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. 6,109 posts (6,110 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 6,109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Sounds like fun. Hopefully the loss of his Black Blade will restore some peace in the party.

Yeah. Fun. Hey the DM just stole a whole slew of class features from one player and now you think it's OK for him to steal yet another class feature from another player. What's next- steal the wizards spellbook?

Madokar Valortouched wrote:

Same here. And I'm sorry if I jumped the gun on wondering if this should be submitted to be a FAQ issue. I just started posting here, and I was a bit concerned by some of the aggression towards my GM.

No actually a rules change there would be a good idea.

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate. .. A Paladin falling should not be a unilateral action on the part of the GM, it should be discussed and agreed to by the player. "

There is rarely a good reason for a DM to make a paladin fall. Now yes, there are a few immature players who might want a murdering, raping, torturing Paladin and wont agree his paladin should fall. In which case that player should simply be uninvited to the game.

I was a little hasty in suggesting to the OP that he find a new game. He should simply sit down with the DM explain he doesnt care for this, and it makes the GAME less fun for him. If the DM insists, and the OP likes the group, the Op should have a new character ready, and then say "Ok, here's in my new character, i am no longer playing the paladin."

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bbangerter wrote:

And its a very fair point for them to make, particularly the GM. We have your side of the story, but as I mentioned in my first post, there is a lot of context we don't have. You've given us what you are able, but the GM's side of the story would provide a lot more. Something you should ask yourself, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?" Or do you feel the GM is simply being malicious?

, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?"

There is no such thing- unless the player agrees before hand.

Do you trust your Dm that destroying your wizards spellbook will make a enjoyable, and good story point?"

Do you trust your Dm that cutting off your rogues fingers will make a enjoyable, and good story point?"

Do you trust your Dm that making your fighter a parplegic will make a enjoyable, and good story point?"

5 people marked this as a favorite.

No, your DM is totally wrong.

Find another group.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You're suggesting that I think the Corset could allow a Swift Action that isn't in addition to what you could already take? That's not only silly, but also not what I was saying at all. What I said was that the Swift Action granted through the Corset, no matter if you did or did not take your 1 Swift Action to begin with, would be additional to the Swift Action that you did or did not take. My point was that, no matter if you have or have not taken the Swift Action normally allotted to you (or even if you haven't taken the Swift Action allottable via the Corset), it would still constitute as being additional in relation to the real-world definition I provided.

Huh? But in any case, it is now a swift action right? And you cant take a swift action when nauseated. So the corset is a red herring here.

Look, the PDT messed up with that definition, forgetting things like the Paladin, the samurai, etc. Rather that argue the RAW or the RAI, let us just get them to correct it.

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

I can never seem to find a good-fitting pair of pants. (Trousers, for those across the pond.)

I have pants that when I put them on in the morning, they feel snug, possibly even tight. But if I don't wear a belt with them (Which I seem to forget/think I 'won't need it' frequently) I'll be hiking my pants up all afternoon, or else walking around with my pants around my knees. And it's rapidly becoming winter up here in Canada.

Cotton stretches as you wear it. I suggest suspenders. :-)

Trekkie90909 wrote:


Generating Ability Scores, Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook wrote:
Standard: Roll 4d6, discard the lowest die result, and add the three remaining results together. Record this total and repeat the process until six numbers are generated. Assign these totals to your ability scores as you see fit. This method is less random than Classic and tends to create characters with above-average ability scores.

Yeah? What does that have to do with ROLLING a 20? You cant ROLL a 20 with that process.

And altho you can GET a 20 by rolling a 18- and adding a racial +2,- you still cant get three 20's.

I think maybe his system had something like a bonus if all dice come up with the same number. But he hasnt explained it yet.

Look, the FAQ was badly written. They need to correct it.

Even that corset may not work, for sure you do get a additional swift action- but you cant use it by the RAW.

