with as you see fit until I see you exploiting the market -like Dude, are you That Guy? Excess just became group asset for future liquidation. No excess hoarding unless you are clever enough to hide your growing collection of magic armor and petty rings no one wants but you bid for every single drop.
In every game I play and run, treasure distribution is purely an in-game, character-driven decision and the GM has exactly zero input in this discussion unless explicitly asked for advice.

As a GM and player, that's how I prefer to handle it as long as loot distribution isn't a problem. However, I've certainly encountered games where loot was being split up pretty unfairly and it lead to unhappy players. Sometimes it's the recovered loot favoring certain classes, sometimes it's a table dynamic where one guy always grabs the best items and nobody else wants to start drama by confronting him, or it might just be that nobody else notices that one player isn't getting any good items.

The bottom line, if some characters aren't getting an equal-ish share of the treasure, it can make the game less fun for the players. Since part of the GM's job description is to look out for things that are disrupting everyone's fun...

Casual Viking wrote:
Prerequisites are, as a principle of the rules, generally, satisfied by abilities that match the substance even if the label isn't an exact fit. For example, life oracles and channeling feats.

That's my inclination as well. Trying to be too picky about precise nomenclature doesn't work too well considering how loose Paizo is when it comes to wording.

Trogdar wrote:
Ultimately, this is all pretty subjective. I've been called a power/munchkin whatever while playing a character who used the first feat on skill focus. Sometimes people just have cognitive biases that they can't see.

Yeah, far too often the definition of powergamer/munchkin is really just "someone who makes better characters than me."

Yeah, schizophrenia is one of the most poorly understood mental illnesses among the general public. The common pop culture image of them is "They'll stab you because the voices said to if they ever stop taking their meds."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:

As a DM i outline when and where a paladin would fall. I love tempting paladins with emotional debacles to make them fall. But I warn the player and they willingly choose to fall.

The only time a paladin fell at my table was when they with full knowledge knew the actions they would take would cause them fall.

It should never come to a board for decisions. The player should make a willful choice to fall.

Indeed. As has come up plenty of other times in the threat, Paladin falls should never be used as a "Gotcha!" by the GM.

The only time a Paladin falling should ever some as a surprise to the player is if their moral compass is utterly screwed up. "What do you mean devouring the souls of 100 innocent babies makes my Paladin fall? There's nothing wrong with that!"

Weirdo wrote:

"There's about to be a really big fight here between our army and those robots occupying your city. You sure you want to be in the middle of it?"

Sure, there will be people who will be stubborn and not evacuate, the same way there will be people who refuse to evacuate in the face of massive storms. But given that there is currently a 40,000 strong army of robots in their city, and another army massing outside the gates - there is already a reason to evacuate. This should not be a particularly difficult Diplomacy check.

So you're going to go into a city occupied by a hostile force, then openly declare you're working for their enemies? Sounds like a brilliant suicide plan if you're into getting executed for espionage.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
He posted more (mainly to call everyone who disagreed with him a dick), but the posts were deleted. Guess he left after that.

So basically another case of an "advice" thread where the OP was really only seeking validation?

Yeah, as I recall the math says that the only time Power Attack isn't worth it is at the lowest levels, where a dedicated melee character is probably one-shotting things before power attack. Going from 2d6+6 to 2d6+9 doesn't really matter when your enemy only has 6 hp.

Weirdo wrote:
Depends on how exactly the invaders are securing the area, but it would basically come down to (1) making sure there is a relatively safe route out and (2) telling as many of the citizens about it as you can.

So you tell them about a way out of the city. Great. That isn't going to make anyone leave. Heck, most of the locals probably know more about how to get out of the city than a bunch of random murderhobos who wandered into town five minutes ago.

Telling people how to get away accomplishes nothing. They need a reason to leave. Without a persuasive case for evacuating, most folks would just assume you're trying to con them into leaving so you can rob their house and/or shop once they're gone.

Weirdo wrote:
I'm not so sure that a partial evacuation would be unfeasible, though. If the city is openly occupied and about to turn into a battleground, it makes sense that the civilian populace would want to leave, and that their defending army would want to get them out of the way - it doesn't tip your hand about the nuke.

