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

2,317 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Unchained Barbarian work fine Dex based.

Fencing Grace Barbarian? Yes, very doable.

I'm normally not one to criticize a new and fun concept, but a rapier-wielding Barbarian comes close to triggering my "That's just wrong" sense.

In any case, you could do a Dex-barian just fine with the "Chained" Barbarian, as long as you took the Urban Barbarian Archetype.


Deighton Thrane wrote:
It's seems like the new barbarian was sort of a stealth nerf, or maybe a bit of a re-balance on the class.

Not to mention several of the best rage powers got cut. No more Spell Sunder or in-class flight for the Unchained Barbarian, and Come and Get Me got re-worked into a (weaker) stance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Balgin wrote:
Malag wrote:
All party members are special snowflakes with darkvision really and they had special spell which enables them to sleep with armor on while being awake.

Okay. I'm going to say it. At this point it really feels as if your players don't want to play the kind of game you want to run. You want to run a relatively gritty realistic game where enemies think intelligently and heroes can die if they do something stupid. Your players sound like a bunch of powergamers* who want to play on "Easy Mode" (whatever that is) by eliminating anything that would inconvenience them by way of using spells such as the ones you mentioned. Those spells exist. That's fine. Many people want to play that way. That's also fine. Not everyone does.

This is not an ideal situation. You might need to all have a sit down and discuss what kind of game you're wanting to play together.

* Back in the day (before Monte Cook tried to kid us all that being a powergamer was respectable) this was not a term of endearment. Apparently we now all have to call powergamers twinks or tweakies or rules players or somesuch fiddle faddle just because other more respectable players want to be called powergamers but don't want to be associated with the really bad examples out there :p. In the above paragraph I was not using the word in a very positive light. That being said I was using it to possibly describe a strong conflict of play styles between your players and yourself. Your tastes seem to differ.

Anytime your analysis boils down to "One side of this disagreement is a perfect paragon of pure righteousness, and the other is subhuman scum that is trying to ruin roleplaying games for everyone" you might want to take a second look at how you're evaluating things.


Malag wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I do think it might have been a bit much to use that same tactic multiple times in one session. I would've given them some time to think over that encounter and figure out how to handle those sorts of tactics in the future before springing it on them again. That way, ideally, they have time to figure out a solution, think tactically, and can enjoy beating a trick that worked on them last time.
Well, it was only 1 encounter of such type. 2nd encounter was resolved under normal conditions. Mercenaries rushed into melee. A fairly regular combat encounter overall, but two managed to escape via already mentioned Stealth tactics.

Ah, thanks for clarifying that. Though I think your players were still frustrated by the same "Withdrawal+stealth" technique being used again, even if the overall encounter design was different.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do think it might have been a bit much to use that same tactic multiple times in one session. I would've given them some time to think over that encounter and figure out how to handle those sorts of tactics in the future before springing it on them again. That way, ideally, they have time to figure out a solution, think tactically, and can enjoy beating a trick that worked on them last time.


Imbicatus wrote:
Unchained Rage is safer in that it won't kill you if you pass out while raging. It's also faster in play because you don't need to recalculate 1.5 str bonus.

Do you really need to recalculate that every single time you rage? And even if you do, that kind of math should take at most half a second.


Bandw2 wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:

Yeah, it's not really a fair mechanic.

In Fantasy (referencing Black Prism), double pistols are common because misfires are common, so it's mostly to have good odds of actually shooting the target. In PF, it's just doubling your damage for a relatively small gold cost.

pretty sure it's reload times that cause double pistols to be a thing.

I doubt it's an either/or thing. Both are pretty good reasons.


Spook205 wrote:
...always made me wonder if you could countersong danced based performances...counterdance?

Obviously this would be challenging the other bard to a dance-off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it rather ironic that the "Unchained" Summoner is the one that had its flexibility, options, and creativity massively curtailed compared to the old "chained" version.


