|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Paizo has aimed at discouraging the taking of prestige classes, so I doubt most people have seen more than a few in play.
Also, you can be a Lion Blade or a Hellknight without the prestige class through prestige points. So even if you've seen a hellknight or whatnot, they might not have the prestige class.
For example, I saw a Hellknight in play. Whether they had the class, I have no idea.
The Broken GM wrote:
In my experience, when running for someone who doesn't roleplay for whatever reason, you can ask what they are trying to accomplish and through what manner.
In other words, I ask "What are you trying to use diplomacy to do?"
I then have all the information I need to respond in character on the NPC's behalf and the player doesn't need to act it out.
I've only seen this approach fail maybe once, and that was because the person was clueless, not because they were shy. That guy just kept repeating, "I am trying to make a diplomacy check, you know, a diplomacy check" to every one of my followup questions.
I always ask people to describe their characters, such as what they look like etc, so I can have NPCs react to them appropriately. So after 1-2 players describe how their characters look and act, commonly someone says "I'm a level 5 cleric" or whatever class and then turns to the next player to hear their character description.
Getting some players to describe basic things about their character can be like pulling teeth. When players, after hearing other players give descriptions, still don't get what they need to do, I have learned to ask specific things like, "so what type of armor are you wearing. What race are you. Do you have an obvious accent or culture?"
Another aside, over a year ago I was a GM running at a play day I helped organize. I saw a new PFS player with a Flurry of Maneuvers monk in spiked armor and shield, who had played that character until level 2-3. The character wasn't at all overpowered, but I told them that I didn't think this combination worked, and at best he was going to get table variation.
I never saw him again. I've seen this play out over and over again with different rules. From what I've seen, around 50% of new players who experience rules arguments involving the first character they are attached to simply leave PFS.
Ambiguity hurts. Even in home campaigns, I've just seen it add drama that didn't need to be there.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Monks cannot abuse RAW. RAW abuses them.
With that said, Paizo has frequently left poorly worded and ambiguous rules in the system. This is only one example of them doing so.
Judging intent is always a guessing game until the author and editors weigh in, who don't always agree. With that said, I've seen GMs argue intent even in the face of FAQ print outs stating which interpretation is correct.
With that said, I always thought that RAI monks should be cool and effective. I've seen Paizo staff say that monks are indeed cool and effective. So doesn't that mean that monks actually should be cool and effective?
Andrew Christian wrote:
As an aside, I had the exact same reaction as Jiggy to what you originally wrote. I also didn't see much ambiguity in what you originally wrote.
Thus, if you feel you are getting misunderstood frequently, you may find it beneficial to try to state your beliefs more plainly.
Actually that doesn't work because a character cannot have both a mount and a familiar.
Their shtick isn't limited by slots or rounds per day, it goes great with exploration since Perception is always important and, unlike the rest of the party, Rogues still have skill ranks left after maxing a few key ones.
Perception is the most important skill in the game. So if the rogue is the only one with ranks in it in the party, you're simply not playing with a decent party.
As a PFS GM, many a rogue has nearly died at my tables from failing perception checks. In my experience, rogues tend to have moderate to lowish perception, except perhaps against traps. It's not uncommon for them to dump wisdom, as they have no more need of wisdom than a fighter does and getting perception as a class skill from traits is pretty common for all classes.
Zach Williams wrote:
So how does banning stuff and errata on stuff fit with roleplaying, etc?
"Oh look, that neat trick I did must have been magic because I cannot do it anymore....."
FYI, asimar nature oracles can have a horse or camel. Have you ever seen a horse or camel wreck a scenario?
Why don't you bother to look up the rules before putting down others?
Just seems like an extreme reaction. You still get a stronger than normal animal companion, something Druids can't get.
Nature oracles could get a really nice horse or camel. It was not even in the same ballpark as an optimized druid companion.
Now nature oracles pretty much can get a horse....
CAndrew Wilson wrote:
There is a decent argument to be made that Han Solo was CN,at least at the beginning of the story.
The problem is that some players like to trend toward "Being a Jerk," which lowers everyone's fun. It's not the alignment that is an issue.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Warehouse is CG. They don't kill, if they can prevent it at all. They flaunt laws, but they do what they do to protect people from harm.
Pathfinders do what they do for reasons that aren't entirely clear, but at least some of it is desire for power.
DM Beckett wrote:
I believe there are also hellknight paladins in the setting.
I see no ambiguity in what Mark said. If the feat changed, you can retrain it or keep the new version. As there was no paid retraining at that point, I assume it would be retraining for free just like the synthesist.
Of course, you could also have Nagaji paladins from these factions, but it doesn't change the fact that fairly normal people following these factions would tend toward neutrality on the Good versus Evil axis. I don't mean true neutral, but N, CN, or LN.