But again we come to the question of how to evacuate a city occupied by a hostile army. Obviously none of the local authorities are going to listen to the party: they'd probably try to kill/capture them? Does the party put on fake bears and run around with "The End Is Near!" placards like a bunch of crazy hobos?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skylancer4 wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Has any developer ever addressed this question?

The design team has.

You couldn't hide your casting with a skill for a while, the design team has been saying that spells require special abilities to hide ever since occult adventures.

Actually they said that has always been the case, but people have been running it "wrong" for so long they think it is the right way and it was "suddenly changed" on them.

Just like we've always been at war with East Asia and allied with Eurasia.

Avoron wrote:
Yeah, looks like using the bomb as an EMP would be the best option here.

Re-read the OP. It's not an actual nuclear weapon, just a crystal within the portal can be overloaded to create an explosion on par with a nuclear warhead.

Not to mention I have no idea how a standard-ish Pathfinder party would get several hundred kilometers up in the air. I would imagine that's past the ceilings of most flight spells.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But how do you evacuate the city without tipping your hand to the bad guys? Heck, how do you evacuate the city at all? It'd be pretty hard to get 100k people to listen to a group of random nobodies (the adventuring party). If you explain what's going to happen to the city's leadership, you've just told the enemy what your plan is, and they'll massively beef up security around the portal as well as finding a way to stop the crystal from overloading so explosively.

TOZ wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Not very well
Works about as well as the rest of the game.

Many (though not all) of the problems people have with high-level play are a matter of expectations rather than the rules actually being broken. Frex, a spell like Greater Teleport is not broken: the rules are clear and it function as intended.

However, a lot of GMs are likely to decry the spell as "broken" because it disrupts a lot of traditional low-level storytelling tools. There are no more long and hazardous journeys to Mordor, Gandalf can just teleport the Fellowship to Mount Doom as a standard action. Frodo drops the ring as a free action, and next turn Gandalf teleports them all back to Rivendell. Quest over.

Basically, High-level play works very differently, and the GM has to account for what the party can do when drawing up campaign plans. Otherwise it's going to be a big mess.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
In the politest way possible, because flight is highly overvalued because monsters (and/or the underlying combat system) are very poorly designed. Far too many monsters are absolutely useless against something faster or that can fly. Whether this is because ranged combat is exceedingly difficult for "monsters" or the monsters are just poorly designed, I don't know, but it is a significant problem that's frequently addressed by... well, not letting the players fly.
Monsters aren't meant to be 'designed' to be able to fight back against any possible threat. They're meant to be thematic. Ogres and dire tigers are thematic. They're not going to sprout wings or pull out a composite longbow just because PCs have got a permanent fly ability that was no part of the core rulebook (except for high-level wizards, who already have any number of ways to defeat that kind of enemy).

Don't forget Druids (and anyone with access to the full Druid animal companion list), who can get a decent selection of large flying animal companions and/or shapeshift into tons of flying forms. And once you get beyond Core, which is hard to avoid in a thread about a non-Core class...

I guess I just don't see why it's fine for the nine-level casters to get permanent flight, but the guy who can only stab things can't get it. Especially when there's plenty of ways to make sure it's not available at low levels when it might break the game.

But nevermind. I'm sure you're Holy Pathfinder is perfect in every way.

Lemmy wrote:
Davor wrote:

You're the DM. You decide what's in game. YOU SAID NO. That's all there is to it. No debate, no questions, it's YOUR GAME.

Now, I probably wouldn't disallow it, because I don't care about disallowing new options, but IT'S NOT MY GAME, IS IT?!

You said no. That's it. I hate to type it, but:


Or... You know... You could listen to what your players (who are supposedly your friends too) have to say and actually take it into consideration instead of acting like a spoiled brat who will take the ball home if the game isn't exactly like he wanted. "My way or the highway" isn't exactly the kind of thing that I'd like to hear or say to one of my friends.

These guys are your friends! Having the final word shouldn't make you act like a petty dictator! You don't have to allow everything, but listening to their arguments goes a long way.

No no no. The point of Pathfinder is not to have fun with friends. It is to crush the will of your players until they admit that you are the superior God-GM, and they are subhuman scum who should be on their hands and knees in gratitude that the God-GM deigned to run a game for such unworthy beings.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Wasn't just failing a mission considered dishonorable in some cultures?

