Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Machine Soldier

Gauss's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 7,357 posts (7,365 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Correct, it is no longer solid to you, but it is still solid to them. You cannot drag them into the ground.

The stone oracle clause is similar to just about every other transportation effect, it is intended for voluntary travelers coming with you. It does not override the text that states you cannot move a creature into a solid object.

Honestly, this is an attempt to bypass normal rules and effectively achieve no-save insta-kills. Don't expect it to be allowed at most tables.


Crimeo, the problem with your logic is that all of the instances where Attacks of Opportunity are called out as needing to happen do not also need additional rules to explain how they work. If they do need additional rules to explain how they work then they do so.

In this case, there are no extra rules to explain how a section on casting a spell, or a section on maintaining a spell, apply.

Ie: there is no exception here and thus, it is not a reference.

Since you refuse to accept that it needs an exception and the spell is not currently providing one there is no point debating this further with you. As usual, you (or your GM) can house rule this any way you want to penalize people using Call Lightning any way you want. But it is not in the rules to do so.


Crimeo, you keep saying Call Lightning is another exception. But you have yet to show the text IN Call Lightning where it states the exception. Until you do so we are spinning our wheels discussing this.

Please, post the quote and bold the specific text that states the rule exception. Note: "(concentrating on the spell)" is not a rules exception. It does not state how it works.

Here is an example of a specific exception:

CRB p60 wrote:
Perfect Self: At 20th level, a monk becomes a magical creature. He is forevermore treated as an outsider rather than as a humanoid (or whatever the monk’s creature type was) for the purpose of spells and magical effects. Additionally, the monk gains damage reduction 10/chaotic, which allows him to ignore the first 10 points of damage from any attack made by a nonchaotic weapon or by any natural attack made by a creature that doesn’t have similar damage reduction. Unlike other outsiders, the monk can still be brought back from the dead as if he were a member of his previous creature type.

See how it is a specific exception? It states to follow rules X, then provides exception Y.

How does Call Lightning tell you to follow rules X and then make exception Y?


Crimeo, where I got my list: I did a search in the CRB for every instance of "concentrat" (without quotes) and then I read the rules. Perhaps you should do that.

Regarding your deflection by using Improved Disarm:
1) In order for there to be a change in the general rule the more specific rule MUST STATE IT.
2) The spell DOES NOT STATE IT.
3) Thus, there are only two times you need to make a concentration check: when you are casting (Spell, SLA, spell trigger) or when you are maintaining a spell.

Until you can show something that gives a different time that you need to make a concentration check then you have NOT shown a case of specific over general. This is where you keep failing to make your case.

In any case, while it may be reasonable to houserule a concentration check when damaged (or whatever) while calling a lightning bolt it is not supported by the rules. This is simply not in the rules as one of the situations where a concentration check is required (not casting, not maintaining) and the spell has no wording that indicates a new situation.

As an aside, honestly, this is an artifact. The spell's concentrate wording is the exact same as in 3.5 when concentration had a wider focus. Grab a PHB and check yourself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I understand your problem. Are you new to 3.x? Started with Pathfinder? You seem to believe that every word is carefully chosen to have rules applicability.

Guess what? This is a very very messed up system as far as language is concerned. Some of the Devs have even stated it.

It was built back in 3.0 upon the bones of 2nd edition, rebuilt in 3.5, rebuilt again in Pathfinder. There is so many language artifacts in this game that it often doesn't have any sort of internal consistency if you adhere to the letter of the rules like you are trying to.

Back to the rules, yes, concentration only applies if something bad happens to you.

But the thing you are missing is that Pathfinder specifically changed concentration from being a catchall skill that could be used for 'anything that needed concentration' to 'casting or maintaining a spell, spell-like ability, or certain magic items such as spell-completion'. They specifically changed it from a skill that affected anything that might have anything even remotely to do with concentrating to something that only applies to casting and maintaining spells or spell like things.

So we ask:
Is this a case of casting a spell? No
Is this a case of maintaining a spell? No
Is this a spell-like ability? No
Is this a magic item requiring concentration? No
Is there any reference anywhere in the spell that states it is subject to the concentration rules other than the incidental inclusion of the word concentrate? No

Since the answer is all no, this is either a case of a "rule" (your position) with no rules to govern it OR "language" (my position) that does not have any rules to govern it (because it is not rule specific).


Crimeo, You are taking a single word way out of context. That word in no way references the rules you state that it references.

IF that word is a reference to those rules then every other use of that word must also reference them.

Lets put it another way, are you supposed to make a concentration check every time you memorize spells? If you say no, then why does it tell you that you must "concentrate" to memorize spells? What about deciphering scrolls? It tells you you must concentrate for 1 minute to decipher them? By your interpretation (a single instance of concentrate with no additional wording) I must use the concentration rules for deciphering a scroll.

