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

DrDeth's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,937 posts (5,938 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,035 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
So, TOZ, in your games, casters dominate play? No use playing anything but a full caster? Or have you "fixed" it?
I haven't run anything but organized play in three or four years, so yes, yes, and no.

OK, then, good example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lissa Guillet wrote:
Privilege is weird. It specifically involves many things you probably aren't aware of. Many little things; tiny little bits that on their own don't amount to much if anything but over the course of a lifetime can have a profound affect or none at all.

Sure. But all of us who live in the USA- or in any First World nation- are "privileged" beyond the fondest hope of someone in Bangladesh or Sudan can even hope for.

And, even those of us who are white, "cis', middle classed, etc have issues- like being overweight or a Senior Citizen or health issues or many other things.

Can I, a overweight "senior" with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Prostate cancer say "Check your Privilege" to a 20-something with perfect health?

"privilege" is so very relative that saying "Check your privilege' is pretty darn insulting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


The thing about the whole "cis good or bad" debate that gets me all rustled is people like Lazar acting like turnabout is fair play there.

The term "cis scum" is fine to use because trans people have had slurs thrown at them for a long time...and somehow that makes it okay?

That kind of double standard makes communication difficult as well. I don't call black people the N-word or gay people the British word for cigarette because those are appalling words to call people, and they just help to promote racial and social tension among groups.

So deciding that, for some reason, that standard doesn't apply to the other side is baffling to me. It's still a terrible thing to do, and promotes that same social tension.

There's too much of this attitude that payback is inherently righteous in these social justice conversations. Yes, someone called you a bad word. That doesn't give you a chit you can cash in to call someone entirely unrelated a bad word for every time you've heard it.

A lot of these Tumblr blogs and whatnot seem to operate entirely on this principle.

Saying "F&%! all trans people, kill 'em all" is clearly f~#&ing horrendous.

"Die cis scum" and "Kill all men/white men" are somehow then rallying cries, not only acceptable but LAUDABLE (and as many are saying right now in regards to that second, my mere bringing up of this fact merely reinforces the idea that it is a necessary and good idea to spread.).

This is far more of a problem when it comes to these issues than "Talking past people". Talking past someone merely prolongs the discussion, sending it in circles. No progress is made.

The double standards, meanwhile, regress the discussion instead. Negative progress is made. Everyone comes out of the discussion MORE convinced for LESS REASON that their side is right and the other is insane.

Look, I agree with Rynjin! ;-) It's not so much that "cis" is horrible nasty and always a pejorative. It's that us caring and progressive people have learned that when a group tells us "Hey, please dont use that term" we now respond with "Sure, if that's what you want, Ok by me." Often with a qualifier like "Do note, we didn't mean anything pejorative by that term, we used it without meaning offense, sorry."

So then when we ask others to "please dont use that term, it offends me", we expect everyone to be on board with it- with a qualifier, sure.

So then we are shocked when the reply is "you have no right to be offended and we'll keep using that term whether you like it or not- and the fact that you're offended by it means YOU are intolerant" !!

We expect to be treated like we have tried to treat others- and if you're part of a majority group, it doesnt happen.

This just leads to more anger and intolerance.

Thanks for starting this thread, TacticsLion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
Everyone reading this thread that is frustrated with loot remember: crafting mundane items may be slow and boring, I get it, but it's still a decent way to get loot.

Well, maybe. But if your DM is into WBL and cuts back loot as you craft, then why bother?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This article by the well known author Brynn Tannehill should finalize the debate on the use of "cisgender":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-new-c-word_b_5617913.html
"The use of "cis" and "cisgender" should be carefully examined. There are people who strenuously object to these words being applied to them, even if the words come from an academic background. Just as my feelings on certain subjects should be respected, so should the feelings of people who dislike these labels.

It also needs to be asked what using the words gains us....The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative. ...Even inside the LGBT community the words have a very negative connotation. When someone is referred to as a "cisgender lesbian" or "cis gay man" by a transgender person, it is often in a negative way. The addition of "cis" or "cisgender" is used to imply a certain level of contempt and a desire that they leave discussions on transgender issues. It also implies that they don't, can't, or won't ever understand transgender issues.

...However, using the word "cis" or "cisgender" is not necessary to do so. Just as no one ever called me "tranny" and meant it in a nice or affectionate way, many LGB people have never been called "cis" or "cisgender" in a way that wasn't accusatory. Therefore we find common ground in disliking a word because its context has always been nasty and demeaning when applied to us personally.....As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse."