Backpack wrote:

Personally, I think whenever you're in the minority your the one who has the responsibility to change. My CN Half-Orc (super original I know) barbarian very much is a murder hobo. Do I walk around town slaughtering civilians, no, of course not. Let me give a few examples specifically from that character. Spoilered for length.

Example 1
** spoiler omitted **

Example 2
** spoiler omitted **...

Neither of those were "murderhobo". Perhaps overreactions, but you dont kill people "just because'. Did you walk by a beggar and kill him for his coppers? Kill a peasant as he objected to you killing his milkcow for food?

I was playing a half Orc myself, a new worshipper of Shelyn, who learned that the True beauty is inner beauty. He grew up in the slums of Riddleport where indeed, he killed goblins- to keep his family fed. But now he's reformed.

Quark Blast wrote:

Not disagreeing with you but "monsters" has a rather fuzzy definition in game terms. Particularly with how virtually any race can be a PC.

Can you seriously state that murderhobo is not a legit pursuit in the 3.PF game? What with all the PC classes/prestige/options and expanded spell options with the evil-tag, etc., it is quite clear that a career as a rat-bastard is not simply allowed but actively facilitated by official rules.


Rats? Oozes? Undead? Demons? Giant scorpions? In fact , per the Advanced race guide only a few humanoids are available for PC- unless the DM allows certain optional rules.

Yes, i can. In fact, the one time I ran with a group of "murderhoboes" it was 5th ed, and i quit the game.

I dont consider killer kobolds "murder". Murderhobues kill everyone they can- peasants, farmers, travelers on the road, beggars, and the like. Not just the monsters et up to be foes in the GAME. The game makes them foes and monsters.

Sure, it can be fun to play the one renegade kobold that has given up his anthropagy and murder ways and wants to reform.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

I'd click on FAQ if the rule didn't seem perfectly clear to me. It really IS spelled out rather plainly in chart form.

The only reason people are clicking FAQ is that they don't like the answer.

And that answer is the sacred weapon value IS the flat result. The Sacred Weapon value is the same whether the weapon is a dagger or a greatsword, so obviously the size of the weapon itself is irrelevant.

IF a human priest of phrasma casts sacred weapon on her dagger, it's damage dice would get the normal one bump increase from 1d4 to 1d6.

She would then have the choice of using either that 1d6 value of damage or her Sacred Weapon dice damage which is the raw value from the chart.

Right. The whole idea of breaking the rules by applying this to weird corner cases such as lead or outsized weapons doesnt need a FAQ, just common sense.

Quark Blast wrote:

To the OP: Is this surprising?

The game rules actively reward murder-hobo behavior.

No, no they dont. They dont reward killing helpless peasants, shopkeepers, random travelers and the lot. Trust me, there are players who will do that.

They do reward killing monsters.

The game is not set in the 21st century with police, prisons and the like. The game is set in the medieval period where Knights and such like had the right of High, Middle and Low Justice, where crusaders and such were expected to kill the bandits that had been preying on the locals.

Playing the game as designed is not being a "murderhobo". Adventurers do not "murder".

HWalsh wrote:

We need more information really...

Who, or what, were the things you wanted to bring in alive? Humans? Monsters? Does your GM generally throw in non-standard aligned monsters?

So, for example let's use a Goblin. In the world of Golarion, Goblins are racially majority evil and eat humans. They hunt and kill and eat humans and feel no remorse.

Do they get taken alive by your character's logic? If so, then yes, some characters may see you as insane.

Right. I mean do they kill random villagers? Peasants working in the field? Travelers on the road? Shopkeepers? If so, you have a problem. They are being immature and playing CE. Sit down and talk with them OOC. Discuss the issue like adults.

But let us say it is a goblin. So, you get your way and spare it. What are you gonna do with it next? Let it go to kill more peasants and maybe even your party? Take it prisoner back to civilization? If so, then your character concept doesnt mesh with FRPG "reality". Doesnt mean it's wrong, but it causes problems. I think you should play a different character in that case- for THIS group of characters/players.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mark, about Warpriest Sacred weapon damage.

