|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Still Spells don't remove the need for a concentration check. They only allow you the chance to roll the check.
Actually, from what I read, spells with a S comp have the same check as those with a V only comp.
They changed this.
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:
Pretty well cant cast while being grappled. "A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. "
If you couldnt make a Escape artist check, even with a 20, they couldnt make that check to cast.
Which of course would be a Evil act, causing any honorable person to commit seppuku.
Id have to say "No thanks, my PC dies permanently."
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:
Huge creature? Other than a few odd spellcaster variants, there's nothing anyone could do to escape.
That bard with DD would be trapped as surely as you were.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Amost. But even the Devs agree the spell's wording isn't clear. So my FAQ was to both clarify the RAI and RAW.
But when the RAW isnt clear, it's not quite the same as houseruling away something broken. It's more like "Hmm, my reading disagrees with that so my ruling is that it's xxxxxx".
I dont replace Ye Olde Magik Shoppe with custom orders, I replace with drops. Sometimes custom drops, sure.
Have you tried Iron Heroes?
Yes, no doubt there are issues with Magic, but there are also issues with taking a normal magic game like PF and trying to make it Very Low Magic.
Shar Tahl wrote:
I dont know how often it occurs "in the wild". But several rather vocal and popular posters here have mentioned this many, many times as one of the reasons why spellcasters are over-powered.
Elder Basilisk wrote:
But you see- they didnt really "encounter" that Chimera. It's just a set piece. It's liek a cut scene between actual play in a video game.
In any case:
A- at least one PC dies.
Yes, Grimmy but is it the kind of game your players want? And like Anzyr so wisely said "what do you mean by Low Magic"? I even use and agree with several things here listed as "Low Magic".
I'll even change my statement (where I was just adding to Anzyr's list) to "DM doesnt like magic, but finds no one will play xxxxxx, so adverts his game as Pathfinder (Low magic).
This does go back to the OP. WHAT IS "LOW MAGIC?
Are my "No Ye Olde magic shoppe & No significant PC crafting" games "low magic" if there is still plenty of Phat Lewt?
Or I have seen Low Magic defined as "No PC spellcasting" (No magical healing, either, etc).
Between those two is a whole world of "Low Magic". The term is too broad.
Elder Basilisk wrote:
It's up to the players to figure out what their characters want to do..... and then die.
However, if they run into a Chimera at level 2, a couple ogre warbands at level 3, a legendary vampire at level 4... they will then die.
How do you flee from a Chimera at Level 2? So, the DM engineers that encounter, right? Well, they cant outrun a chimera. Fly 50, remember? So what would be the purpose of that encounter? To show the Players that the DM is boss? Why not "rocks fall, everyone dies"? Negotiate? CE remember?
If the DM lets them get away or talk their way out, it's DM fiat as much as not having the Chimera encounter in the first place.
Quark Blast wrote:
ER can be cast on you & you alone. So it's 1/4 the spell for just running away.
If you want a living world, then sometimes you're going to encounter stuff that you ought to run away from very quickly,
So, why dont those monsters chase down the Adventurers and kill them? Just cause you run, doesnt mean it works, in fact many predators will attack because you run. And if there the whole world is full of occasional high level monsters, why aren't all the peasants now monster-chow?
The world works as it is assumed that closer to civilization there are Patrols, Knight-errant, ect that keep the big monsters down, leaving bandits,wolves and other annoyances only. Further you get out, the more dangerous the monsters get.
No one thinks that Pathfinder games are meant to be played as 'PCs vs APL-equal challenges' only. CR +1 or +2 are not uncommon. "level appropriate" does not mean Equal level, never has. It means "within a couple CRs of level".
It's CR +10 which are problematic.
Sure, just common sense will say you're not supposed to attack the Captain of the Guards at the Palace. But that doesnt matter his CR.
It's when you meet some aggressive monster, the DM idea that you're REALLY supposed to run or surrender is mostly not a good idea.