I agree with the author "The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative." and I think it's time the Paizo boards joined this movement.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How are you guys coming along with Simulacrum, etc FAQs?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Old school gamers know what a kender is and thus know instinctively not to take anything I say seriously....and to hide their valuables....

New School gamers don't get it

New School gamers welcome their kender friends.
Who wouldn't?

We "welcome" them into the whirling blades of death, followed by the lava pits.

;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
everyone wanted to play the Thief

Oh come on!

You're just saying that because you're more than a little biased... :-P

So very true.<g> Oddly, I usually played the Cleric.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Excellent points.

And, since each class has a niche, there hardly any issue about 'class balance". Since the Thief does his job, it isn't important if he's less powerful than the Wizard, as he still pulls his share of weight.

No. They just bongoed about having to play the thief or the cleric, since somebody had to. Granted we usually had someone playing a mage/thief or fighter/thief, so they were more fun.

Clerics didn't have as many multiclass options and were stuck being healbots far too much of the time.

Might not be "class balance", but causes a lot of the same problems. But worse, since you still needed them.

Naw- everyone wanted to play the Thief, or some variation. Cleric was pretty good at hitting things and could whup on Monsters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
patriarchus wrote:

I see two big differences between 'Old School' and the current ethos:

1) In the Old School, the creativity in the game before you sat down at the table was all in the hands of the DM. ...
2) In the Old School, the 'balance' in the game was calibrated for the party as a whole versus the intended encounters in a gaming session. A DM was expected to put challenges in front of the party that the party could handle by letting each character shine in specific situations (some traps for the thief, something requiring magic for the magic-user, some brutes for the fighter, and no chance to rest/an undead challenge for the cleric). That led to party composition ALWAYS having at least one of the major four classes and exotic parties were those that had the sub-classes while parties that didn't hit the main tent posts were usually annihilated. ...

Excellent points.

And, since each class has a niche, there hardly any issue about 'class balance". Since the Thief does his job, it isn't important if he's less powerful than the Wizard, as he still pulls his share of weight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Note the OP didnt ask about Fighters, he asked about Martials.

A Ranger is certainly a Martial and has scads of Skills and other stuff to do, besides combat. Even has spells.

A Paladin is a great healer and can remove conditions- besides being a mighty Smiting machine.

Bloodrager, Swashbuckler, Slayer, Cavalier, Brawler & Gunslinger are all certainly Martials and can do other stuff.

Magus, Warpriest, are also arguably martials, despite their spellcasting.

So, that leaves just the Fighter. Yep, he can pretty well do one thing really really well- Kill. (Sure- a human with a measly int of 12 does get 4 Skp a level, which means he's not totally left out skill wise, and there are some interesting archetypes, like the Eldrich Guardian).

And you know what? That's exactly what some players want and like. There's like three dozen classes now. Why can't just one- [b]ONE![b/] be the plain vanilla killing machine that a good number of players want to play?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trigger Loaded wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Trigger Loaded wrote:

I confess that I think Murderhobo is taken way too seriously, and that I am quite certain that most groups are practically murderhobos anyways.

Not in my experience.

Everyone always likes to deny it.

How many campaigns feature adventurers with no place of residence?
How many campaigns feature adventurers equipped, prepared, and often called upon to solve problems with violence?

Tell me this isn't the norm, and I'll say you're idealistic at best.

Are Knights Errant's Murderhoboes? US Marshals during the Wild West? Special agents of the Crown? Monsterhunters? How about pest control? Do you call the Orkingman a "murderer"?

Muderhobo means CE characters that murder anyone and everything as long as it brings eps or gold or fun. Unlawfully.

It doesnt mean adventurers who go around saving towns from ravaging monsters.

You have to get both the "murder" and "hobo" in there.

Your definition does include adventurers, but few adventurers "murder".

Last Campaign was RotRL and the PC's live in Sandpoint. Duly authorized, too, as official "Heroes of Sandpoint". Not hobos, not murderers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trigger Loaded wrote:

I confess that I think Murderhobo is taken way too seriously, and that I am quite certain that most groups are practically murderhobos anyways.

Not in my experience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cerberus Seven wrote:

Currently, a lot of things about the combat maneuver system bug the hell out of me.

"Say, GM, I wanna grapple that guy!"

"Okay. You don't have Improved Grapple, so he gets an attack of opportunity aaaaand rolls a 1." *curses*

"Oh, right, I forgot. Well, do his buddies next to him miss me too?"

