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. 6,307 posts (6,308 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

One thing that you may want to look out for: If the centaur leader challenges the dwarf to a duel, be SURE that the dwarf is reasonably overmatched by that centaur. The player will learn exactly the wrong lesson if he wins that duel or if he loses it strictly because of GM fiat.

No, the dwarf player will only learn that being rude gets him exactly what he wants- more attention, more time in the spotlight.
then you just have to teach them that getting attention is not always a good idea

You cannot solve a OOC problem IC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

One thing that you may want to look out for: If the centaur leader challenges the dwarf to a duel, be SURE that the dwarf is reasonably overmatched by that centaur. The player will learn exactly the wrong lesson if he wins that duel or if he loses it strictly because of GM fiat.

No, the dwarf player will only learn that being rude gets him exactly what he wants- more attention, more time in the spotlight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andre Roy wrote:
Kileanna wrote:
DebugAMP wrote:
Worsen the NPC's attitude one step. If that reduces them to unfriendly or worse, have them withold whatever (possibly meager) reward was initially offered with the comment "Your reward is to leave here with your tongue intact." If this reduces them to hostile... well... it may not be a good day for that NPC.
That might colaterally affect other party members so I don't like it too much as a solution.

Actually, that could be the best thing to happen to the group...especially if they've been breezing through social encounters where the dwarf (not the player) was being a jerk with no consequences.

If the whole party suffers because of the dwarf ill manners, they will learn the very important lesson that the action of each and everyone of them has an impact on all of them, especially outside of combat. That way, they'll start to keep the dwarf on a short leash or bluntly tell him to shut up if get acts up, them do their best to apologize/molify the insulted party.

Look, I have been in parties where one guy always mouths off. Short of keeping the Player muzzled, you can't stop him by giving the PARTY consequences, since he is fine with that, all he wants is attention.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Was Narsil even an artifact? I never saw any indication it was more than a really well-made and important sword.

According to the books, when wielded in battled it was bathed in white flame, and could tear through shields and armor with incredible ease. (They took that out in the films)

"But even as the orc flung down the truncheon and swept out his scimitar, Andúril came down upon his helm. There was a flash like flame and the helm burst asunder. "

Not to mention it took out Sauron.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Actually, TL, DrDeth mentioned the light elsewhere, so it's not that.

The thing is, those weren't really "artifacts" in our understanding of the term. The thing is, in LOTR, any magic item is some sort of "artifact", because magic items are not common. That you guys are treating a glorified everburning torch like an artifact is a testament to how well Tolkien kept up their mysticism. Even something as minor as that was a big f!$%ing deal.

Also, it's unfair to include the DMPC when you discuss the party's magic level in LOTR. :P

Phial of Galadriel was at least a gem of Brightness, with added Morale bonuses.

And since the Elves did trade in lembas at times and used to sell their wares before they shut themselves in, yes, you could buy "magic items" in Middle earth. The Dwarves would also make items on command.

According to MERP, other items, like Gimlis Ax, chainmail, etc were also "magic" but so low power they were unremarkable.

I mean, Aragorn (Or Bombadil) didnt make a big deal of the bane daggers handed out to all the hobbits, "but but feared to keep the, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor" " and only blades with special spells could harm him". so forth. Pretty strong stuff to hand out like party favors. And there were four of them. Not one of the Fellowship mentioned how powerful and old they were, they were not remarkable, despite their obvious age and power.

Sting was considered totally unremarkable by Gandalf and Elrond, but it detected orcs and was thrust into a solid oak beam like a knife into butter. And was well over 6000 years old. But of no real note.

So, just like adventurers might note they had a Vorpal sword or a Staff of Power, no one talks about their +1 sword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


And 3 artifacts? 2 rings. What else? Or are you counting one of the swords?

Narsil/Anduril.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andygal wrote:

If this is a reoccurring issue that is annoying you (rather than just the NPCs) it might be an idea to talk to the player(s) outside the game and ask them to dial it back a bit.