But what is the purpose of this? I mean, I guess if you have a Warpriest wielding a kukri or a dagger it can help, but it confuses the heck out of the one guy I know who runs one.

How, exactly was this meant to work?

Not asking for a rules answer, just how did the designers/writers expect it to work?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Sacred Weapon gives a flat dice damage value of the weapon based on 2 and ONLY 2 factors, the size category and the level of the warpriest[b]. What the weapon is irrelevant. The warpriest has the choice of either using the sacred weapon value [b]OR the native weapon value.

I agree. But what the %$#@! is the purpose of this? I mean, I guess if you have a Warpriest wielding a kukri or a dagger it can help, but it confuses the heck out of the one guy I know who runs one.

I know the devs didnt design this with the idea of using the wrong sized weapons, so that's a red herring, even if it is legal by RAW (which I doubt). But that's a side argument.

How, exactly was this meant to work?

Trekkie90909 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
A friend once rolled 3 20s, an 18, a 16, and a 14 for stats. He played a dragon-born sorcerer in 3.5; it was the best tank, dps, face, and caster in the party.
How do you ROLL a 20???
Yahtzee (houserule).
??? You get five dice? ??
Usually just 4 (although we change things up frequently, I don't think anyone's done roll 5 dice); roll all the same number = yahtzee in this system.

So, you could get a 24 with all sixes?

Trekkie90909 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
A friend once rolled 3 20s, an 18, a 16, and a 14 for stats. He played a dragon-born sorcerer in 3.5; it was the best tank, dps, face, and caster in the party.
How do you ROLL a 20???
Yahtzee (houserule).

??? You get five dice? ??

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abaraii wrote:

These are my GM new house rules

are you ravingdorks DM??

Otherwise why Necro this SIX YEAR OLD thread?

phantom1592 wrote:

I don't actually think it's possible to have a Mary Sue in an RPG. You can have characters who are OP and Min Maxers... people who aren't so great at the RP... but the Players don't really have the power to create a Mary Sue. Players are still bound to the dice rolls.

You need DM Fiat to accomplish that. We had one DM NPC character who traveled with us for an adventurer who the entire plot revolved around and she had all the answers and solved the problems and killed the big bad despite being the 'helpless princess' trope. She was a new DM so I cut some slack there... but that wasn't a very fun game.

Sure you can. In fact I'd wager that half of all DMPCs are Mary Sues. One reason why they are so bad.

Trekkie90909 wrote:
A friend once rolled 3 20s, an 18, a 16, and a 14 for stats. He played a dragon-born sorcerer in 3.5; it was the best tank, dps, face, and caster in the party.

How do you ROLL a 20???

bobs04 wrote:

Check out the "Cleric Quintet" books from WOTC written By R.A. Salvatore. Great Books.

Except, IIRC, he's a tech, not a cleric, since Divine magic doesnt work?

Mark Seifter wrote:

I'd recommend referring back to Ravingdork's thread on this topic here. Not because there's one true answer there, but mostly because it could be useful and has several FAQ clicks already.

Not that I know all the FAQ threads past a certain number of FAQ clicks by heart or anything... ¬_¬

Mark that is indeed a great thread. But do note it is 3 years old.

This has come up several times, perhaps it is time for a FAQ.

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

If you cast, say POWER WORD KILL on a troll, does it die?

Or is it immune as "A creature with this ability is difficult to kill. Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0). "

So, a troll is immune to Power word kill, symbol of death and similar spells?

How about a failed Fort save from CdG?

KingOfAnything wrote:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is
... That's what the FAQ says, too.

1. That's not a PDT FAQ answer, they explicitly said "No FAQ required", so it's NOT a ruling.

2. What FAQ? Link?

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Ilja wrote:

EDIT: Note that while regeneration is active, the creature is literally immortal and cannot die from anything. The only way to kill a creature with regeneration, apart from attacking it with it's weakness, is somehow removing it's regeneration.

