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

2,136 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

CWheezy wrote:

I dunno why people are saying "It is a level 1 spell, therefore it can't be better than a level 5 spell".

That seems really strange to me, because lower level spells being better than high level spells happens constantly in pathfinder. There are many low level spells that are much better than high level spells, and there are a lot of high level spells which don't really do anything useful.

For an easy example: Protection from Evil. Even mind blank doesn't give you the immunity to charm spells like pro evil does, and it is level 9!

In my personal experience, arguing "X shouldn't be more powerful than Y" or anything else based on game balance is usually a pretty strong indicator that the person isn't arguing RAI, not RAW. Or, less charitably, Rules As I Think They Ought To Be (RAITTOTB).

wraithstrike wrote:

I personally hate RP'ing shopping. I don't want to haggle. I don't want to have a conversation with shop keeper 9F. Unless he is plot relevant I won't even try to remember his name. Actually I won't even ask. I want to mark X amount of gold off my character sheet, write down item Y, and get back to adventuring.

Now I am aware that everyone does not have that stance, but a factor in how well this goes over depends on how your players feel about shopping, and other game interactions. Even if everyone here said it was a great idea the players may not enjoy it.

This is a fair point to bring up. I'm reminded of one 3.5 game where the GM roleplayed all our shopping experiences with very fun, colorful NPCs. It was a lot of fun at first, but as the game progressed and we picked up more gold to play with it got to the point where we would spend an entire session taking care of everyone's shopping. It started to feel less like Dungeons and Dragons, and more like Merchants and Markets.

There's only so much gaming time for your group: time spent RPing out purchases takes away from time adventuring, advancing the plot, etc.

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

I like the slayer.

It is one of the weaker classes, but it is a functioning mundane class without crazy stuff like the barbarian or spells like the ranger and paladin.

The only classes weaker than the slayer are the rohue and the fighter which are both horribly underpowered in their secondary role.

you forgot monk, which is on par with or weaker than rogue at everything except running away and jumping really high due to being extremely MAD and having to spend more money on magical damage boosters than most other classes because they tried to remove the gauntlet or greave as an option for cheaply enchanting monk unarmed strikes

Yeah, it is rather telling that the strongest monk archetypes are the ones that drop the traditional monk flavor in favor of using weapons and even wearing armor. As much fun as I had with my Sohei last time I played him, I got some funny looks for playing a "monk" who wore armor, used a huge sword, and specialized in mounted combat.

Aelryinth wrote:

Except of course for the fact the fighter hasn't received:

1) Any bonuses to skills.
2) Any better defenses, especially saves...although I suppose they can potentially access Blindfighting on demand...
3) any increased movement abilities. They are all general feats...

which, of course, were the main things the fighter was lacking in the first place.


Well, Mutatation Warrior does give an option for in-class flight, and Eldritch Guardian upgrades bravery to work on mind-affecting effects.

But yeah, I'd have to agree that overall the Barbarian still has the advantage. Fighter's just gotten some nice new stuff to close the gap a little bit. If you take a specific combination or archetypes.

And thus we learn that the necromancer trumps the barbarian and the fighter.

Though I think the actual comparison has shifted a bit more in the fighter's favor in the last couple years. The Martial Master, Mutation Warrior, and Eldritch Guardian archetypes are all nice boosts for the fighter, while the Barbarian hasn't gotten any new shiny archetypes.

There's also the Comfort enchantment to knock ACP down another point.

If you don't mind going third party, there's also Fusing armor.

Darkheyr wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me at how specific/real world the game breaks down martial fighting into specific feats, of which even a 20th level character only gets between 10 and 20, yet magic, which has insanely low prereqs for spells (Stat 10+spell level), and even a 10th level sorcerer has 24 to choose from, continues to be broad and widely applicable.

VERY true. It's what bugs me about the fighter/wizard discrepancy the most - not 'power' as such, but the sheer versatility a wizard gets, especially once he starts collecting scrolls - new sourcebooks can grant completely new abilities to wizards and divine casters, while martials can't just casually learn new tricks.