Yeah, sit them down and talk to them like adults. Tell them that this makes the game less fun for us, as the DM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
I think there are two conflicting goals being considered here. The more fantastical we make the world, the less fantasical any given aspect of the world will be.
Not necessarily. Middle-Earth is a highly magical world, but the magic as used by the characters is still something extraordinary.

Well, maybe.

The Fellowship had three artifacts, several powerful named weapons, a chain shirt that was unique and more or less the Invulnerable Coat of Arnt (another artifact), elven cloaks all around, a staff of power of some sort, some sort of Gem of Light Holy item, 4 bane weapons, a magic horn, ropes,The walking sticks Faramir gave to Sam and Frodo, Aragorns sheath, ...
not to mention several things like Aragorns Ring and Amulet that werent spelled out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
So, what is an adventurer to you? Because if it precludes scholars and archaeologists...
It doesn't. But it does require more than just being one of those groups.
So, again, what is an adventurer? :P
A murderhobo with PC class levels?

Murderhoboes are not adventurers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
HolmesandWatson wrote:


[I]The CMT conversions also adhere to the original adventure module's content, in the spirit of Old School Roleplaying. For those unfamiliar with the core concepts of Old School Roleplaying, here are the most important points.

1

3. The OSR games were based on sword and sorcery literature. In these stories, happy endings were uncommon, strange and vicious creatures flourished, weird magic was the norm, and protagonists were less hero and more mercenary in bent.

4. The mortality rate of characters in OSR games was much higher than it is in modern RPGs. Characters were better than normal folk, but not super heroic. They were expected to hire additional people to accompany them on dungeon forays due to the danger level. .

Well, do they have any real Old School writers? because some of this is wrong.

Happy endings were quite common.

High Mortality rate? Not so much. I mean yes, some DM and Dungeons were killers. But my very first character didnt die until 9th level, and he went into a solo just to die and become a martyr.

You did have hirelings if the party wasnt big enuf, yes. That's how the Thief was born.

But PF has more "hirelings" in a way with animal companions, Leadership feats and what not.

So, I am not sure if WotC knows what they are talking about.

I think they don't know what old school roleplaying IS nor do they know how it was done or what even made people love AD&D in the first place.

Personal opinion, of course.

Part of that, is if what they said was true, there would be no Robilar, nor any Mordekainan, nor any Tenser, nor any Otiluke.

Gygax was FAR more forgiving in his personal campaigns and dungeons than what it appeared or occurred during tournaments with the tournament modules...which is where you saw the high death rate.

Yes, the Infamous Tomb of Horrors was designed as a challenge game, not really as a killer dungeon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
stormcrow27 wrote:

1. I hate playing normal race characters. I will go out of my way to avoid playing the big six since I have been almost every iteration of each of them at some point from 1982 on. It's gotten to the point I even suggest to other players that we should all play non big six characters in extended or adopted families. This probably says something about I how I see myself and others.

2. I hate RAW. Really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really hate it, and those who use it for everything. That attitude grinds every time I read it on the forums or the Facebook Pathfinder RPG group.

4.I have now begun to question whether buying all of the 1st and 2nd Ed D&D books and then ogling the illustrations when I was much younger was a really good idea....

I will play a weird race when everyone is playing the basic six, and i will play a human when everyone is playing a weird race.

why do you hate me? :-(

well, it hasnt effected me any. They even let me use the computers here at The Home. Nothing sharp, tho....;-)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CoolSkeleton95 wrote:
Alni wrote:
I pick a theme song and a font that matches the characters handwritting.
WOWIE! THAT SOUNDS FUN! TELL ME, HUMAN: WHAT FONT WOULD YOU PICK FOR ME, THE GREAT PAPYRUS?

Wingdings.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Oh, of course, of course!

*Scribble scribble*

Gets out Flitgun, sprays for kobolds....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady Ladile wrote:

Still not sure if it's 'embarrassing' but it's more serious than my last one and it relates to my experiences doing Play-by-Post here. I have a hard time relating when people tell me that they've legitimately cried over PC deaths (whether theirs or someone else's) or have gotten emotional writing a post or have actually experienced sleeplessness or other out-of-game distress relating to the game.