No, death effects kill as normal.

wraithstrike wrote:

As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.

where is that FAQ?

Rotolutundro wrote:

Thread necromancy! I want in on this.

DMPC party informs us that we're going to take a quest, or else. Are they forcing us? No, other than tying our characters up and gagging them when they protest. But they're really nice DMPCs, we should love them and do as they say. And they can kick our asses, so we'd better do it. That's one kind of character hook, I guess....... Then they became DMPCs. The difference, to me, is that NPCs are there to make the game interesting for the player. DMPCs are there to show off how cool the DM thinks he is, usually via nerfing, belittling, and/or beating up the PC(s). Towards the end, it seemed like he'd have been happier writing a book about his DMPCs - and, it seemed, casting my PC as a rather unpleasant sidekick.

And DMPC running DM's cant understand why players hate DMPCs.

("Well, my players love them! I wonder why people keep leaving my game.....")

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Well, except that the Samuri:

"Determined: As a standard action, the samurai can spend one use of his resolve to remove the fatigued, shaken, or sickened condition. If the samurai is at least 8th level, he can alternatively remove the exhausted, frightened, nauseated, or staggered condition."

Is clearly meant to be able to remove nauseated even while nauseated.

And the paladin certainly seems to have been meant to remove that condition from himself... and as a swift action. Otherwise, they likely would have said so.

Jiggy wrote:

Taking questions as challenges (or taking challenges, even in clear black-and-white, as mutinous insubordination; and so forth) is fairly common among the leadership culture of PFS, in my experience.

By no means limited to PFS. Nor does it seem, in my experience, to be any more common there. YMMV.

And, I am not a PFS fan, either.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You can't use a Swift Action to use Lay On Hands on yourself and remove the Nauseated condition via Mercies,

So Paladins have an ability that cannot be used?

Only when nauseated. They also have a attack ability that cant be used when they are nauseated. And a spell casting.....

Note that in 4th Ed, iirc , you could do exactly what the Op wants. It's not a crazy idea by any means. Just not RAW in Pathfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

Scientific papers was an example I gave because DrDeth tossed out the ole "you haven't done so fallacy.

Scientific papers are different than fiction are different from technical manuals are different from legal briefs and are different from game manuals.

I have co-authored three papers, two game supplements, a couple of briefs, a couple of short stories, a government internal report (Civil Grand Jury investigation) and quite a few internal desk manuals.

Each calls for an entirely different style of writing. If Paizo wrote their game guides like my scientific papers, they'd both have about the same readership....nearly zero. (I am not sure if even all my co-authors read all of the papers they put their name to...) ;-)

So, yeah, if you havent done it , it's OK to criticize but not to say it's easy.

I found writing gaming stuff damn hard. And, it was really bad, too.

Gruingar de'Morcaine wrote:
Kurald Galain wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
How is somebody "obviously"a magus? I mean Rincewind has the word "Wizzard" written on his pointy hat, but Maguses can wear armor, use swords, etc.
Once you're high enough level, enemies get to make Knowledge (Local) checks on you. This one actually makes sense.

I was trying to make similar example without giving away everything in the campaign.

The PC is 'something' that is visibly obvious that a large powerful group hates.

Well, I appreciate that, but your being coy here doesnt help us help you. If you cant answer our questions directly, why did you ask for our advice?

Jiggy wrote:

Different game, different GM. I'm playing a high level (well, high for PFS) character who uses lots of buffs, especially when expecting trouble. Honest player that I am, I diligently and conservatively track the time spent since buffing up, right down to knowing the order in which my buffs went up, always rounding partial minutes up to full minutes, and keeping careful tabs on the actions announced by all my tablemates.