1 & 2. This is more or less how I play. No "Ye Olde Magik Shoppe" but plenty of Phat Lewt drops, including personalized ones ("wish list). Indeed, WBL often exceeds guidelines, but since it isnt optimized it isnt over powering.
5. Too open to abuse. Just have something where the spellcaster takes continuous damage and he is now a poor Crossbow archer. Boring.
6. Just slows the game down.
That article is outdated and talking about a prior game system. In any case, it doesnt talk about throwing encounters at a party which are impossible.
Yes, it's one of those spells where you could find a couple great uses - *IF* it was lower level, say 2nd. It's a Legacy spell, a hold over from early days.
The Statue spell is another- I could think of some fun uses- but it's 7th level. Huh? Maybe it should be 5th or even 4th?
Repulsion sounds good until you realize that Will negates and so does SR. And thus a 6th level slot is useless.
Least taken spells (Could be useful, but rarely) include: Erase, Ventriloquism, Shatter, & Illusory wall (4th level- really???).
Skull & Shackles Player companion is just that-a Player companion. They dont do FAQ and rarely errata, and stuff creeps in that's wrong at times.
It sez "possibly". From what JJ has said and my own reading it seems that- You are not viewing a Location, you are viewing a Creature. From viewing that creature, you might get clues where it is from the background. "Aha, I see DrDeth is in the Library at the palace! I was there once". That's why it sez "possibly using magic such as scrying."
You are not viewing a Location, you are viewing a Creature. From viewing that creature, you might get clues where it is from the background. "Aha, I see DrDeth is in the Library at the palace! I was there once". That's why it sez "possibly using magic such as scrying."
Dev comments are not rules. They do suggest strongly that a given interpretation of rules may be right or wrong, however.
OTOH, I did open this thread asking for a FAQ. It would be simple to explain. "possibly using magic such as scrying means that if you see the creature in a known location, you can use that info to get there. But you can't discern a unknown location thru scrying."
Trigger Loaded wrote:
Or Chivalry & Sorcery. whoa.
3.0 was a mess, which is why it was replaced early by 3.5. But hardly "unplayable".
I posted mine as:
Now that being said- when I was younger, my STR would be like 17- I was able to bench press more than my own body weight. Maybe that's a 16?
Dex? Well, I am a klutz. I trip once in a awhile, and my sense of balance is poor. OTOH, I am a excellent shot and can even pick a lock. My agility is low but my aim and manual dexterity is high.
IQ is 145.
Now that I am older, I can claim some wisdom.
CHA? I am persuasive and a leader. But am of average looks.
If a Paladin has a Phylactery, and the DM thinks that their action will result in their falling or similar, then the Phylactery will warn the PC and Player. Whereupon if the PC continues, the DM is well within his rights to have the Paladin face consequences. There's never a surprise or argument.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
The entire affair is soiled by having failed to roll the miss chance. That cheapens the karmic backlash, and leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
I agree. And what kill a PC with a crit- just because? Nor do i see anything that is a clear indication that the guy is a cheater. If he did cheat, it didnt gain him anything so there's no "karmic backlash". Not to mention calling someone out in public on a blog as being a cheater when you dont know anything of the sort is very rude.
If someone is a cheater, you talk to him OOC. You dont kill his PC.
Actually, I think it's more like 20%.
How your table works is HUGE part of it. Some players have a lot of fun finding rules to exploit. At other tables such a thing is really frowned upon.
What level your games get is also important. If your games rarely get into double digits- or at best you finish a AP then retire the character- you won't see issues with high level play.
Theorycrafting is also a issue- while theorycrafting is important and helps stress test, if only a tiny % play that way, it's hardly worth spending a couple weeks fo a devs time to 'fix" something only 1% of players will ever notice.
I think someone posted a wizard with a STR so high he could cast Wish for free using Blood Money. How many games would this actually occur? How many games even actually use Blood Money? How much time should be spent fixing this, then?