"No, they don't get to AO you."

"But...I'm not trained in this technique and it's happening right next to them. I'm not focusing on them with my sloppy maneuver attempt, I'm focusing on this one guy. Why does the guy I'm actually attacking get to AO me, but his bodyguards within arms reach don't?"

"Oh look, the wizard cast dominate person, fight's over! Moving on."

T

The whole system is just bonkers on close inspection.

And yet- the PF system is so much better than the 3.5 system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:


I think most Vancian magic hates comes from spell slots. Vancian casting (as I understand it in fiction) operates more like a 5e Warlock who knows a certain number of spells and can use that pool of spells, like RQ6 theism where a priest prepares their spells with a holy sumbol and then can relearn them after casting them.

Nope. A Mage would literally force the words and symbols into his brain(usually by reading a spellbook), then once he uttered the spell, they were gone. He'd prepare his spells, just like a Wizard does.

The Jack Vance Dying Earth novels are quite good, everyone should read them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dkonen wrote:


I hear "grognard" and I think grumpy edition defender (not necessarily an aggressive sort but will defend his favorite to the pain)

Not grumpy and not really an edition defender. ;-) Actually, I enjoyed all editions of D&D, from OD&D thru PF and even 5th. Even 4th. (We had a great DM).

Yes, I like PF, and defend it, but a nice old school AD&D game is a lot of classic RP fun too.

Heck, with the right group and DM, Tunnels & Trolls is a blast.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

[

I thought that old school was the meat grinder sort of play, where PCs dropped every session from unspeakably horrific deaths, Wizards died from a stiff breeze and had to track their bat poop on stone tablets, traps had none of this silly "take X damage" frivolity but just "save or die, b****". The sort of game where you didn't bother naming your PC for their first three levels, because it is a bad idea to form attachments to dead characters walking. The sort of play where looking into a statue's mouth puts your head into a sphere of annihilation, no save, and where getting off the cart at the tavern results in several broken bones because you need to stop the cart first, dumb***. You know, the way Gyngax intended*. None of this nonsense about "choice" or "point buys" or "Role-Playing". That gets in the way of the players learning the meaning of suffering and loss and getting crushed in hilariously unfair ways.

I guess that just goes to show that "Old School" means whatever the hell the person saying it wants it to mean, either as a pejorative or as a badge of supposed superiority.

*Yes, I know exactly how factually valid this statement is. The question is though, how many of this particular flavor of "old school" think that competitive tomb of horrors play is the way Gyngax wanted DMs to run their games in general.

Yep, there were a few of those. Thankfully rare, unless it was for a one shot competition, where the idea was to survive. Those can be fun too- saying you "beat" Tomb of Horrors was real cred.

Roleplaying over tactics. Not necessarily roleplaying over powergaming or optimizers, plenty of those in the Old School days, but tactics were rare. Battlemats were uncommon, and the main use for figures was to show party order in a dungeon crawl. More dungeon crawls, too.

Traps werent always that deadly but they were far more imaginative than today. The idea of just "walking ahead and taking the damage- who needs a Rogue?" was unthinkable. Traps didnt just do damage. And there were lots of them , so the idea of "just summoning something would make you run out real soon. Not to mention it wouldnt work at all on half the types of traps.

A Thief was necessary. I should know!

Oh and yes- you mapped. Always.

Buying magics items was pretty much impossible, other than potions, scrolls and magic arrows. Thinking your character would have a flaming scimitar by level 7 was the definition of "hubris". Heck, you might have a small pile of +1 and even +2 weapons. But you used what you found.

Rolled, and often rolled in order. "Ooh, this would make a good wizard! " Not- "I will do up a wizard, he'll start with a 18 Int". Ha!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

At the end of the day, if the player refuses, but I don't want to lose the player, I abuse the feature the player refuses to lose until everyone at the table agrees that it is bullcrap. At this point the player either cedes the point under the pressure of the GM and the other players or I target the PC for assassination. One way or another, the feature is not going to be used sooner or later.

If the PCs refuse the hard ban, then anyone who chooses something from the ban list is targeted for assassination. They have a permanent AOE (unlimited range) taunt that is always on.

The point is: if your GM says, "Don't use this," then you shouldn't use it. Full stop.

Yeah, we had a DM who did this. We hated it.

You cant solve a OOC issue IC. Killing the PC for the Players issues is a Bad Idea.