And this is the same developer who believes the martial/caster disparity doesn't exist (and is just a huge lie perpetuated by a shadowy conspiracy), so citing his opinions on game balance as gospel is a little suspect.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The biggest problem with this character has nothing to do with example and everything to do with encouraging the use of a dangerous, extremely addictive drug. That's not cool for a paladin to do.

How is the Paladin encouraging it? Other than taking it himself, which goes right back into the leading by example issue. It's not like the Paladin is going around handing out free samples and saying "Dude, you gotta try this s++*! It's the bomb!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
Actively doing equal amounts of good and evil in order to stay in the middle is almost insanity

I'd have to agree that deliberately doing so is pretty nuts, but I expect a lot of neutral people do end up in that category because they've had moments of both altruism and jerkishness. It's just that there's a big difference between someone who just does that as part of life, and someone who says "I gave money to that beggar, so now I need to insult one of my co-workers to balance it out."


Azure Falcon wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
LazarX wrote:
A major part about being a Paladin is setting an example.
That is one of the many valid ways to play a Paladin, yes. But nothing in the Paladin Code requires the Paladin to be a perfect role model who spends all his free time telling kids to stay in school, drink their milk, and not do drugs.

Well, considering you have to be Lawful good, if you went by the book you're stuck under this.

** spoiler omitted **

I don't see anything in the Lawful alignment that bars the paladin from drinking or indulging in other intoxicants, so long as he does so responsibly.

Basically, so long as it doesn't lead to him doing anything un-Paladinly while under the influence, and doesn't impair his ability to do Paladin things during the rest of his time, the Paladin is free to enjoy himself and relax a little.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
A major part about being a Paladin is setting an example.

That is one of the many valid ways to play a Paladin, yes. But nothing in the Paladin Code requires the Paladin to be a perfect role model who spends all his free time telling kids to stay in school, drink their milk, and not do drugs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So we're back to "If the evil king orders all paladins to commit suicide, they will fall if they do not comply."


Coltron wrote:

Well I was a fiendish boor with smite good( I am good) and was a huge creature that beat a preception check of 32 with its stealth check. I was then told the ground shook as it walk and it knocked down all trees in its way(I had to roll reflex to dodge the falling trees btw) I am really starting to think it was malicious. I talked to him about it afterwards and he just acted really awkward about it.

I might just have to stop playing with him.

Seems like that might be the right move. Once is an accident, twice is a trend.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Chengar

I hope I'm understanding your tone incorrectly, but that sounds a bit condescending.

-edited-

I suppose I should've amended Point 1 to include people who are aware of and don't mind the rogue's mechanical weakness.


Rynjin wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I suspect that's mainly because a fair-sized chunk of the playerbase either only uses the CRB, or is averse to using too much material from outside of it. Not because of the relative merits of the classes.
My conjecture had to do with whether or not newer classes had killed the older ones or not, not the reasons why (such as merit). Despite the rogue's relative lack "power", it is alive and well - not killed.
It's dead as a doornail, some people just insist on trying to re-enact Weekend at Bernie's with its corpse.

Well, Ciaran does have a point that there are still plenty of people playing it due to:

1: Not being very good at optimization
2: Not owning any of the books after the CRB, where archetypes made full rogue replacement much easier.
3: Narrowminded class definitions (AKA: You can't be sneaky unless your character sheet has Rogue written on it).


bigrig107 wrote:

Wait, is this "androids can only take levels in a few classes" a thing?

Do people actually think race should define character class, especially with PCs?

Unfortunately, yes. Some people have a very narrow view of how races and classes in RPGs work, and what character concepts they should be allowed to pursue. Anything that doesn't fit into that narrowly defined box is unacceptable.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:
My current party has a full ranger and has seen some rogue multi-classing, but still not a single slayer or investigator. Newer classes have more vocal online supporters than the older classes, so that skews the perception of what classes are alive and well and which have been "killed". If there were a way to find out what everyone is actually playing at their table - instead of what people are posting more often about online - I believe we would see a majority being the "traditional" classes.