Sorcerers are much closer in 'balance', at least in concept and when you ignore consumables - but still on a larger scale.

I wonder if one could build a new fighter loosely based on the sorcerer concept. Fighting Schools instead of Bloodlines, and martial powers / maneuvers instead of spells.

Sounds a lot like Tome of Battle/Path of War.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luthorne wrote:
Single class. I got really tired of having to multiclass in 3.5 to feel effective and plot out a bunch of break points and prerequisites for the practically obligatory prestige classes...ugh. It was a real relief in Pathfinder for single class to be perfectly acceptable, though I suppose in some ways they might have gone too far. While I prefer not to multiclass myself, I think it should still be a better option that it currently seems to be.

Yeah, I think Pathfinder made the right move by adding some incentives for staying in a single class for 20 levels. In 3.5 there was no mechanical incentive to stay single-classed past level 5 (Unless you were a druid). However, I think Pathfinder might have gone a bit too far in the other direction, especially after the recent SLA ruling that really hurt the viability of the multiclass-friendly prestige classes. Not to mention prestige classes just generally feel weaker than sticking with your base class.

Buri Reborn wrote:
Single classing. I would likely multiclass if it weren't such a binary thing. That you get absolutely nothing from previous classes is a bit weird, imo. I don't know what the right line would be for things to still gain. I would just like something like that even if it were just +1 or 2 to a couple class skills for that class, a single extra spell slot.... something.

I did like the feats in 3.5 and 4e that allowed you to continue leveling up some class features after you started multi-classing.

Alas, Pathfinder is not a very multiclassing-friendly system outside of dipping for specific abilities. There seems to be some intent to replace that with archetypes that mix and match features from different classes, but those are often restricted to a specific flavor and don't cover anywhere close to all the things one might wish to combine.

Sometimes multi-classing is more about flavor than mechanics; even with all the work Pathfinder's put into new classes and archetypes, there are some concepts you really can't cover by single-classing.

I'm rather curious about the massive wisdom investment on your character when dexterity is usually considered a far more important stat. After all, dexterity handles your offense and quite a bit of the defense too, while wisdom only really affects grit pool, will saves, and a couple skills.

Gullyble Dwarf - Lvl 7 DM wrote:
In general I'd say raw physical beauty is NOT a factor in those things and when it is it's often in regards to specific genders, sexual persuasions, or cultures than across the board and can have negative effects with a good portion of the populace as well.

Also a good point; in a place as diverse as your typical fantasy game beauty is going to be very much in the eye of the beholder. It's certainly possible to have, say, a half-orc character who's ugly by human standards, but quite the looker by orc ones.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Sheppard Book wrote:
Not to be that guy but Sacred Fist can wear Armor and flurry. As it doesn't state they can't.
Yes and the Brawler can too kinda. But the OP is asking about Monk specifically.

Other classes are still somewhat relevant when it comes to considering game balance, as is the Sohei's armored flurrying. It does rather nicely indicate that the monk getting armored flurry options isn't a big deal.

The Brawling enchantment on light armor would be a big boost for unarmed monks, certainly. But then again it's something other monk-esque classes have gotten without causing problems, the monk has some accuracy issues, and unarmed monks tend to be rather weak compared to the weapon-using archetypes like Sohei and Zen Archer.

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
physical appearance, as in what you look like, shouldn't really be determined by an attribute number because it consists both of your natural physical features, and how well you maintain those features

Indeed. It's notable how just about every gamer story of That Guy includes mention of his terrible personal hygiene.

Like I've mentioned once or twice up-thread, a lot of the things that factor into your appearance are pretty easy to change. I don't think the Barbarian should be gaining charisma every time he takes a shower or puts on something nicer than animal skins. Nor should the wizard go up in charisma just because he used Alter Self to give his body the physique of a greek god.