Sorry, but since he said "designers" not "developers' I took that as meaning the main team. Sure, the guys that write a module or even a splatbook may not know the rules that well. Some are just good writers.
I played a bit with J. Eric Holmes , and he knew the rules really well- in a way you could call him a "designer'. But yeah, I also played with a few guys that had "only" written a module, and their game knowledge varied. More than the average player, sure, but not always masters by any means.
So, yeah, if by "designers' you mean anyone who has their name on any game product- many are not masters of the rules. Absolutely. And they'd be the first to admit it.
What RPG designers have you played with?
I played with Arneson, but he was notorious for making stuff up on the fly. Hargrave knew his system better than anyone. Jay Hartlove knew Supergame! better than anyone. Steve Perrin knew Runequest better than anyone I ever played with. Ken was a master of T&T. M.A.R. Barker knew his world really well, but not the nitty gritty of the rules.
Pretty much every designer I have played with knew their rules better than any player. Sure, even they could be surpried by a occassional odd corner case that the rules lawyers had memorized.
Sure. But that's pretty obscure and not every DM allows it.
OTOH, a cloak of resistance is always a Good thing. Classes with Poor Will save should consider getting one +1 bettert than the norm, at least.
Problem with giving him extra loot is I can't make the party unfairly distribute drops. (On phone now, replies will be much more brief)
Of course you cant. But if the Pally is a longsword guy and the fighter a greatsword dude, who will get the really cool greatsword?
And likely only one of them will be a shield user. Etc.
Next- so there's two suits of plate-, one of them is rust proof, always clean, +1 and with the symbol of the paladins deity on it. The other is simply +3.
The fighter will NEED a resistance item, whilst the pally can laugh at saves.
Very easy to manipulate. But be fair.
There's been many DPR contests and the number range by quite a bit, depending on assumptions and biases.
Fighters do very well in the DPR dept.
And some Pally focus on healing more. Or the fighter can be a reach weapon or archer. Reach weapon fighter, behind a Sword & Board Pally can be really nasty. or the other way around.
if the pally is sword & board with a high CHA, the fighter can out do him easily with a high STR and a two handed weapon.
In our group, our Fighter was hands down the most dangerous PC, all the way thru 13th level. Beat out the Pally easily. Mind you, that pally had a really high CHA and several feats into healing.
Frank C wrote:
The player in question had never played a tabletop before beginning this game back in august. I had the half-orc ranger already made up, because I like to have a couple random characters on standby. He wanted to play, so he picked that one, and since then he has done nothing but study the CRB. He finally decided he was ready to take it more seriously and make his own character from scratch, and he chose to make a sorcerer. I can't say I blame him.
Ok, that's a fair deal.
I say the lack of Gygaxian death traps is a good thing. Instant death is bad for any kind of story and isn't fun to play. Tomb of horrors is a terrible module.
Not always "death traps". Just that they did more than a few points of damage. Perhaps you lost items. Or were teleported. Or cursed.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Yes, and the Ninja, the Scout and the Sapmaster are good combat archetypes.
Right. Certainly many people agree that the Rogue can use some cool new talents. And it looks like Unchained will fix some stuff.
And yes, any pure martial class will have issues once the campaign gets to the point where the casters can do 9th level spells. But those are rare. (This is why the devs 'dont seem to care about martial/caster disparity"- it just is not a major problem in many games at the levels where most playing is done and the APs are played).
OTOH, many DM's come here and post that their Rogue is breaking their game- and yes, the rogue has a nice "sweet spot" at about 5th level.
So, there's a difference between saying "Hey the Rogue could use a few improvements' vs saying it's the worst class in the game and should be dumped.
(I also have pointed out that the lack of diabolic Gygaxian traps in most AP's has caused the rogue to fall from favor. That's not a issue with the class, it's a issue with the APs, IMHO)