|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Allowing a player something that broken just means less fun for everyone else at the table, including the DM. The DM has to jack up the encounters to make it challenging which means the other PCs cant handle it... or die.
Just say no.
Not true. "Backward compatible" does not mean the DM has to allow everything in.
Actually, I dont care for running other peoples summoned monsters.
It's better for all if the player just learns not be to a spotlight hog.
One summoned thing per player at a time. Actually we say one extra combat entity per player at a time.
Nope. They dont "jack up prices" for one. Here's what happens- price wars. People shop around a LOT for the lowest price on a paperback. But not on a e-book. So, the price on both editions often start the same, but then various wholesalers and retailers begin dropping the price on the paperback to compete.
Way back in the day, the party or people seeking someone to be raised from the dead in any fashion required more than just money. From Raise Dead to Resurrection, a service was required to be performed for the church or entity using such magic. At the 3.0 and on is when it only became a matter of money.
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?
Mark Seifter wrote:
So then, instead of marking this "answered in errata" (which it clearly is not) why not change the spells wording or post a FAQ saying that "It states that in and of itself, it is not enough to facilitate a teleport. In order to facilitate a teleport, the subject of the scry would need to move around enough to give a general layout of the area (likely DM's determination), and --- and this is the important part -- [b]the spell doesn't directly indicate location. The PCs must use contextual clues to figure this out, unless they already know where the target is."
It's clearly an issue and this thread makes clear. It seems like it'd be simple to fix. Just add the wording from UI, and everyone goes away satisfied. Including James Jacobs, it would seem.
""Viewed once" is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying."
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yes, except that the question is whether or not that can be gotten thru Scrying.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ultimate Intrigue clears this up, and though the option isn't called "answered in book", "answered in errata" seemed the most accurate of the buttons available, since it wasn't a FAQ, it's not no response required, and it's not question unclear.
That's very nice, but afaik UI would not normally be considered overruling the PH.
Why not simply FAQ this? Scavion's post is pretty clear.
That's not errata.
There's no valid point here, at all. The rules here do make sense and do not contradict themselves. (and in fact the rules rarely do so)
"Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment."
The sun is not a "fine detail" nor are clouds. There is no need to make a perception check in the first place.
The issue is that people just are not reading the rules.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
What's the name for someone that takes things like Craft (basketweaving) and claims it proves they're a better roleplayer? That is, taking options that deliberately hinder them or their contribution to the party and act like it's some kind of badge of prestige.
I dont think that taking one rank of a RP skill = deliberately hinder them or their contribution .
I think that Min-Maxer means someone that dumps all the stats that do not directly benefit that characters main role- a Fighter with 18,18,18 5,5,5,- even tho dumping Wisdom is pretty much always a bad idea.
I have played with a guy who dumped Wisdom, and he proved to be far more of a detriment to the party that some dude who spent one skill rank on a background skill. He thought it was HILARIOUS when he got dominated and started killing party members.
Tormsskull "I haven't noticed it in actual play, only heard about it on forums."
PIXIE DUST sez a beastbound witch outdoes the rogue at scouting. That does not mean casters dominate play. That menas one caster in one game is better at one thing.
7thGate sez " I had it happen once, in a 3.0 game" are you counting that?
Create Mr. Pitt sez "Also if I am facing something with a ton of SR and DR and immunities the wizard needs the fighter almost as much as the fighter needs the wizard.
There's never good to be a perfect power parity between classes; but a fully-leveled martial is sometimes the only thing that can actually take down an enemy, even if you hire warriors or summon a ton of creatures."
Lemmy sez "Well... It haven't happened to me, specifically in Pathfinder,..." and goes on to give times when it happened to others. Still, not in his game. I asked for "what actually happened in your games."
MMCJawa " I didn't really encounter caster martial disparity. BUT..."
and so forth.
Yes, you did list a game where you fighter got sidelined at high level, but your cleric ruled. You only played in two games? Great- does this happen all the time, or do you know always play nothing but full casters?
I saw no one admit that in the games they play, casters always dominate. I saw examples of a time they did dominate, sure. But I have played thousands of games, i can give you an example of everything. In fact, in my OP there, I gave an example of when casters did dominate. It happens.
But does it happen consistently in all the games you play?
So, TOZ, in your games, casters dominate play? No use playing anything but a full caster? Or have you "fixed" it?
Matthew Downie wrote:
I have seen the same thing. But there's a HUGE difference between claiming that "casters dominate play" vs "casters dominate play IN MY GAME".
When confronted they usually say their houserules or way of playing prevents casters from dominating play at their table.
"There are perfectly good substitutes as well. In public discussions I frequently use the term "non-transgender" instead of "cisgender." The meaning is apparent without being specifically diminutive of any group. It also doesn't carry the baggage of seeming like academese or being offensive to some.
Often the words don't need to be used at all. When describing someone's sexual orientation, do you really need to use "transgender" or "cisgender" as a prefix to it?
As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse. There are a limited number of circumstances in which they are necessary, appropriate, and ultimately beneficial to the community as a whole."
Andrew Roberts wrote:
Curious if there are any rules governing how masterwork tools work in Core campaign. For example, there is an item called "Training Harness" that gives you +2 to handle animal, but it isn't Core. Would you be able to buy a masterwork tool that does something similar?
This came up, which leads to some silly ideas- the list of mundane gear in Core is not all inclusive. Does this mean that twine, frying pans, marbles and such like dont exist in a Core World?
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.
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.
Xenre the Vague wrote:
This is a pretty hot topic and has been since 3rd edition (in my experience). Personally, though the wording is a bit fuzzy - because let's be honest, if the wording of the RAW wasn't so muffed up, this would be a very, very short discussion -
No, there is no rule that so worded can't be mis-understood.
Sneaky McSneak wrote:
Can we get an official ruling/faq entry/ errata on this? Infinite casting of anything seems rediculous. By one threads Calculations a lvl 4 caster could create minimum 11,520 gallons of water a day. A half dozen threads are stating the Spells Per Day table does not limit the number of times a cantrip can be cast in a day, only how many you can have prepared.
There already is- it's called "The Rules".
Or he dumps everything into offense. In either case, bad designing.
This article by the well known author Brynn Tannehill should finalize the debate on the use of "cisgender":
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.
Or spellpoints. Or mana. Or Power. Or.....
Is there a system where a wizard know every spell there is and only the amount of mana stops him from casting them?
CofC has spells Known. Tunnels & Trolls. Runequest.
More or less what we did, and it was HUGE fun.
So, umm, if by game three you werent having fun, why not discuss it with the others and stop?
D&D is a team game, not a one on one game. Too many discussion here are focused on what a class or character can do on his own, rather than part of a TEAM.
We "welcome" them into the whirling blades of death, followed by the lava pits.
Naw- everyone wanted to play the Thief, or some variation. Cleric was pretty good at hitting things and could whup on Monsters.
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.
I agree- at a certain point it's what we used to call "Vardy" (Variant D&D).
And I'll even play with a lot of houserules- if the DM and the group make it worthwhile.