Eventually, we're about to open a significant door, and a fellow player (likely also mindful of a buff or two), asks the GM how long we've been in the dungeon so far. Figuring that the GM has enough to track already, I decide to speak up and say that it's been about nine minutes, so folks will probably want to re-cast their minute-per-level buffs if possible. I'm just about to open my mouth, when the GM announces in total confidence, "You guys have been here about an hour."


I had one DM time us once out of combat and the amount of real time it took to enter another combat was the amount it took- which was always longer than the game would have it. He also had a timer during combat and you only had so much time to do your turn.

And then he complained because we were always rushing and never did any roleplaying!

BigDTBone wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

As the developers have stayed repeatedly, common sense is required ; they cannot write thousand page books in legalease that cover all possible scenarios and interactions.
DrDeth wrote:

No, because no one would want a PHB edited by a team of lawyers, being 6" think and costing $500. The Devs are human, they left some stuff out when it was just plain common sense.

Why do advocates for clear rules always come up against this asinine argument? It is entirely possible to write both more clearly AND more concisely. Is it easy? No. Can you sit down and pound out 3000 words in an hour that way? No. It requires skill, finesse, and some talent. I, for one, happen to believe the dev team is up to it.

But for the sake of this discussion "adding clarity" and "adding length" ARE NOT the same things. Please stop with this ridiculous argument.

How many books do you have to your credit?

The argument is in no way ridiculous.

Gruingar de'Morcaine wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Still, how intelligent are these foes? And how much of you knowing this is a bad strategy is the fact that you know the PCs stats?

I mean, if their Save DC is, say, 20 most things will fail that pretty reliably, so spreading out makes sense if they're underestimating the PCs. How overt is it that the PCs are super badass?

Creature's Int=21 Wis=15

All their foes have a Int of 21?????

Gruingar de'Morcaine wrote:

Most of the enemy are religiously devoted to wiping out arcane spell casters. The PC is obviously and publicly a magus.

How is somebody "obviously"a magus? I mean Rincewind has the word "Wizzard" written on his pointy hat, but Maguses can wear armor, use swords, etc.

Not too many common soldiers have a lot of ranks in Spellcraft.

Bloodrealm wrote:
I'm pretty sure we have our answer in the "can." As in, does the text use "can" or "may?" If not, then it's mandatory.

Can you point to the paragraph or line In Pathfinder that says this?

And here's the thing. Let us say the writers did choose the wrong words there. It's not like the CRB, where the wrong words will be corrected in the next printing or by a FAQ.

Tabletop Crusader wrote:

Nat 20 Diplomacy. ..... It turns out that critically succeeding on a skill check and having it (literally) blow up in your face is not a fun experience.

except of course, on skill checks, there are no criticals. A "nat 20" is just a check one better than a "nat 19".

Lorewalker wrote:

I mean... not really? Or are you trying to say there are literally no "does this rule exist" or "this rule exists for all things of a type" questions which are easily answered as yes or no?

I am saying that in this case, and other similar cases, then the fact that the devs left out a line which seems clearly ROI should not force anyone into a RAW ruling.

I am sure there are black and white questions. usually, you dont have to ask them, however.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Context really doesn't matter for a general question

Context can matter quite a lot, as not every question has an answer that applies in all variations of the question.

Why are you so reluctant to spell out the issue in depth?

The question is as basic as "Does Pathfinder have a rule for jumping?". You don't need context for why I want to jump, or where. Only that, yes, jumping is a rule.

The question is, "Do you have to use the benefit section of a feat you have? Or can you ignore it when you choose?" Not, "how do you rule this one feat". It is a question relating to ALL feats.

No, because no one would want a PHB edited by a team of lawyers, being 6" think and costing $500. The Devs are human, they left some stuff out when it was just plain common sense.

Gruingar de'Morcaine wrote:

I'm an old time gamer. I know how we would have handled these in the way back with the old pink and blue books. Yet I'm also aware expectations have shifted in the intervening years.