I suspect that's mainly because a fair-sized chunk of the playerbase either only uses the CRB, or is averse to using too much material from outside of it. Not because of the relative merits of the classes.


A sling or some other ranged weapon, I'd say.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I think I know what card game you are talking about.

Thing is, everybody has agreed to a social contract, that cheating is part of that game.

For that matter, if it's part of the rules of the game, it's not really cheating.


kestral287 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

You prepare spells after you rest.

Everybody rests.

Connect the dots. It's not hard. Hell, this isn't even the first time-- look at the Eldritch Scion and the Arcane Pool.

I don't think anyone is confused about how it's supposed to work. The problem is, that's not what the rulebook says.

Unchained is the Big Book of Houserules and this is not a PFS-legal section.

If nobody is confused on how it's supposed to work, why even bring it up? No sane GM is going to actually run it that way, so who cares?

Because it's still a mistake that needs an FAQ/Errata. The fact that 99.9% of GMs can agree to the same common-sense houserule doesn't change that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
voideternal wrote:

Preventing cheating / fixing mistakes on a player's character sheet is important, but there are far more important things for a GM during gameplay at the table.

I find that the payoff for pointing out cheating / mistakes during gameplay costs far too much. It immediately breaks versimilitude for players focusing on RP. It takes up precious game time. It derails the plot because nobody remembers what they were doing after a table argument, and thus it messes up the game's flow.
Preventing cheating / mistakes is important, and I try to prevent it. But I don't try to fix it during game, unless the cheating / mistake is exceptionally game breaking.

Indeed. My first rule of GMing is to keep the game flowing and moving forward if at all possible. As long as the cheating/mistakes aren't causing serious problems within the game, it's really not worth grinding play to a halt just to tell someone that his +5 should be a +4.


kestral287 wrote:

You prepare spells after you rest.

Everybody rests.

Connect the dots. It's not hard. Hell, this isn't even the first time-- look at the Eldritch Scion and the Arcane Pool.

I don't think anyone is confused about how it's supposed to work. The problem is, that's not what the rulebook says.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
If it is an accident I dont consider it cheating. I know the rules pretty well, and I had 2 or 3 mistakes after doing a self-audit last week.

Indeed. I don't really count it as cheating unless someone's intentionally breaking the rules. I mean, with as many rules as a game like Pathfinder has, I'm pretty sure everyone's made their share of mistakes at some point.

As for actual cheating, I tend to not be too bothered by it as long as it's non-disruptive. If someone brings a massively overpowered and illegal build that disrupts the game, I'd be annoyed. Another player fudging their roll when they're hit with a save-or-die honestly wouldn't bother me all that much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Lotta Stuff

I will say that in my practical gameplay experience the player/player disparity is almost always the single biggest factor in how effective characters at an individual table are. While I have run games where equally optimized casters left martials in the dust, I've run far more games where Player A's system mastery made them build far more effective characters than Player B, regardless of the classes involved.


Just a Guess wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Amulet with straigth +'ses is the way to go, IMOP.
For most classes, yes. For barbarian or bloodrager furious is better.

Ah, but Furious ultimately just adds straight plusses more efficiently.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:

Conceptually, I like bounded accuracy. I don't mind the numbers of the game being dragged down and tied together a little bit.

The problem with bounded accuracy is that it has been put into a system where you need, at minimum, a +4 modifier for the impact of that modifier to be felt with any consistency. The d20 is simply not a good dice for a bounded accuracy system, in my opinion. It has far to much variation in its results.

I have to admit, I'm not overly fond of the d20 as the basis for so many rolls. I have a lot more fun with systems where you get a dice pool or your baseline roll is 2d6 or something else with two or more dice.


Yeah, I find that the big difference between 15 point characters and 20 point ones is fewer dump stats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
My proposed solution in for people who want to make magic items "special" is that you make them... well actually special. There is nothing special about a +1 sword.