This is absolutely not an attempt to pass judgement on anyone; if anything my own lack of responses puzzle me a little because I've certainly had emotional responses to reading a good book or seeing a good movie. But I think I've gotten emotional writing a post exactly once and while I think PC death stinks and try my best to avoid it happening, my attitude is always more along the lines of, "Bummer...guess I'd better be thinking of a new character now." The closest I've come is feeling guilty after a character of mine made a bad call in a game and nearly got herself and half the party killed, but to be honest? I didn't want to admit it at the time but I actually felt a little resentful that I felt guilty.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Yes, it does.

I got emotional once that I remember. It was a campaign game with lots of politics. You had to have a very detailed character backstory. We were lvl 8 with that set.

The DM announced some new critical rules he was trying. First combat, some low level mook fires a arrow. 20. Confirm 20, confirm another 20! Auto kill. two weeks of work wasted in 5 minutes due to a stupid new rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

In addition, the entire weight of chain mail rests on your shoulders, making it feel heavier than some heavier armors whose weights are better distributed.

Nope. Your belt supports it too. Chain is by far the most comfy armor to move around in, even better than leather.

The PRD still lists four mirror as 45.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/armsAndArmor/armor.htm l

Actually the worst item on the list is scale mail, which stopped being worn around Roman time- in fact the Romans only used it ceremonially.

Perhaps they meant Brigandine?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

Our most egregiously "wrong" way to play is that we use the critical hit and critical fumble decks from Paizo. Why? Cause they are so cool! and they lead to often memorable battles.

Some object to critical fumbles on the pretext that the higher level you are, the more often you will make attack rolls, and the more often you will fumble.....

Others object that critical fumbles unfairly penalize martial characters compared to spell users, since many spells don't require attack rolls at all. ....

I object to critical fumbles as 1: they are not realistic and

2. I wanna play a hero not one of the Three Stooges.

We have also all gone to leveling up, not XP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Elf wrote:
Pan wrote:
I spend a lot of time making characters, reading RPG news, and prepping for my upcoming game as GM on my work PC while at work.
I don't GM, but I have a habit of making new characters that I'll probably never get to play - and I do far too much of that while at work.

Same here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
buying multiple +10 weapons costs a martial 200-600k gold while buying multiple spell books costs like 20-60k the price difference is massive

Never owned a +10 weapon, never saw one even. Sure, I played only up til lvl 16 in RotRL, but I dont think they are very common.

My Fighter did spend extra $$ on a +5 weapon in a 12th level game, yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I like how the fact martial need a weapon is still being thrown down as a huge downside when we already concluded all but like 4 classes need gear just as much.

And some natural weapon martials do just fine, thankyouverymuch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
BUT it does give one a unique set of experiences to draw on when talking about PLAYER behavior.

Don't get me wrong it's not that I want to argue against you being more experienced than, let's say, me. Though I'm not sure if those ten years you have over me, as far as the game of roleplaying is concerned, really make a difference when talking about player behavior.

Still I think that your contribution to the game (in form of the thief) is much more worthy of a badge of honor than "having survived".

So if you're just saying: "I'm a grognard." as in: "I was there when it all began." I actally might envy you a bit for that. But if you mean it as in: "I was there before you, so I know more, am more and you better keep your mouth shut when I'm talking." I call this arrogant and condescendent. And unluckily, this set of mind is no rarity, neither in the roleplaying community, neither elsewhere.

Ten years? No. But if someone has forty years moire, then perhaps he or shee might have seen more tables and odd behaviour, no?

Thanks.

Well, yes, you're right, which is why even the Gronardiest of us should never say anything like : "I was there before you, so I know more, am more and you better keep your mouth shut when I'm talking."

But saying that perhaps, maybe you should CONSIDER our advice in light of our experience, that's not being arrogant. I can be wrong, James Jacobs can be wrong, the newest newb can be right.