Just say NO!. Dont be passive-aggressive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rory wrote:

Make the gaming table an "electronics free zone" except for potentially looking up rules, etc. Make them bring printed out copies of their character, take notes using pencil and paper, and make sure to roll actual dice.

Yep, but also speed up combat. let everyone know not only who is up, but who is next up, and that person has to be ready, with that page open for their spell or the monster they summon, etc.

Cut down on cohorts, summons, etc. No more than two combat ready things per player.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilonium wrote:

For the people who ban rez spells, I have a question. How does banning rez spells make the game more fun and immersive in the scope of a campaign's story? How about punishing?

I mean, you've got two options. 1) Dock the player 7000 gp (raise dead + 2 restorations) and let them back to playing the character they want to play, or 2) have them lose that character forever, and make a new one.

So with option 2, there's suddenly a stranger that's exactly as strong as the character that died, with thousands upon thousands of gold he just happens to be carrying around (WBL). And the party has to justify bringing this stranger into their group, trusting their lives to him, and he to them. I.E. the party has to use metagame knowledge to realize that this stranger is controlled by a PC, and not simply treat him like any other NPC. The stranger has to quickly find reasons to care about all the problems and plot points that the rest of the party has experienced from the beginning of the campaign, and the player has to find reasons to become emotionally invested in their new character after the loss of their old one, the one they wanted to play to begin with. In terms of punishment, the character didn't get punished at all, because they didn't lose 7000 gp like the old character would have if they'd been allowed to get rezzed. In addition, the new character could be built more optimally for the level they're starting at, compared to a character that had been in the game since level 1. The only punishment happening here is that the player doesn't get to have fun with their original character.

So with that in mind, I'd love it if someone could explain to me why option 2 makes the game more fun, immersive, and punishing of death.

Exactly.

As I posted before:

For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.
Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:


A) GM complains the players won't role play, but he always skips right to the next fight if there is even the slightest delay.

C) Player is upset that his PC's constantly fails will saves, his builds always dump wisdom, 2-3 classes with poor will saves, and never spends the money for anything to protect his mind.

Have you been gaming with me? We had a really good DM for RotRL, but he was always hurrying us, to the point he'd time us between combats and take that off spell duration. Obviously then, you dont do RPing. But then he complained all we wanted ot do was Kill, kill, kill.

Yep, that's one of our Players all right. Never took a defensive feat, dumped stats. Complained bitterly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vrischika111 wrote:
while I totally agree, they ask for an official reply, as they don't allow it.

Mark doesn't give "official replies' here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

It annoys me when someone manages to misspell my alias even when they are making a QUOTE.

I mean, for f&*#'s sake, the quote system automatically puts my name there. You have to actually make the effort to go change it to something incorrect. How the F@*& does that happen?

I hear you are going around abusing my name, foolish little mortal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

It's funny, but most times I mention for people making these claims to actually prove it through game play, they tell me they don't need to.....

<sigh> It's the same arguments repeated by the same people. And the same defence by the same people ironically. All I need is DrDeth to chime in with me and it will be like all the discussions over last two years again :)

You Rang? Chime!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:


I want to play just one game where NOBODY (except the GM) knows what class or race any one is, and has to figure it out based upon physical description and actions taken.

Hasn't happened yet.

No one even knows what race they are themselves????? You're hardcore dude!
Are you absolutely certain everyone you meet is human, for instance?

I am a Carpathian, one rather popular writer thinks we're not human....<g>


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:


I want to play just one game where NOBODY (except the GM) knows what class or race any one is, and has to figure it out based upon physical description and actions taken.

Hasn't happened yet.

No one even knows what race they are themselves????? You're hardcore dude!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

I really want to houserule resurrection right out of my campaign, or at least make it mindbogglingly rare, so rare that you can't expect to resurrect dead players when you get to the next town.

Death is supposed to be special dammit!

Actually ontopic, dime-a-dozen resurrection doesn't happen in the games I play in with my group. I don't know if it's because we don't think about it or because the other GMs in our group grant full hit die and so we have a lot of hp and are seldom at risk of death.

Yesbut- As I posted before:

For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.

Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”

Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."

The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.

The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
My mom was born in 1973 and I was born in 1993. That makes my mom 42 and me 22.

So what you're saying is that I'm not just older than you, but I'm also older than your mom.

That's not making me feel any better.

It's worse. I am just possibly maybe old enuf to be Aniuś the Talewise*'s grandfather. Thanks, kid for making me feel...not old...but ancient.