Noblesse oblige is a post-revolutionary French concept, and would probably be considered non-lawful in such a traditional and feudal state as Taldor. It sounds like a NG or even CG concept to me, for Taldor at least. If you made this coming from religious devotion then I could see the LG.
But then again, these factions are diverse. Sarenrae is a NG god that forbids slavery, and Qadira is a N faction that enslaves heavily.
With that said, I've seen many neutral Qadiran/Osirion/Taldoran characters being threatened by GMs at one time or another with being evil for acting in accordance with their laws....or even pointing out what the laws of the country actually are. Amusingly, these disputes tend to be resolved through executing humanoid prisoners or handing them over to lawful authorities who then execute or enslave them. Once though, I did once have to violate VC orders and let enemy guards recapture a landmark in the tapestry to keep from being hit with the evil label by a GM. I don't think we killed anyone during combat in that scenario, so we literally beat them up and then went home, leaving them with the landmark. But we kept from being evil, so I guess that was a win for the Society!
I actually think it's harder to play neutral in society, as many people see neutral as a lack of good and evil, not a mixture of the two.
Showing Neutrality? Most nations are neutral, so being a fairly normal Taldoran, Osirion, or Qadiran would all be showing neutrality.
Mike Franke wrote:
You are confusing evil with chaotic. Chaotic people cannot be trusted. Lawful evil can be trusted to honor their oaths. They will do whatever it takes to do so.
Hence, the reason that many of the good gods work with Asmodeous. They might not invite Asmodeous to parties, but he's a nice ally during tough times.
Truthfully, the society itself would have no problems with LE characters, which is why there is a Cheliax faction. It's player aversion to playing with evil characters that created the ban. You know, LE characters may not be family friendly and all.
Cao Phen wrote:
Ah, you are correct on just leaving the Full Plate as is for +0 and +1. As for +2 to +3, you can look to the Eastern Counterparts, the Tatami-do and O-yoroi. They both have an Armor Class equivalence of +10, but thier DEX are both at a higher base (7/D+3 and 8/D+2, respectively)
Yes, which means that your flat footed ac is lower, which comes into play frequently. Touch ac simply doesn't matter unless you're a dex build when it comes into play around level 5 as everything is going to hit on a 2 anyway.
Cao Phen wrote:
Mithral plate is only ahead of normal plate when you get a +3 or +4 dex modifier. The 9000 additional cost is simply too high to justify it for like a +2 dex modifier. Plus, you won't be able to afford it until fairly high level, so you will most likely be buying plate twice.
I don't understand what you mean by 'fragile'. Glorymane is a +2 heavy shield. Maybe not something for a dedicated shield fighter who would want upgrades, but certainly handy for a character that wants the option.
I was reading the bronze entry, which gives the shield the fragile property . However, I missed that the fragile entry has an apparent disclaimer that fragile magic shields like Glorymane don't break when crit like other fragile armors do.
I played this and it was fun. However, I had serious misgivings about the magical item found in it.
Namely, it's a fragile shield that cannot be upgraded. Nor can it be afforded by any character before level 7 or so, if they save all their money for the fragile shield.
I guess I just don't see the point of the item, other than simply a role playing tool for characters to keep in their backpack when they are much higher level.
Yeah, crossblooded sorcs get second level spells at level 5, which is painful. They're pretty much moving at theurge pace.
Sammy T wrote:
Brad was playing a swashbuckler the other day. It was level 1 before they improved level 1 swashbucklers, so the class sucked. He was pretty stoked about its future though.
Because you cannot rebuild, I have avoided them in PFS so that I know what I'm getting when I start. I've stopped playing too many characters for one reason or another to jump in blindly at this point.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
The other day, one of my players said something along the lines of, "Nobody's using their GM-star replays, because they're per lifetime rather than per season, so they want to save them for just the right moment--I'm not sure they're ever going to get used."
I haven't used mine yet. I was saving them for the "perfect moment" or when I had nothing else to do other than replay a scenario.
It should be per year in my opinion.
I think that is because melee types have rounds where they cannot make most of their attacks each and every combat. Namely, any round where they have to move more than 5 feet.
The power of gunslingers lies in:
In short, gunslingers have all the pieces to be complete monsters with relative ease. Put two of the them on the same team and you pretty much don't need the rest of the party.
Being snide and using a PC ignorance of the rules against them is debatable. Forcing them to waste their actions when you tell them they can is a jerk move.
I was a jerk because I let a PC use a steal maneuver to steal a NPCs holy symbol? Wow...
It is not my responsibility to predict a players intentions and preemptively explain possible implications of doing something in game.
This reminds me of the time that time I had an player who grappled a monster and then got upset when he ate a full attack on his turn, nearly killing him, because he thought it would keep them from making full attacks.