This. So many times this. A +1 sword is never going to feel unique or special no matter how much backstory you slap onto it, because there's nothing unique or special about it mechanically. It's just like the old nonmagical sword you had, but with slightly bigger numbers. And once something else with better numbers comes along, it'll replace that sword.

If you want players to get really invested in specific magic items, offer them something unique.

Seerow wrote:
First I just want to point out that Heroism is a Morale bonus and overlaps with Bardic Music, not stacks. That cuts 2 points off your to-hit bonus.

Inspire Courage is a competence bonus, not morale.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

There are - IMHO - far better ways to accomplish that than with Bounded Accuracy Chengar.

Bounded Accuracy dramatically limits the gap between low level characters and high level ones, whereas a system which eliminates the big six but roughly keeps the present numbers leaves the game relatively unmolested.

Oh yes, I definitely agree that 5e took things too far. It's just that I see what they were trying to do with it, and the overall idea of encouraging more variety and cutting down on numbers inflation does have a certain appeal even if the implementation is lacking.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

Ashiel's post puts me in mind of something else I always wondered. I haven't really hunkered down and thought it out, so the answers are probably pretty obvious. ^_^

A lot of people seem to want a system where magic items aren't calculated into PC power level. I always wondered, in a system like that, how can you drop fabulous treasures into the game? Wouldn't it make the PCs slightly and/or wildly overpowered?

Thank you in advance. (So sleepy - will follow up tomorrow)

As Wheezy says, most magic items aren't all that powerful.

Besides that, there are many magic items that provide useful effects, but don't affect the raw numbers of the game so much.

Yeah, given that a lot of the magic item game in Pathfinder is about getting your numbers up to par with the Big Six and all that, bounded accuracy would presumably remove all of that.

Not needing your +s from rings, amulets, cloaks, belts, and all the rest actually opens up more options for your magic items. I can think of so many nice items that I knew I couldn't get because my cloak slot had to go to my cloak of resistance, I needed that belt or headband slot to buff my core stats, etc.


CWheezy wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
because a a "patch" is just not feasible in a print game.
havent they printed six editions of the core rulebook

Not to mention errata and FAQs.


Morzadian wrote:

Feat trees are a good idea, it allows combat feats to scale with level (to some degree), there was less feat trees in D&D 3.5 (PHB II introduced extended feat trees into the game) and martial characters suffered for it.

The problem is the 'feat tax' of feat trees, or the cost if you like, is severely inflated.

I think feats should scale automatically rather than requiring trees to make them scale.

That said, I think when it comes to feat trees we need something more like how some of the better style feats work, where each feat in the tree gives you something really valuable and interesting. Too many of Paizo's feat trees wind up being "Pay an extra feat for another +1 to a previous feat."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Why do people default to real life to explain s~*~ like hit points, movies and television! that's where you look, have you seen the s$&# people live thru in those mediums!

Using real life examples for a fantasy games mechanics is disingenuous at best :-)

Indeed. Hit points are your action hero ability to shrug off getting stabbed/shot/whatever with a manly grunt and get back in the fight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Honestly, simply reexamining their goals for encounters would do wonders. It's not even that hard to make great encounters in this game, it's just Paizo frequently doesn't. They virtually never take the environments into consideration, almost never provide solid teamwork suggestions for NPCs, etc.

I'll agree with this for the most part, but will reiterate that I think this is both useful and intentional on Paizo's part to at least some degree.

APs particularly are at least somewhat marketed to those new to the game, and scaling encounters up is way easier for an experienced GM than scaling an encounter down is for a novice GM. Given this fact, erring on the side of lower powered encounters definitely seems the way to go.

APs are marketed to people new to the game? Is there any evidence of this.

I'm currently playing ROTRL Anniversary edition and it is very hard. Close to a TPK a few times.

Specific classes change the power level of the game at certain levels like Druid archetypes who can do standard action summoning and really summoning in general.

And one cannot expect an AP to deal with all of the complexities of contrasting character power level. However, I agree with Ashiel more could be done about making encounters more interesting.