;-)

and I didn't even get more dice with my breath weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
My mom was born in 1973 and I was born in 1993. That makes my mom 42 and me 22.
I started playing D&D a year after your Mom was born. sigh.

Didn't you design the original Thief class (among other things)?

Totally rusty on my gaming history >_>

Yep.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

So a few days ago I was researching the history of the formative days of fantasy rpg gaming, and came across the medieval miniatures rules that would eventually become the rules of Chainmail, which itself was the direct predecessor of DnD.

So extremely important piece of gaming history.

My immediate first reaction to this important historical document was, "Vikings didn't f%%*ing wear plate"

I can't see where it sez "Vikings wear plate"? It does class them as "heavy Foot" with dismounted knights as 'armored foot" with presumable heavier armor.

BtW, pretty much everyone in wargaming thought Chainmail was pretty bad. Wargames Research was the gold standard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

I am so jealous.

The fact that you continue to wear your gambeson in your sleep makes you a role model for aspiring early middle ages infantry everywhere.

I have to add "used to" since I am a little old for that now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

Confession: I imagine that armor comes with an unstated gambeson, because wearing armor without a gambeson is an extremely terrible idea, especially if you're wearing mail.

#AlwaysWearYourGambeson

EDIT: Also, if you depict a warrior in mail but with no gambeson underneath, I will slap you on the wrist.

Not only do I know what one is, I used to wear one under my hauberk.

To show what a "must" it is, I had a 1" gap between my gambeson and my elbow guards, and got hit there in SCA heavy combat. Hurt like %$#@! and drove links into my skin. Cool bruise tho.

I have argued this very thing with DMs, that when my PC sleep and take off their armor they still wear padded armor under it. I got to buying a set of padded just to sleep in. It is kinda nice to sleep in, until is gets really gross and sweaty.

You could wear leather under the chain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
Ooh, I have something confession-y. I started playing RPGs with D&D 4e and I still have a fondness for that system.

I played in a 4E campaign, and I kinda liked it. Mind you, the fact that the DM had a full subscription so we could do our PC's on the system and it would print out those cool multi-colored character sheets, with all the spells, etc details, made it nicer. Good DM too.

This sorta goes to show my axiom is that it's not the system- it's the DM and your co-players that make the game fun.

I even had a little fun trying Chivalry & Sorcery.

I guess I am too easy......


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

My confession:

I like the "bikini armour" style of fantasy female character art because I wish I was pretty and comfortable/confident enough with my body to be able to dress like that, sometimes.

Even still, Rob Liefeld needs to go away.

I agree- as long as there's plenty of beefcake served with that cheesecake. Fair is fair.

But I had no idea who the heck Rob L was until I looked him up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I still like AD&D. But as far as variations on D20 goes, PF is far and away the best. It's also better than any other current D&D variant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

Hi Mark!

Can Investigators use spell-trigger items? The Alchemist language specifically allowing the use of spell-trigger items didn't make it into the first edition of the ACG and it wasn't added back in in errata, so wondering whether the omission is an intentional limit.

Mark answered this in another thread just a little while ago. They intentionally cannot use them.
Wow, that sucks. This really nerfs the class.
It was also FAQ'd on Monday. Investigators can get really high UMD fairly easily, though, so this isn't a terribly damaging clarification.

Well, since CHA can be a dump stat, not as easy as you think (there is a cool Archetype, but then you can't take any other archetypes). It also opens a can of worms. If you say Investigators use their magic exactly like Alchemist, you dont need separate FAQ or entries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

[

I probably should have said "every charisma based class who was willing to invest one level of an appropiate class to qualify for it", but the point is the same.

One level? How do you get 2nd level spells from one level?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

6. Double Damage.
7. Triple Damage.
8 and of course- quadruple damage!

;-)

Sorry, someone had to do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liz Courts wrote:
A reminder—do not reply to spam threads. It just makes extra work for us to clear it up. Flag it and move on.

Your untiring hard work on this Sisyphean task is incredible. Thank you so much.

Kudos and thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
I could list off more stories of real, actual gameplay, but what's the point? Everyone who says that a caster/martial disparity exists has played and/or GM'd Pathfinder. We're not talking about a group of people who read the CRB but haven't played, and declared that they know what's up better than the actual players. Those who acknowledge the disparity ARE actual players, whether others can accept it or not.

And those who have NOT seen the disparity in their games are also actual players.