However, you also have to remember that posts on a MB are hard to read. You cant read a tone of voice, the grin, the twinkle in a eye, etc, so it's far too easy to assume a post which is posted with all those things is arrogant and condescending.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

[

I mean, the main topic of the thread is magic items. "Magic items as character progression" is not a quick-and-easy ban, or a subsystem to be discarded without consequence. It's a fundamental pillar of how Pathfinder is structured. Using your "just don't use it" suggestion (which in this case translates to the same "just don't give out as much loot" advice others have given) isn't like banning a class or leaving out Retraining; it's more like cutting everyone's good saves down to bad saves, bad saves down to zero, full BAB down to 3/4 BAB, and 3/4 BAB down to half BAB; and then expecting there to be no consequences.

Cutting out wealth-as-progression from Pathfinder isn't like banning a feat, it's like banning the entire mechanic of having feats at all. There's a big difference between what you're apparently talking about and what Chess Pwn was commenting on.

Wealth as progression has been part of the game since the three volume set. It was critical in 3.5, 4th and to quite and extent, even earlier editions. If you didnt have a magic weapon, you were screwed past a certain level- it was assumed you'd have one.

Magic items are also critical in 5th Ed also.

The difference is that the Pathfinder Devs have been nice enough, open enough and forth coming enough to actually spell out what the expectations are. (And to some extent this also occurred in 4th Ed, too)

But they were always there. (and some AD&D modules even said what kind of magic items the party shoudl have to survive the module).

However the expectations are just guidelines, we played thru RotRL without the strict WBL and it worked fine. Sometime we had more, sometime less, not much chance to "Christmas tree", but a few super items, too.

My campaigns where there were no Ye Olde Magic Shoppes as expected, but really nice customized loot drops also worked fine.

Sure, if you wanna play super low magic then play Iron Heroes, magic is a integral part of D&D.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Bluenose wrote:


Appendix N, relevantly, includes Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories. If you want to emulate stories of that type, I'm not sure recent versions of D&D would be good choices (outside parts of the OSR).

Leiber played D&D with those two characters, so indeed, they do work.

Edition wars are silly, any edition of D&D can be a great fun game with the right DM and a good bunch of players. Conversely, with the wrong DM and a bad bunch of players, it is gonna suck no matter which Edition you play.

I have played them all, they all have good and bad points.

He played those characters, with a version of AD%D that was not nearly as crunch laden as 3.X and it's successors... First Edition. It makes a major difference

Plenty of Crunch, trust me. Especially with added houserules and everyone had added houserules- that's how Fafhrd lost his hand.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:


Appendix N, relevantly, includes Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories. If you want to emulate stories of that type, I'm not sure recent versions of D&D would be good choices (outside parts of the OSR).

Leiber played D&D with those two characters, so indeed, they do work.

Edition wars are silly, any edition of D&D can be a great fun game with the right DM and a good bunch of players. Conversely, with the wrong DM and a bad bunch of players, it is gonna suck no matter which Edition you play.

I have played them all, they all have good and bad points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If you're one of them and of a certain mindset, it's a badge of honor, distinguished them from the whippersnappers of today.

Guess it's exactly this definition which directly leads to the term being used by others in a pejorative way.

Because it's actually quite arrogant to think that just being old makes you deserving of an badge of honor. And it's this arrogance which gets reflected also on those who didn't mean to be when describing themselves as a grognard.

just being old DOES make you deserving of an badge of honor. You have survived. Hardly arrogance.

Also, playing for a long time is a honor too. Of course, as I have said, just because I was playing D&D back in Year 1 doesnt make me any more of a expert on the PF rules than someone who has been playing just a couple of years.

BUT it does give one a unique set of experiences to draw on when talking about PLAYER behavior.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Napier 698 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Crusinos wrote:

I managed to introduce a new group of players, with new GM to boot, to a module. I described it as "a fun-filled romp full of surprises" when convincing them to play.

It was Tomb of Horrors.

After the first near-TPK, the paladin sold his soul to Asmodeus for the ability to cast true resurrection three times per day per person. It wasn't enough; they still TPKed.

Six TPKs later and rather than try it again, they hunted down Baba Yaga, used her to come to Earth, kidnapped Albert Einstein, used him to build a magical atomic bomb, and literally nuked the dungeon.

And then the GM gave me a dirty look when I revealed it took my original group ten TPKs the first time we played it.

Yeah, I can't even see the appeal in that. Never had any interest in ToH, much less in multiple TPKs in it.