I think it's not so much that they make AP's designed for new players as it is that they design them to be playable with characters who are at around the optimization level of the iconics.

Also, the Dice Gods are always going to be a big factor in combat, and I think the APs try to include a little extra wiggle room in case of bad rolls. Heck, when I was GMing RotRL with a pretty optimized group we still had a near-TPK due to my dice rolling insanely hot during one encounter. No martial is going to enjoy taking three triple-damage Ogre Hook crits in a single round.


I've never been a fan of any of the elemental enhancements, really. The extra damage is nice but even five points of elemental resistance more-or-less completely shuts that down.


Yeah, I think the low price-tag is what really makes adaptive so incredibly appealing. 1000 gold becomes chump change pretty quickly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I would also want a way to get FAQ's done for books that not created by the rules team.

Really, a lot of Paizo's policies regarding FAQ and Errata are in serious need of revision. I'm still baffled by the idea that they can't issue errata until a new printing of the book comes out.


I would also say that there are enough options/archetypes for classes to really muddy the waters/make it hard to tell the difference between various classes.

For example, we generally agree that Rage and rage powers are the defining Barbarian class feature. Yet Fighters and Rangers can both get those through archetypes, there's a cleric domain that grants Rage and a limited number of Rage Powers, etc...


Arachnofiend wrote:
The old Barbarian was on par with the Bard or Inquisitor in terms of value to the party, and some people still complained.

YMMV on if the old Barbarian could fully match the Bard/Inquisitor list of tricks, and even if he could not everyone wants to play a Barbarian.


Morzadian wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

In my gaming group we don't play with ability enhancement items and we play with consolidated feats.

Weapon Focus, Weapon Speclalisation, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialisation and Penetrating Strike = 1 feat.

Makes the Pathfinder game have a more medieval feel, stronger and more diverse martial characters and less super heroics.

This play style isn't for everyone and this is why I don't recommend Pathfinder change to suit my personal taste.

Excluding PFS, Pathfinder is very malleable (more so with Pathfinder Unchained), I say play as you want.

If D&D 5e is that good, why are 5e supporters posting on Paizo forums to make 5e changes to the Pathfinder game? Either 5e is deeply flawed and they miss the 'magic' of the 3.75 system or they are out-of-control dictators and need to tell Pathfinder players they are doing it all wrong.

Because, as said before, they like some things about both systems and would like something that's mostly PF, but with a couple good ideas from 5E?

Or because they're monsters. Which do you think is more likely.

it is a pointless argument because Paizo and WOTC are rival companies, and 'bounded accuracy' is 5e's trademark. It is what defines the two different systems and game publishers.

I have played 5e and I didn't mind it, it has its strengths as an RPG. Different game to Pathfinder though. And as gamers we are lucky we have a choice to play different types of fantasy RPGs. Yet the last thing we need is to homogenise D&D and Pathfinder making little difference if we play one or the other.

Nobody's talking about making Pathfinder exactly like 5e. They just want to steal one or two of 5e's better ideas.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.
Implying that their current attempt to support martial archetypes is dishonest? That seems a little harsh, no? O.o
Well, Paizo official stance on the matter IS "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda." Presumably an agenda to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

More that they acknowledge that the vast majority of play groups don't have "disparity" because people make suboptimal choices left and right, especially for spellcasters, because they're more concerned with building a theme-based caster than they are with building Batmage (i.e. being prepared for anything at any time, anywhere).

Highly-optimal play does see full spellcasters running rampant, because everything is picked over with a fine-toothed comb for effectiveness.

At most tables, though, dedicated casters are very powerful, yes, but hardly the ultra-optimized monsters you'll find on boards devoted to min-maxing them. So while they'll be more than capable of handling themselves in encounters, they're not obsoleting the entire party.

There's also the fact that the majority of class choices are either Martials or 6/9 spellcasters, and those classes generally appeal to more people than 9th-level spellcasters do, due to the "coolness" factor. And since 6/9 spellcasters fall much more in-line with Martials than they do with 9th-level casters, there isn't so much of an issue there, either.