Kletus Bob wrote:
Cavalier just have to keep flying, wizard scry, cavalier is moving at full speed, wizard port in off the mark, cavalier moves again and is already far away. The Wizard fly speed don’t allow him to beat the cavalier flying mount speed.

Assuming your cavalier is getting a griffon mount by way of Monstrous Mount+Monstrous Mount Mastery, I don't see why a fly speed of 40 would be impossible for a wizard to match.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If Charisma is primarily about your looks, then why doesn't a gnome take any charisma penalty for using Alter Self to turn into a Duergar, or vice-versa?

For that matter, shapeshifting in general should have plenty of options for upping your charisma.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
StabbittyDoom wrote:
It invalidates the RAW argument, but not the RAI argument. ACG is written badly enough it's not much of a stretch to say that they meant to use the term off-hand instead of other hand.

Problem is, that logic could be used to invalidate anything in the ACG. It's very easy to say "I know that's not what the rules say, but obviously that's just an editing error and the devs really agree with me."

Barring errata/dev clarification, there's no way to know RAI beyond what's written down and occasional no-brainer like dead people taking actions.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Never dump STR below 10. You won't always have DEX-to-damage, and you need it for the first few levels...

There's literally no way to get Fencing Grace in level 1 other than playing a Human Fighter or Human Inspired Blade Swashbuckler.

he has, "one level dip in Inspired Blade Swashbuckler class" So he does have dex to damage at lv1. And why not dump str below 10? If you're not getting power attack a 7 or 8 is about as useful as a 10.

Encumbrance can be an issue at Strength 7, if your group tracks that.

Surprised nobody has mentioned Rage Prophet yet, though I suppose that's really more Barbarian/Oracle.

Edit: Derp, never mind, I missed it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
JonathonWilder wrote:
Well the point involving Charisma and beauty still apply and is not house rules. What I added was my feelings on other discussions in this thread, counting whether a player should be allowed to dump a stat, Charisma, into near nothingness and not roleplaying it.
Generally my point would be ... Dumping a stat would inconvenience you in some way. If you want to play it out somehow in your characterization, that is cool. But if you decide not to I'll just make sure at least some situations crop up where you really could benefit from a decent charisma, or have to utilize rolls involving charisma based skills. Not throwing them at you like a Gatling gun, but making sure they do crop up from time to time, so it's understood dumping something is a trade off. Same with other dump stats.

I certainly think it's fair to have the occasional scenario where you can't leave all the talking up to the one guy with good bluff/diplomacy skills (Though obviously the character who invested should still get plenty of chances to use those skills).

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Honestly, Vital Strike isn't bad, it's just not as good as a lot of people hope and the disappointment has embittered them. The feat is basically meant as a consolation prize for situations when making a full attack isn't possible.
Yeah, I think the long string of FAQs restricting what it could do really turned people off the feat. At this point it's a pretty safe bet that if you FAQ any question to Paizo about vital strike, the answer is "No, you can't." Heck, Paizo brought back RageLancePounce because the alternative was letting mounted characters vital strike with a lance.
I don't know where you've been but lancepounce is still nerfed 'because realism'

I assume you mean the ruling that it doesn't get x2 damage on all hits? Yeah, that ruling's still in place.

However, it used to be that you couldn't pounce at all while mounted, on the grounds that the mount was charging, while the PC was just taking an attack action. Thus, people thinking you could vital strike on a mounted charge, which lead Paizo to reverse that and shift to the current paradigm of both mount and rider taking a charge action.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would also mention that a whole lot of one's appearance is not inherent so much as a matter of presentation. Supermodels don't look nearly so good when they're sitting on their couch dressed in dumpy clothes without any makeup on, after all. Or to bring up a classic trope, the guy/girl who doesn't looks fairly unattractive most of the time, but once they get a haircut and change clothes suddenly they're beautiful.

As far as charisma goes, I think a lot of it stems from knowing how to use what you have to maximum effect. Whether it's trying to look beautiful and glamorous, or that guy with the crooked nose and scars trying to look rugged.