However: the way he looks/acts makes him almost always the logical choice for enemies to attack.

2) Group has 2 basic choices (with various modifications) on how to proceed, either X or Y. The module assumes they will choose X. Information in the module has told them Y will result in their death, essentially no chance to succeed.

3) How do you handle published encounters with just plain stupid tactics?

1. You're the DM. Just don't.

2. Have then roll a bare Int check, DC10, then tell them they remember choice Y will result in certain death. or if any are divine casters, have it come to them while playing.

3. They sometimes do that to nerf down a killer encounter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Elf wrote:

2. A wuxia campaign (for those who don't know that term, wuxia is Chinese martial arts fiction). Imagine Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Once Upon a Time in China, or any Shaw Brothers flick from the '70s). The PCs would all be disciples of the same martial arts master or members of the same organization, trying to recover a stolen manual of martial arts secrets and defeat the evil sect leader who killed their master.

I had a primo mobility based tank, a Warblade/monk, with maxed Acrobatics. We watched a wuxia film once, and everyone was going "Kane could do that.... Kane could do that, also. Not even Kane could do that!". It was fun.

Mojorat wrote:

The owlbear article indicates more than one plastic toy from that trip inspired a monster.


I had that set. It was a set of plastic Dinos, made in Hong Kong. It had at least three odd figures- owlbear, Bullette, and Rust Monster.

Secret Wizard wrote:
There are literally no upsides to Core Monk over UnMonk. The "higher Will save" doesn't exist in practice.

Of course it does. Monk has Good Will Saves, Unchained Monk does not. Not only that but Unchained Monk gets Still Mind a level later.

Yes, Unchained Monk can take iron Will. So can Monk.

Dragon Style does provide nice bonuses, but both versions can take it.

Yeah, the whole meme of "kill the spellcaster first" doesn't work, at least for the first round anyway.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Ars Magica actually went into some length on this. While a magus (a term they used decades before Paizo) tends to inspire wariness among Churchfolk, dressing like one tends to discourage most forms of accostment. .

The ancient Persians used for millennia before Ars Magica did.

DungeonmasterCal wrote:
None of the wizards I have ever played worn pointed hats or robes. Those were "ceremonial" and formal garments. They usually wore regular, albeit tough, clothes for adventuring.

Monks robes are popular, too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:

I don't get why people try to drive a wedge between "old school gamers" and "modern gamers." I started gaming in 1985 and I run games basically the same as I did then. The mechanics are different, but we had different games with different mechanics back then, too.

The things that have changed for me are:
Time - I have a lot less of it, so I leverage published adventures/campaigns instead of creating my own stuff;
Money - I have a lot more of it and I can afford to buy gaming books, miniatures, maps, tools, etc.;
Technology - I have a tablet that I can store all my books on and access the internet.

Beyond that, I still use pens/pencils, paper, dice, and imagination. That's like 95% of it.

Same here, but I started in 1974.

Oh there have been a few small changes, but it's about the same.

Pathfinder has given up on the diabolical Gygaxian traps that we loved back in the old days. I miss those.

I like your build, in concept.

PA is better than Improved Init.

Sundakan wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Raving Nerd wrote:
I'm especially eager to play in games where the GM has a laundry list of banned items and house rules. Usually these masses of house rules are carefully curated, with things like "CORE ONLY" and "Greater Trip is OP."
PFS makes a decent reference if people want to see what feats and builds should be banned imo.
Not at all. For example, the Vivisectionist is banned for no good reason at all. I've heard the reasons and they're stupid.

Flavor, the classes flavor is pure evil.

Every person I saw wanting to play one wants to use vestigial limb and get 4 sneak attacks.

Vestigial Arm specifically disallows that though.

They dont believe it. Trust me.

Note that Paizo did have to do a FAQ just because of that. But of course a FAQ is not a 'rules change" is it?

It's crazy.

1 to 50 of 6,109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.