How do you even do that with a puzzle dungeon? Just assume the new group knows the earlier groups did, so they don't have to work out the same traps?

It was mainly due to the door-mounted Sphere of Annihilation and the Demilich BBEG.

Remember, that dungeon was designed due to a challenge from Gygax's players who said they could beat anything. heheheheh

It wasnt meant as a real dungeon, but as a challenge and for events.

We sorta, kinda beat it first time.

The two fake entrances cost us dearly, but we continued on (raise deads, etc), loaded with divination stuff. One of us had the item which controls the Sphere, so even tho we couldnt use it, we lost little to it. (A hand, which we regrew).

The demilich wasnt so tough as we had several great artifacts.

We had a "ring of many limited wishes' and had several redos.

But it was by no means easy.

We were told going in that it was a known killer dungeon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:

It's totally possible to build lower tier classes. Here's a 10 point

CHA: 5

any time you have to dump to 5 is- at least in my opinion- a failure.

Now build him again without dumping, eh? ;-)

See, that's another problem with 10 pt buy, it forces dumping.

My ROTRL DM gave us 25 pt buy, but no pts back from dumping. Worked nicely.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It sounded to me before like you were saying the GM could just fix all the problems with magic stores and Christmas tree effects just because he's the GM and controls things. I still don't see how you do that.
They sort of can, it just requires extra and unnecessary work, since you can send weaker encounters against your players to deal with the fact they are lower in wealth than they should be.

Or give them a higher point buy or one Mythic Tier. Or a pool which adds to a stat, or.......


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kohl McClash wrote:

Except 3x and PF systems were built with the intent of characters needing a certain amount of plus gear and weapons to fight the rising AC and to hit of monsters. So inevitably as a player you were looking for the next plus in the next big city cause you knew you'd need it for the next book in the adventure path.

I think that's why I got burned out with 3x / Pathfinder, I found myself as a player looking at my +2 ring of protection and wondering if I can trade it in on the +3 in Absalom or whatever large city we were near. I wanted an AC 30+ or I'd be mince meat soon.

Altho the Christmas tree is a nice general rule of thumb, there's nothing so hard and fast about it. I mean, sure you dont wanna suck, but if youre 1 to even 4 AC behind the curve, you just spell up or use tactics. I mean maybe the other player is above the curve on AC, but you concentrated on rods for spells instead.

It's never been a significant issue in any PF game I have played in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:
John Napier 698 wrote:
We must really be Grognards if we have trouble remembering where a specific table came from. :)

All I remember is that Avalon Hill's Swords and Sorcery was so confusing as to be unplayable. I took it off the shelf recently to see if I was just to young to get it.

I wasn't, it was still unplayable.

and expensive.

It was a darned good wargame company, but they didnt know jacksquat about fantasy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jader7777 wrote:
Watching two rules lawyers reenact that scene from A Few Good Men in the middle of a complex combat scenario.

"You want the RAW? You can't handle the RAW!!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sliska Zafir wrote:

I once read that the 55% success rule was something to follow in order to have happy players. The players win, at least 55% of the time.

Now in my experience, playing D&D since 1977, D&D 3.0 since 2000, a four star PFS GM, 100s of tables of Living Campaigns (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms) and Pathfinder since it came out, I'd have to say that a 20+ point build will move the needle to 60% and upwards player success. For 25 point, I'd say 75% success.

As a GM, I'm currently running a gritty 10-point initial build, and ability enhancing items don't exist (thus freeing those slots for other items); but I also built in a primary/secondary stat progression that is faster than the Core Rulebook.

So far it is working pretty well to preserve a grittier campaign.

1

The players should win almost always, but the combats should be a real challenge about half the time. At least that's what Gygax and Arneson thought...

I have been DMing even longer, and I dont think the "buy" is what does it. It's the DM and player tactics more than anything.

Being a sucky peasant doesnt make the game "gritty" "You keep using that word, I do not think that work means what you think it does." ;-)

The SETTING is what makes the game gritty. I am running a Pulp Heroes type game, and they wanted powerful heroes so they got them. They have been on the edge of the seats at least once a nite, and one of the players complained I was giving her nitemares....