Arachnofiend wrote:
ChainsawSam wrote:

Vital Strike isn't so bad on monsters. Nobody really expects them to have it or you to use it since it's such a sub par choice as a PC.

If you whack a PC and roll pretty well it tends to throw them off balance a bit by taking more damage than they initially estimated.

Monsters tend to have better damage dice to take advantage of vital strike anyways. *phoning Vital Strike T-Rex*

Indeed. Rather telling that one of the few classes that can really get a lot of mileage out of Vital Strike is the Druid.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
Hell, in our society you can BUY being conventionally attractive. I'm sure you can do it in a society with magic.

For that matter, if charisma was all about looks wouldn't shapeshifting have some effect on your charisma? As it is there's none, even if you go something like shift from a +2 Charisma gnome to a -4 Charisma Duergar.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Honestly, Vital Strike isn't bad, it's just not as good as a lot of people hope and the disappointment has embittered them. The feat is basically meant as a consolation prize for situations when making a full attack isn't possible.

Yeah, I think the long string of FAQs restricting what it could do really turned people off the feat. At this point it's a pretty safe bet that if you FAQ any question to Paizo about vital strike, the answer is "No, you can't." Heck, Paizo brought back RageLancePounce because the alternative was letting mounted characters vital strike with a lance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
rather than the ability to blast bad guys with the Rainbow of Friendship.
But... that sounds so cool! I want one, now!

I would probably play one too, come to think of it. Though it might work better to play it as a Cleric or Inquisitor with the Friendship domain.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

Or rather, only interesting in an academic and/or watch-the-train-wreck sense.

Someone COULD run a game where there's horrible repercussions for using lethal force when fighting back against the forces of voracious, implacable evil.

You'd probably want something like a CoC-style sanity score mechanic for alignment, in that case.

I wouldn't have any interest in running OR playing in that game (being able to rather violently and thoroughly oppose horrible stuff is part of the fun of escapist fantasy), but it could be run.

But yeah, default assumption in Pathfinder is that good aligned characters can kill their foes, and are fully expected to do so.

Indeed. There's a reason Paladins get weapon proficiency and Smite Evil as class features, rather than the ability to blast bad guys with the Rainbow of Friendship.

Greatsword and greataxe average out to the same damage: greatsword crits more often, greataxe crits harder.

Falchion depends on your static modifiers and if you have anything extending your crit range. If you have improved critical/keen on the weapon, then you only need +20 in static bonuses for the Falchion to begin beating the greatsword and greataxe in average damage.

James Risner wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
I used to feel the same way. Then the SLA FAQ was reversed with no explanation. Why couldn't they reverse their "hands" FAQ if they all felt like it?
When they made the SLA original ruling, they said it was an experiment. The hands ruling is more "mater of fact" and I strongly get the impression from all discussion about it that it is as it is and isn't going to change.

One can hold out hope that they'll eventually realize how stupid the whole metaphorical hands vs. real hands thing is, and consider revising it. PDT has reversed itself on a few rare occasions when their FAQs were particularly bone-headed, like undoing some of the "Paizo hates monks" FAQs.

Arachnofiend wrote:
pickin_grinnin wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Uhh... I'm going to need to see an example of what you mean. I don't see a niche for a class that doesn't do anything to assist the party in succeeding.

Define "succeeding." I don't limit that word to combat.

In some campaigns, having a merchant, historian, researcher, or other non-combatant can be a very valuable thing.

Err... You could just have a Bard or Investigator (or anything else with skills) trained in knowledge skills. A specifically non-combat class is fairly useless when there are combat classes that are already fully capable of doing everything you could possibly need to do outside of combat.

Indeed. Pathfinder assumes that people want to play adventurers of some stripe, not NPCs who would never leave the safety of their university/shop or do anything dangerous. I would think a historian can be quite nicely represented by ranks in Knowledge (History), or a merchant with an appropriate Profession skill and using the property rules from Ultimate Campaign.