Let us not attack the other side, nor even take sides. What we are seeing here is that some players see a disparity and others don't. I am trying to see why. Both sides have a lot of experience.

This is why I'd like to keep this to actual game play, instead of theorycrafting. We have quite a few threads about that already, we don't need to continue the same debate here.

One reason I have seen is that those who dont think there's much of a disparity look upon PF/D&D as a TEAM game, and if the martial is super at dealing DPR- and the player playing that PC is happy doing that- then there's no disparity. The TEAM is strong, all the players are happy.

In other cases, the disparity doesnt happen much as the players are friends, and try to get along and "play happy".

Many seem to say the disparity only shows up at higher levels, levels beyond most AP;s and beyond where most games are played. This seems to be my experience as well.

Car we keep the discussion on a friendly level, please, less antagonistic posts? More helpful discussion. Please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ElyasRavenwood's interesting thread go me thinking. Many people here talk about the Martial/Caster disparity as if it is a obvious thing, and ask 'why can't martial have nice things?"

But I have played in three PF campaigns now, going to 7th, 11th and 15th level. No sign of the Martial/Caster disparity- except at the very lowest levels where martials win out. Hmm. Also playing in a number of PFS games. Not there either (but all rather low level, 7th is highest).

True, I did play in a 3.5 campaign where once we hit the point where the two casters could toss around 9th level spells (Shapechange!) my martial did feel rather useless. So, I saw it myself, but at a very high level.

Reading what the devs say, they also say that in their games there is little or no Martial/Caster disparity.

Hmm.

But clearly some others have experienced it, commonly.

So, I'd like to know that at your actual IRL gaming table, in a real Pathfinder campaign- did you actually experience Martial/Caster disparity, and if so (or if NOT) why? Not theorycrafting, please. Nothing wrong with theorycrafting but let us stick to actual played games for this, please.

Now, we didn't experience it, and once reason might be is that we always had at least one PC that was a Buffer. At a certain level, Bardsong and/or Haste was a given. Both boost martials more. Could that be the reason? Teamwork?

We did have two dedicated optimizers, but one ALWAYS played spellcasters, the other ALWAYS martials (for this I am counting a Magus as a martial, but yes, they can cast spells, but other big killer PC was a straight fighter).

So, if you have or have not experienced Martial/Caster disparity at your table, let us hear why (or why not).

Real Life. Not Theory. Please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark you answered a question about the protector familiar archetype some time ago, but I have another. The familiar gets BodyGuard and Combat reflexes in place of Alertness and Improved Evasion.

Is either one of these passed on to it's master like Alertness is?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

I'm not sure if this exists, but if it doesn't, I'm thinking about making a custom spell available for my players. Something that can transfer an enchantment from one weapon or armor to another, so that if players for example find some adamantine armor, they can move their +2 light fortification from their old armor to it, or they can take the +2 flaming from a whip they found and put it on the longsword they're proficient in, etc.

I'm thinking of staggered levels...

1) a lesser version that works to a certain power level max and has an expensive material component (but nothing unreasonable so you wouldn't use the spell)

2), a regular version that hits the lesser version's limit with no material components, or has no limit except it that it can't do artifacts when you use an expensive material component

3) a greater version with no material components for anything that isn't an artifact, but can move an artifact's essence to another equivalent item type for a cost.

What level spell do you think these spells should be? What types of casters would it fit the list of best? How much do you think would be a reasonable cost for these spells' components?

My DM let us do this with Limited Wish. Also change a weapon to another, same +s. Falchoin to scimitar, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tl, my friend, where have you been?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I was thinking he might also be a Mesmerist or Sorcerer.

Have you seen the awesome stage Phantom and not just the crappy 2004 movie? That's the important part. :)

I've seen the Lon Chaney version and the Claude Rains version.

Classics!

Have we thanked you recently for all your hark work and this thread?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:


What FAQ will be next? Gencon looms, which means that afterwards, blogs might be possible! But not next week. Find out more on next FAQ Friday!

Hope you're having fun! Beware Con-crud, follow my advice. Thanks for all your hard work on these!

Oooh, a blog post- dare I hope Simulacrum at last?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:


I am unsure what your position is on this. You seem to be on both sides?
I believe that in normal combats, vs normal AP type foes, Healing can & does keep up with damage dealt by the monsters.
but do you belive it is a good use of actions to keep one guy in the game instead og being in the game your self?

Yes, absolutely.

1 to 50 of 1,035 << 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.