I will grant that in a lot of the games I played in, the player-player disparity was more important than the difference between given classes. It's not even a matter of how of just how the characters build, either. Some players can take a mediocre build and really make it work, while I once had a player who built a by-the-numbers optimized Witch, but managed to make his character completely terrible by consistently making awful tactical choices (like running into melee with a 1/2 BAB caster class with 10 strength and no melee buffs)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mechagamera wrote:
If I was going to steal anything from 5e for Pathfinder, it would be fewer (both in total #'s and # that PC's get) but bigger feats. You could even keep backwards compatibility for feats. You get five feats, and you can chose PF 1.0 feats that give you 1 thing or PF 2.0 feats that give you 2 or 3 things.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of the "X" "Improved X" and "Greater X" styles of feats condensed into a single scaling feat. And cutting down the number of filler feats that have no/negligible benefit and just seem to be there to fill up page space.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

God wizards don't need Augment Summoning or any of the spell focus feats to do their job. That doesn't mean they can't make good use of those options if they want to.

Really, since most of the strength of a wizard comes from his spell list and selections there aren't too many must-have feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
It might be more realistic to ask Paizo to just be honest with themselves and their fans and re-classify all non-full casters as NPC classes.
Implying that their current attempt to support martial archetypes is dishonest? That seems a little harsh, no? O.o

Well, Paizo official stance on the matter IS "The martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda." Presumably an agenda to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.


Puna'chong wrote:
Getting past 12th gets tiresome as a DM. It's really just a lot of paperwork and bookkeeping, and if it's bad for players, it's even harder on a DM. For some people it's their thing, but for others it's just too much. High level play gets boring unless the DM puts a lot of time into designing impossible encounters that the players have to overcome with their godlike power. Lower level play also fits the aesthetic of my group (and my own tastes) more, as well.

Yeah, the one time I GMed a high-level game I got a bit burned out by how much of a pain in the ass tracking everyone's magic items, class abilities, and active spells got to be. The one time I threw a pair of themed sorcerers at the party, the sheer number number of spells in play on both sides just got insane.

And of course the more abilities/powers/spells you have running, the easier it is to forget about things and make mistakes. More often than not when I ran a high-level encounter there would be at least one instance where either I or one of the players went "Oh yeah, I totally forgot that I can do that!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Incidentally I would argue that Mythic WF does allow 1.5*dex

Whatever you think finesse training allows, Mythic Weapon Finesse clearly would allow too. (This whole debate isn't actually a new problem, but people play a lot more 3rd level rogues than mythic types.)

On the Rogue class itself this is a non-issue since sneak attack is unreliable and they get no other bonuses to attack/damage.

If someone takes a three level dip for it then I can't really see this as an issue either since dipping usually just weakens a character.

The only way a character is gonna take advantage of this is if the DM wants to throw a high level boss at his players since they can spare the dip levels.

And if you're playing at high levels, any GM should be very happy if the biggest problem he's dealing with is a guy who took a three-level dip in rogue to get dex-to-damage with a two-handed weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aiming at someone also doesn't mean you get to shoot at them before they react.
Hm, I'm not sure I agree. If the other person has their weapon drawn and ready to use, I'd agree, but if you are aiming your crossbow right at this fighter, he doesn't get to charge you and run you through before you get a shot.
He does get the chance to dive out of the way, however.

Hm.

You know what? I actually like this, but I don't feel the rules support it. This is where the rules fall short, really. We need "reactions". Kinda like how Shadowrun 5 lets you hit the deck, at the expense of now being prone.

Seems like something they could do by adding more immediate action options.
I'd actually like more swift/immediate actions. Some classes have great uses for this action slot, while others never use it it.

I think that was one of the big missed opportunities of Pathfinder. In 3.5 swift and immediate actions were a bit clunky and poorly spread because they were introduced in later supplements. Pathfinder had them baked in from the CRB onward.

1 to 50 of 2,317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.