Kolokotroni wrote:
One thing to consider with a new party, is that a buffer isnt always the best way to go. One of the quickest ways to turn off or confuse a new player is to explain to him that you have cast bless, aid, and are inspiring courage, which adds x to y, z to b and L to d1. The constant shifting of numbers will be problematic in the short term for new players to track. Looking at the party, aside from maybe the arcanist, you have a fairly simple set of characters there, a good starting group.

There is some truth to this. If you're going to play a buffer, I would strongly suggest something to make it easier for everyone to track what your spells are doing for the. I kept a small whiteboard and a dry erase marker, and wrote down exactly what +s every single character was getting from me, then left it out for everyone to see. That seemed to help a lot.

Kolokotroni wrote:

You arent alone. I think it has potential, it just needs a bit of umph.

I actually once wrote up an archetype for the rogue that focuses on dirty trick called the Lethal Trickster. The idea being that one of the areas the basic rogue might still make sense (as opposed to using a ninja, slayer, investigator, swashbuckler or alchemist) is the dirty rotten trickster.

I have to agree, the rogue really ought to be the master of dirty tricks.

Gwen Smith wrote:
It isn't the same at all. There is no mechanical penalty for a low charisma, so anything GMs do to make charisma matter feels like "punishing" the player for tanking a stat they don't care about.

Technically, there are mechanical penalties since you'd be taking a negative on any charisma-based skills and charisma checks. Though in my experience most GMs who decide to punish low charisma instead do things like have children pelt you with garbage, people scream and run away when you try to talk to them, etc. Basically, a bunch of passive-aggressive BS to go after the player for having wrongbadfun.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

Deadly Agility is taking out barriers to TWF with dex to damage. If you want Dex to damage, there are already Five methods that are Paizo.

Dervish Dance - Scimitar only, requires a free hand and a skill tax.
Slashing Grace - One handed only, requires a feat tax and a dip unless you only use Whip or Aldori Dueling Sword
Fencing Grace - Rapier only, requires weapon focus
Agile Weapons - Enchantment based, expensive.
Mythic Weapon Finesse - Mythic only.

Since Deadly Agility is equivalent to a mythic feat, it's overpowered. Period.

Is that level of being overpowered going to break your game? Probably not.

This is a mythic feat as well, for a +2 to two skills I haven't seen used in months and an auto-nat 20 if you spend one of your mythic points.. on checks that usually have to be made several times to make any real difference.

Comparing to mythic is a good thought, but isn't necessarily going to lead you to a good conclusion.

If you wanted a paizo-level paranoid writing of a dex to damage feat, try this one: "You may use your dexterity bonus in place of your strength bonus when dealing damage with weapons with which you can use weapon finesse. This bonus is halved for off-hand attacks, but not increased if wielding the weapon in two hands. Your strength penalty, if any, still applies. When making a full attack you can only use this feat if you attack with the same weapon for all attacks gained from that action."

Personally? I think the above would be too heavy-handed.

Yeah, history has shown that Paize has some ... very strange ideas about what constitutes good game balance.

Letting a martial with charisma as a secondary state add charisma to just will saves? MADNESS! Letting a caster with charisma as their primary stat add charisma to all saves? Perfectly reasonable and balanced.

And thus we enter the dreaded realm of real hands vs. metaphorical hands.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
And lets not forget that PFS is rather lethal. You kind of need a super-optimized character just to live through it.


If you believe the above, then either your sampling of PFS is extremely non-representative, or your idea of what constitutes "super-optimized" is simply wrong.

I assumed that was sarcasm due to PFS's rather infamous reputation for being a faceroll.
Well, there are a handful of notoriously deadly scenarios, so it's possible he could have tried out a few sessions and just happened to get those exceptions back to back. I recall a thread in the PFS forums once where someone complained about how deadly he had found PFS to be in his first few games, and a little Q&A determined that was exactly what happened. Fortunately, folks were able to reassure him that his experience was not representative of the whole campaign, so he gave it another shot.