A imaginative DM doesn't have to rely upon handicapping the PCs to make his/her game more down to earth and dangerous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

5E is no more a solution than houserules are.

You're the DM, you can control the magic. You can do that in a OD&D game and in a 5E game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Everytime I read such a thread I'm reminded on the interview Erik Mona gave to Wolfgang Baur in Kobold Quarterly 1 and his comments on the swarm in the first Age of Worms-adventure "The Wispering Cairn". Would be hilarious if Erik brought such a scenario to these boards incognito, only to be told by the board members how bad a GM he is for creating such a deadly scenario.

Well, if we could read that, we could compare the two.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:


Most likely crippling forced-specialization was not a thing most of those decades.

Those have been around since at least 1995, but before that, you couldnt just buy any magic weapon you liked, so it balances out.

In ad&d a longsword specialized fighter that found a powerful battleataxe would not mind using it. The fact that you couldn't buy whatever weapon you liked hurted less.

In PF a swashbuckler with his feats on a longsword that finds a powerful rapier will keep using his longsword. That's crippling specialization.

It depended. And of course there are abilities that mean you can use your specialized feats with other similar weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:


I forgot that people that have been playing for decades have access to a complete database of the games played aroudn the world and so they can tell what it's common and what it's not.

Some of us have been playing for decades. Four of them, in fact. ;-)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, Anzyrs suggestions are good. Add quirks and little bonuses to the better items.

For example a +1 Waraxe, +2 vs dwarven enemies, -2 to any non-dwarf who wields it. Hard to sell, but nice for the dwarf.

I do that, and I also loot dump to help the PCs that need it.

I also cut back on Ye Olde Magik Shoppe. Yes, you can buy expendables and +1 stuff, but not necessarily a Rod of Quicken.

But you have to explain this to start. I tell them not to plan out a hyper specialized build. Maybe it will happen, maybe not.

Of course, I am flexible, they found a cool Frostbrand, but I let a mere Limited Wish make that a Great Axe instead. Why not? Why make them sell it and buy all another+1 to a item? BOOOOORING!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Okay, but the coup de grace should not be an issue. The GM did not coup de grace a PC. They coup de graced an NPC. Period.

No "period" at all. I have seen several times a player get mad, walk out, talk himself out of being mad then come back.

Here's what *I* would have said "OK, if the Paladin player comes back you guys have found him unconscious but stable. If he doesn't then the paladin died. Lets go on with this."


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


But you see, we dont agree on 'what the rules actually say". Which is why we need a FAQ.

There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow.

Quote:
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures

Rays are spells. Swarms are immune to spells that target a specific number of creatures. When you cast a ray, you make a ranged touch attack against a target. That is 1 specific creature. So swarms are immune.

Arrows are weapons, so swarms follow their rules for weapons against them. That is why a ray does not work like an arrow.

Yes, that's very nice. You can quote the rules. And while indeed that is a line from the rules, it seems to be contradicted by other lines.

However, I wasnt arguing what the rules ARE but what they SHOULD BE after the FAQ.

There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow. That's how the FAQ should fix this.

Got it! So with your proposed change, would fine/dim swarms that are immune to weapon damage be vulnerable to ray of cold?

No. Just like arrows, I think the analogy works.

I also think that flaming on a weapon should add (if the weapon can damage at all), and that the direct hit from a splash weapon should do 150% damage, and that a torch should do damage to all normal swarms.

But that's why we need a FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
Noir le Lotus wrote:
My only characters that are paranoid about their stuff are wizards !! Becasue wehn you lose your spellbook, you are just a walking wand ...

Get a bookplate of recall.

Quote:
This metal bookplate is inscribed with mystical words in Draconic, leaving space for a single written name. When the bookplate is glued to the inside cover of a book, the named individual may speak the title of the book to summon it as if using instant summons. This ability functions once per day.

will the ashes come to you, too?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PK the Dragon wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


I have yet to see this be a meaningful problem in 4 decades of gaming.