Heck, if we're talking about what some cultures consider honorable, we can include stuff like "savagely beating serfs who forget their place," "burning off the face of a female relative who was raped" and "ritual suicide."

Honor's a flexible term that way.

Boomerang Nebula wrote:
It makes little difference to me whether you kill an opponent while asleep or awake. What is important is whether it is in self defence. If you can make a case for self defence against a sleeping dragon then fine.

Does killing in defense of innocent life not count, then? Or bringing the dragon to justice for prior crimes? The common rationale for hunting down an evil dragon (or most other evil monsters) is that they've killed in the past, and will continue to kill in the future unless stopped.

If self-defense is the only justification, we end up with Paladins sitting back and watching dragons feast on peasants as long as the dragon doesn't threaten them personally. Which is obviously absurd.

I think it's a matter of degrees. Someone certainly won't be as fast and flexible in full plate as they would be unarmored, but the degree to which armor slows and restricts someone used to wearing it (AKA Armor Proficiency) is nowhere close to the penalties Pathfinder imposes. Someone wearing full plate might be slower, but their land speed isn't cut by a third.

Honestly, in my very limited experience people aren't really slower in plate so much as it is that they get tired much quicker. Granted, being used to the weight and in good shape undoubtedly helps with that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, there's a difference between "I think you might be misunderstanding how the rule works, which is why you don't like it" and the sort of responses that really boil down to "How dare you not love Holy Paizo's divinely perfect game system!!!"

A crazy trans-dimensional game where we were in the dumping ground of the Multiverse. Our party consisted of:

A Halfling Monk with a magic tree growing out of his head
A Warhammer 40k Eldar Harlequinn
An Anubite Paladin
A Wild Mage whose spellcasting was entirely determined by the RNG.
A Druid in Pikachu-Hide Armor whose Animal Companion was a Magicarp (until it evolved).

NBDM wrote:
AM I wrong for wanting to kill this player?

Since nobody else has taken advantage of this yet...

Don't kill the player. That's murder. I don't think life in prison (or the death penalty, if you're somewhere that has that) is worth it for a game. No matter how annoying the guy is.

memorax wrote:
Most players assume to get some items. For certain classes it's necessary to compete. They don't put themselves in danger simply free of charge. I'm not saying make it free for all for players. We also don't want to endlessly carry gp around without being able to spend it.

Exactly this. Having money you aren't allowed to spend isn't any better than not having money at all.

If the GM doesn't want their players buying 16k magic items in a low-level game, the GM shouldn't give them 16k in gold to spend. Plenty of other ways to keep them at WBL, especially if you add in something like Unchained's automatic bonus progression.

Aelryinth wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
You severely underestimate the power of cleric/wizard my friend... and Arcane Trickster Impromptu Sneak Attack has no equal in the game (downright sick if you use Unchained Rogue)

Cleic/Wizard with MAD castings stats, -3 caster levels, and no real class features.

As for Arcane Trickster, Impromptu Sneak Attack is only two attacks per day at best. Improved two weapon feint or Circling Mongoose do a much better job of enabling sneak attacks. It's also killing your BAB, and while the spells are nice, you can get equivalent abilites via class features or a smaller dip in horizon walker.

YOu can do both spon Cha casters, you know.

And generally, it's not MAD, because you're not super-pushing both classes. One is primary, and the other is buff spells and no-saves and utility stuff, maybe used to fuel metamagic.

The big thing is the loss of caster levels. That can be somewhat mitigated with feats and cash, but it IS a big reason why the MT isn't considered unbalanced. Even all those extra spells, -3 CL and delayed access is VERY punishing.

I mean, seriously, you have to be 10th level before a 3/3/4 MT (effectively 7/7) is even remotely fun to play in your party, and from levels 4-9, you just pretty much suck.


The problem is, if you go for two spontaneous Charisma casters you fix MAD but make all the level-based issues even worse due to Spontaneous casting getting delayed spell access. A 4/4/1 spontaneous Theurge is a SAD character in more than one sense of the term.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
See, that's just it. Improved Evasion can let you dodge the entirety of a blast of 10 lbs. of c4 going off 1 foot away. How? No idea. Must be magic, because even encasing yourself in concrete wouldn't actually save you.
Except Pathfinder doesn't use C4. It uses "cinematic" C4. Makes a big difference when figuring out who gets killed by it.