Not to mention that with Pathfinder being a team game and PFS's basic idea of letting anyone join a game, it's just about inevitable that you'll be unlucky in your choice of teammates at some point. An optimized character is better when the deck is stacked against you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Rorek's idea with the ioun stone is nice, but if this is an antimagic revolution the stone probably won't last long. In a normal campaign it would be a lot more useful.

Yeah, if you're going to be going up against casters regularly it won't last long. Also, something like a summoning/buffing/control specialist might be able to largely bypass the stone, since none of his spells would be directly affecting the martial. Or the summoner could call up minions with spellcasting to burn the stone out quickly.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Magic is more of a factor in rocket-tag than BAB is.

Agreed. Save-or-Die and Save-or-Suck spells are what really drives rocket tag, not knocking off HP. A dragon at 1 hp is still just as dangerous as one at 100. A dragon that's dazed for the next three rounds is harmless, and will probably never get a chance to do anything before it's killed off.

Covert Operator wrote:
Smilodan wrote:
Why do you want to change BAB? Is it because Medium BAB are missing too much and Full BAB are hitting too much?
I have a whole list of house rules that I'm developing, and I wanted to know if this was a slightly balanced one.

That's probably an impossible question to answer with the information given, since odds are pretty good that all your other house rules would also be changing game balance. I would assume you would at least be revising the BAB prerequisites on a lot of feats, how AC works, etc.

Weirdo wrote:
Atarlost's issue is that if party members don't all invest in defense the enemy is likely to ignore the turtles in favour of the glass cannons.

Not to mention that there are three different types of AC and three different saves to cover. Even if everyone pays attention to defense, it's going to be pretty rare for all members of the party to be strong in all defenses.

And of course, even one chink in the armor can have nasty consequences for the entire party, such as the domination-based bad guy targeting the PC with the weakest will save.

thejeff wrote:

I think the difference was that 3.0 introduced a build game that really wasn't there before. Back in AD&D days you couldn't really boast about how your fighter was so much tougher than anyone else because you were so clever about designing him.

You could of course boast about the stats you'd rolled and the gear you'd found and how many cool things you'd killed. And people did. Oh, my God, they did.

I suspect the details of the conversations now differ, but the gist is about the same.

That largely matches my experience as well. From the very beginning of the hobby there's been plenty of one-upmanship, bragging, and competition. I recall one old grognard I gamed with back in the AD&D days who would never stop talking about this one character he'd played, and all the cool stuff that character had done.

The only thing that's shifted since 3.0 is how all the bragging and competition is done. In the old days it was more about things your character has accomplished, since the mechanics of the game were a lot looser and far more subject to the whim of the DM. Complex character builds largely didn't exist; You picked race, class, weapon proficiencies, and one or two class features or a kit, then rolled your stats. That was it.

Starting from 3.0, there was a lot more focus on having a single defined ruleset which put far more emphasis on building your character at all levels of the game. One of the most telling differences for me between Pathfinder and AD&D is how many more decisions are involved in leveling up. AD&D Level ups could usually be accomplished in the time it took to check the chart for how your THAC0 and saves changed. Pathfinder leveling up is usually something I tell people to do between sessions, because otherwise it can easily eat up at least half an hour of game time because there are so many decisions to make.

In short, a lot of competitive types focus on builds because that's what 3.X/Pathfinder rewards, but the hobby has always had players who will constantly brag about how badass their character is.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Really, I find that there's no issues with having an evil character in the party so long as there's a firm "no PvP" rule in place.
That's not necessarily enough on its own. Suppose one PC is a paladin, and another likes to commit acts of blatant murderous evil. Banning the paladin from doing anything about it doesn't solve the problem.

Fair point, I tend to assume that a "no PVP rule" also includes a "no abusing the no PVP rule" clause. Things like the rogue stealing all of a fighter's money, then hiding behind the no PVP rule when the fighter tries to take it back by force are just as bad.