I had a player sunder a spell component pouch. I then had to spend a few minutes looking up what spells were effected. The player then got upset because the caster had some spells without components and thus his turn was wasted. I had another player that stole a cleric holy symbol and therefore thought they could not cast any spells. He also got upset until he realized I was right.
In short, don't assume it's the GM's error or that they are being a jerk.
Mystic Lemur wrote:
The FAQ came out in early October. Threads started appearing soon after. We are well past the "knee-jerk" phase.
I have no idea how many sessions I've played, but on my 10+ characters, I can think of two items I've ever bought off a chronicle sheet. Both of these items I needed to GM to get on the right character.
The items tend to be non-interesting, which is at least part of the reason why a +1 keen longbow on a cert got a "please ban" thread.
Some of the boons can be interesting, but the item selection typically ranges from poor to terrible. The rare items that are good, tend to be very specific to a build, so chances are that only GMs can take advantage of those rare few.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
The swashbuckler damage bonus doesn't counter the weak combat style until quite a few levels into the class. As is, Dervish Dance could come online at level 3. So giving the class a damage bonus fairly soon wouldn't make things out of whack.
I think it could be fun to have a level 1 or 2 panache power that gives a damage boost against an opponent if the swashbuckler is missed by them previously in the round. It could easily mirror two handed power attack for that matter while giving some nice flavor. Call it "Dashing Retort" or something.
Or you could make it a defender sort of thing and give the enemy who missed a -2 to hit other party members until they hit the swashbuckler. Both feel like a swashbuckler thing.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
I am one of those GMs who hate those builds, but only because every one of them is effectively the same scimitar+shocking grasp build. It's like they're playing an iconic, and just changing the name. In PFS, unless some change happens, I expect the swashbuckler to have the same mind numbing sameness. Oh, and if the magus in PFS, which is always a Dervish Dancer, is broken, the 4-8 damage coming from Dervish Dance clearly isn't the cause.
Another example, in PFS, I play with a dervish dancer rogue frequently and he's no where near overpowered even if he were to get his sneak attack off every round. My battle oracle out damages him consistently and easily even in rounds when he gets a full sneak attack off.
I just ran for a competently played level 1 swashbuckler in PFS. He played it well, but he was fairly pathetic due to his inability to do any damage relative to virtually anyone else in the party. I think the level 1 barb did more damage in one round than he did all scenario.
People seem to have a low bar for banning things.
I have never seen this trait in play. Thus it's obviously time to ban it.
Let's also ban Halflings because they always get a plus 1 to hit, saves, AC, and all social skills. Thus they are overpowered in every part of the game. Halflings obviously need to go!
I have an actually neutral tiefling oracle of battle that spams prot evil and infernal healing, lies like there is no tomorrow, has a large sense of duty, and follows whatever oath he makes. He is absolutely ruthless against his foes and protects innocents.
He would be true neutral in any form of Fallout style alignment system. When I have explained this to GMs, they tend to just glare at me. I've had GMs tell me I was acting CE because I lie and cast infernal healing, but they were going to let it slide due to it being PFS. It's like nothing else my character did even mattered to them.
It's annoying to put it mildly.
That isn't moral relativism. It's consequentialism.
Well, it's not hard to give dex melee classes dex to attack and damage. That can be done now, just look at the gunslinger or the dervish bard.
Sadly, even if a swashbuckler was given dex to damage and could attack touch AC, they would still be noticeably weaker than the gunslinger simply from the advantages of ranged combat.
I am so tired of the argument that only casting evil spells or doing evil actions changes your alignment. I have gotten flack for my neutral Tiefling Oracle and witch using Infernal healing.
Literally I've been told that one evil spell taints your soul but saving tons of lives, like pathfinders tend to do, doesn't make you good. My only defense has been to say that this was ruled to be OK by Mike brook, at which point they tend to get huffy but eventually drop it.
Honestly I am extremely tired of feeling like actively neutral, mixed motives, and morally flawed characters aren't welcome.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I don't disagree on the shooting issue, but in a realm of magic and shape changers being extremely suspicious is simply good sense. Especially given all the stories of pathfinders being eaten by little girls they saved.
What makes me laugh is look at the Arcanist and then the Swashbuckler. You can tell which one devs were concerned about breaking people's games.
It makes me laugh to think that Dex fighting apparently needed to be nerfed so badly, especially given that speed is more important than strength in real fighting.
In contrast, WOTC is making Dex to attack and damage a feature of light weapons in Next. I would rather prefer that as a solution for avoiding players dipping Swashbuckler.
I seriously don't understand the fear of Dex to damage. You are already being penalized for attacking with Dex.
I really don't want these to look like all the cookie cutter Magus put there minus the spells.