That's nice, but unhelpful by itself. Can you clarify how you've avoided it? Did you luck out and play with GMs who are sympathetic to martial character's reliance on gear?

martial character's reliance on gear? You ever tried playing a wizard without a spellbook?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:


Most likely crippling forced-specialization was not a thing most of those decades.

Those have been around since at least 1995, but before that, you couldnt just buy any magic weapon you liked, so it balances out.

To the OP: do you worry about getting your spellbook taken away?

Carry a spare, they are cheap.

Most DMs wont pull those shenanigans, unless the monster is part of a AP or something, and certainly if you hit some ooze and it melts your weapon that's mostly your fault.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
On the 7th round, the paladin misses his attack, shots shock and knocked out, and promptly coup de graced by his diminutive enemy.

Coup was out of line.

Why didnt he use a Swift action to LoH himself??


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


I just went to Pinterest and found plenty of all those guys.
I bet you didn't have to venture outside the gaming world and go to places like Pinterest to find the ladies, though.

I didnt "have" to go to Pinterest, they are everywhere. Just plain google does it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Furthermore, one can use lamp oil to light a square on fire, which will burn for 2 rounds for 1d3 damage (x1.5) and only costs 1sp per vial.

Keeping the swarm in the burning square is not an easy thing. My gunslinger had to stand in the oil and light it with her pistol once the swarm had entered her square. Highly suboptimal.

She told the party they were lucky the motto was "Explore, Report, Cooperate."

The 'spark' cantrip has a range, or someone can just toss a lit torch. It's easy to hit a square.

Swarms are slow. You get a bit of distance, fill a few squares with lamp oil, and light them up as the swarm closes with you. You're right, it takes a bit of teamwork, but at 1sp a pop, it's a fairly cheap method of dealing with swarms at low level.

"You can pour a pint of oil on the ground to cover an area 5 feet square, provided that the surface is smooth. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 1d3 points of fire damage to each creature in the area." Well, to use the ultra RAWers here, that doesnt say it's an area attack, so no 1.5 damage! ;-)

And of course, some swarms fly.


4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

To go along with the recent request for FAQs on Swarms, there is this:

"A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons ....."

But some say the direct hit is targeted, this means no swarm damage. And the splash almost always does 1pt, and "half again as much damage (+50%)" of 1 is 1.

So this needs to be FAQed also, methinks. Or just FAQ swarms in general, and do two birds with one stroke of the pen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MendedWall12 wrote:

Wow, in this one instance, I could not possibly disagree more. Spells, especially those upper level spells, are as much a part of how a cleric operates in the game as a magic sword is to a fighter. Making a cleric undergo a quest just to be granted what is their right given by class, is not part of a game I'd like to play. I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree Holmes.

Nothin' but love for you. Just disagree on this situation. :)

The idea is not to nerf the cleric, but so the DM has control over what spells get into the game, just like he should do with wizard spells.

Gate, for example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
You missed the part where the GM had him pick a random number, rather than actually pick what sense he lost.

Well, we dont know what would have happened had he picked another number, maybe there was a tiger behind all the doors....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BeZurKur wrote:

I have virtually zero experience in Pathfinder, so I may very well be missing a ruling in the corebook on this.

The warrior with a far reaching spear in tandem with the shield is a tried and true historical one. I'd like to make one for the game. Can it be done? My hope was to give him a shield to bash adjacent foes and the spear for the further ones. However, I don't see any rule on using a reach weapon with one hand. This is a weird case of real physics being more permissible than game physics.

Is there a way to build this concept, even if it takes a few levels to get it there?

It is tried and true, but only in a formation with a few hundred other guys. Out of that size of formation, long spear and shield was so bad that they dropped the spear and pulled their sword.

The Zulu did really well with a short stabbing spear and shield, but of course that's fine in PF. Altho I'd make the assegai a martial 1D8 19-20 weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vestigial arms was among the most foolish things they wrote. Caused 7 still causes endless argle-bargle and is basically useless.

The Errata should have been:" vestigial arm: this discovery has been eliminated. It no longer exists. This discovery is no more! It has ceased to be! it's expired."


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's nice to see there's still a bunch of us around.

1 to 50 of 1,155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.