Granted, I also assume there's a general "Don't be a jerk" rule that applies to all characters at all tables, regardless of the alignments at play.

When it comes to how a dungeon reacts to the party teleporting out halfway through, I think a lot depends on what exactly this "dungeon" is. If it's an isolated tribe of monsters trapped deep underground, there's not much more they can do before the next day other than go on high alert and maybe throw up some crude defenses/traps.

On the other hand, if the dungeon is something like a corrupt noble's mansion in the middle of a major city, you can expect said noble to spend his one-day reprieve hiring extra thugpower and maybe even contacting the local authorities about the band of "brigands" who invaded his home last night and requesting additional protection.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
honestly, I think more GMs should be less "no Evil characters" and more "no character's who are evil because reasons/chaotic stupid"

Yeah, I think the main reason GMs ban evil characters is because they associate that sort of behavior (and backstabbing the party) with playing an evil character.

Which is somewhat fair; I've gamed with people who rolled up chaotic evil characters, and proceeded to try and murder or rape anything that moved. Though I'm pretty sure in a "no evil allowed" campaign those sorts of players would just roll up a chaotic neutral character who did the same sort of things.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Nezzmith wrote:
My personal experience has been that it is the good characters that end up betraying the evil ones in my campaigns.
Same here. As soon as they see "Evil" on the character sheet they get weird. Metagamers gonna metagame, I guess.

That is somewhat true, in my experience. Lots of people tend to assume that any character with "Evil" on the sheet is going to betray and murder the party at the first opportunity, and thus decide to do some preemptive backstabbing.

Really, I find that there's no issues with having an evil character int he party so long as there's a firm "no PvP" rule in place.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
That matter aside, if the elemental is a no-go there are still plenty of other options that he could use for Polymorph Any Object. The only elemental immunity that really hurts to lose is critical hita/sneak attack, and it's not like protection there are no other way to pick up protection from crits.
I'd still argue that using it that way, it'd only last 1 min/level per greater polymorph. (when keeping his own levels etc) But - there's an argument both ways on that front.

Yeah, I'd have to say that the spell seems open to all kinds of nasty uses if the GM doesn't apply some kind of restrictions to it. Like permanent-duration transformation of a martials into any type of giants. Not at all hard to pull off since both are Animals, and mammals, and giants don't have massive Int.

Considering Giant Form II is an 8th level spell, (and self-only), that seems a bit much.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cynge wrote:
TrustNo1 wrote:
However, unless a developer clarifies a rule, I have a hard time accepting the ruling of the forums. No offense guys, but you are just a drop of sugar in a sea of vinegar. By that, I mean that anyone can have an opinion, but I prefer an official ruling before I change the rules.
I can agree that you shouldn't blindly change your way of thinking because of the forums. Hopefully though, you do consider the information that the the pool of experience provides in your decisions when controversy is at hand. It has been my experience that no matter how much I think I am right on something, someone who views it from a different perspective can add some much needed light to an otherwise questionable ruling. Ultimately, you are the voice of rules in your campaign, but that voice need not lack ears.

Not to mention that the devs are generally not in the habit of answering rules questions outside of official FAQ/errata.

lucky7 wrote:
150. Make them listen to Celine Dion.

That's a one-way ticket to chaotic evil.

Honestly, the "Animal, Vegetable, Mineral" category isn't anywhere near comprehensive enough to cover everything that can show up in Pathfinder.

I could see a decent case being made for elementals as animal or mineral, really. Rynjin's GM ruled that it's animal, which along with the Intelligence factor means he gets it for one week (+5 for kingdom, +2 for Int).

That matter aside, if the elemental is a no-go there are still plenty of other options that he could use for Polymorph Any Object. The only elemental immunity that really hurts to lose is critical hita/sneak attack, and it's not like protection there are no other way to pick up protection from crits.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
139. give them a puppy


146: Give them a horse.

1 to 50 of 2,136 << 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.