Yup. As long as you're a main character, all cinematic explosives do is knock you down and maybe stun you for a minute. Unless you turn your back on the explosion and start walking away, at which point you gain total immunity to them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BadBird wrote:
The issue of capstones is typically much bigger in theory than practice. Even assuming things go on long enough to reach a capstone - which is a big assumption - it's potentially a question of the benefits of multiclassing for the majority of a character's existence vs. something they get at the very, very end.

On the other hand, the slowed down progression of main-class abilities is usually much more noticeable if we don't just look at the endgame. After all, a wizards who takes a two-level dip in another class would "catch up" and have 9th level spells at level 20, but for most of his career he'd be a full level of spells behind a single-classed wizard.

Ultimately, multi-classing is just a matter of looking at the costs/benefits of the decision. You have to ask yourself if what you're gaining worth what you give up. Multi-classing was much more attractive 3.5 because base classes had few features, and most of those scaled with the right PrC, so you were generally not giving up anything compared to what you gained out of it. Pathfinder changed that equation by adding worthwhile features onto base classes that couldn't be scaled by taking a PrC.

Rycaut wrote:
and in many cases that boost isn't particularly helpful - i.e. if your spell DC's aren't very high or you can't get through spell resistance or you can't land even touch attacks (melee or ranged) then a higher caster level won't particularly help in most cases.

Point of Order: penetrating spell resistance is based on your caster level.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
You can't impale someone with a cat.

Challenge accepted.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Change? What do you mean, this is how it's always been...


Just like how we've always been at was with East Asia and allied with Eurasia.

Athaleon wrote:
The Wyrm Ouroboros wrote:
'Optimization' does not mean 'versatile', because 'optimum' means best.
If people are talking about "being the best at Pathfinder", then they do mean the same thing, because of the wide variety of challenges a party will be likely to face. I direct people toward the Same Game Test as the closest thing to an objective comparison between classes or specific builds. Even then, I would include more Skill-based challenges than the author of that page did.

Exactly. A one-trick pony who becomes utterly useless whenever his one trick isn't applicable is not an optimal character by any stretch of the term.

Milo v3 wrote:
Avh wrote:
All of this to say that before the coming of Ultimate intrigue (and some other) book, there was no indication whatsoever that spellcasting had magical manifestations.
I really don't know why your associating it with Ultimate Intrigue over and over for any reason past it mentioning an example of something that overrides the rule.

Maybe the fact that the PDT didn't even pretend they weren't using the FAQ to advertise Ultimate Intrigue? It's about on par with EA ripping content out of a game, then selling it back in the form of paid DLC.

Paizo Defense Force claims the new rules are simple and easy to understand. Then immediately gives three different answers for a simple question about what the DC is.

Even with the trait/cater level issue, I don't see any reason a Paladin couldn't switch to the heretical version of Asmodeus at some point after he gets access to divine spellcasting. It's not like deity choice is set in stone during character creation and totally immutable afterwards. Granted, it'd be a rather odd chain of events for a level 4+ Paladin to start worshipping a heretical Asmodean sect...

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Cel'Daren wrote:
I'm not claiming to be good. I'm claiming to be neutral.
There was a freaggin' PALADIN IN THE GROUP!!!!
So that means Neutral actions are taboo somehow?

...YES! only good actions should be considered by the said freaggin' PALADIN!




Guess all Paladins better make sure they eat their breakfast WITH HONOR or else they're in danger of falling in your games.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blakmane wrote:
Good luck with your level-matched goblins and random bird flock attack formations. It's pretty clear you are only going to listen when you get what you want to hear anyway.

Yeah, does look like another case of someone saying "Give me feedback and ideas" when what they really mean is "Tell me how utterly brilliant and amazing my ideas are."

Not to mention that dead men tell no tales. After all, if someone found them bound and gagged, it wouldn't take long for someone to get the bright idea of asking "Who did this to you?" At which point the group's cover is blown.

Ravingdork wrote:
I just love how Paizo has gotten into the habit of creating new rules that limit game options prior to releasing new products that expand said options again at the expenditure of more character resources. /sarcasm

They're not even being subtle about it anymore. The FAQ even has an advertisement for Ultimate Intrigue included in the text.

1 to 50 of 2,713 << 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.