In any case, please quote where it references the rules for casting without it simply using the word 'concentrate' (or its variations).

You are saying this is specific vs general, but for there to be a case of specific vs general it must specifically state what it is changing. This is not the case here.

Edit: for clarity, show how "concentrate" in this instance either applies to "concentrate on casting" or "concentrate to maintain" because the spell does not reference either rule. The spell is not being cast and it is not being maintained.


Just a Guess, that is not relevant to what we are discussing.

We are not discussing when you cannot use concentration based abilities. What we are discussing, and what my comment was in reference to, is that Crimeo has yet to show a rule that defines how concentration is used in that context.

So...good job on taking my comment out of context. You win a cookie! :)


Crimeo, you seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying so lets see if I can clarify this.

There is no rules section covering concentrating on a spell that does not have a duration of concentration and after it has been cast.

There, clear enough?

Now, you are trying to apply rules to this, please..cite the rule. There is no rule in the spell that defines the effect of 'concentration'.

There are only TWO rules covering concentration.
1) Casting a spell
2) A spell with a duration of concentration.

Are you trying to say one of those rules applies here and if so, please cite where it states that it does.

This occurrence of "concentrate" is not a reference to the concentration rules elsewhere, it is simply an artifact of language. You have yet to show a rule that applies (edit: to it's use in the spell, since some people do not understand 'context').


Crimeo, yes, it specifically states concentration without then specifying which concentration rules to use. Thus, we are left with it being flavor.

1) The concentration rules under the duration header (the quote I provided) are specific to a duration of Concentration.

2) The spell does not have a duration of Concentration.

3) The spell does not state to use the concentration rules under the duration header.

4) Since the spell does not have a duration of Concentration and it does not state otherwise you cannot use the concentration rules under the duration header for this spell.

So, you have a spell description with the word 'concentration', what rules do you use? The spell casting rules? The spell is already cast, there is no spell to be lost.

You are creating a problem where none exists. There is no rule to cover the usage of the word 'concentration' in the way this spell uses it. Neither the casting a spell use of 'concentration' nor the duration use of 'concentration' apply here.

The wording here would appear to be the standard english version of 'concentrating on a subject'. It is neither awkward, nor unflavorful. It is 'you were doing something else and now you are concentrating for a moment in order to perform another action'. It can be said that you are concentrating on your defense when you perform a Total Defense action. Does that mean you need to make a concentration check? No, it is the standard english version of concentrating.

Other spells that use 'concentrate' as the standard meaning of focusing your focus down to one thing:

CRB p243 Arcane Eye wrote:
You must concentrate to use an arcane eye. If you do not concentrate, the eye is inert until you again concentrate.
CRB p244 Arcane Sight wrote:
If you concentrate on a specific creature within 120 feet of you as a standard action, you can determine whether it has any spellcasting or spell-like abilities, whether these are arcane or divine (spell-like abilities register as arcane), and the strength of the most powerful spell or spell-like ability the creature currently has available for use.

(Funny note: Arcane Sight states that, unlike Detect Magic, it does not require concentration and then later says to concentrate.)

CRB p270 Discern Lies wrote:
Each round, you concentrate on one target, who must be within range. You know if the target deliberately and knowingly speaks a lie by discerning disturbances in its aura caused by lying. The spell does not reveal the truth, uncover unintentional inaccuracies, or necessarily reveal evasions.
CRB p280 False Vision wrote:
This spell creates a subtle illusion, causing any divination (scrying) spell used to view anything within the area of this spell to instead receive a false image (as the major image spell), as defined by you at the time of casting. As long as the duration lasts, you can concentrate to change the image as desired. While you aren’t concentrating, the image remains static.

There are MANY more examples of spells with this kind of wording that do not have a duration of concentration. Are they all 'awkward', 'unflavorful', or 'unnecessary'?


You have 1 hour to edit your post before it cannot be edited.


I think you misunderstand the context of how the feat applies to paladins.

It grants anyone who has the ability to channel energy 2 extra uses per day.

However, in the case of paladins they have to use 2 uses of lay on hands to power channel positive energy. So, it gives paladins 4 extra uses of lay on hands that can ONLY be used for channel positive energy.

Thus, it is not redundant, it is a limiting statement. You cannot use the extra 4 uses of lay on hands for lay on hands.

Warpriest Fervor: please look up the updated feat on ACG page 146. You will find it applies to Warpriest's Fervor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Call Lightning has no requirement to maintain the spell, you cannot lose it.

CRB p252 Call Lightning wrote:
Duration 1 min./level

No concentration in the duration so it does not require "concentration to maintain the spell".

CRB p216 Duration types wrote:

Concentration: The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you’re maintaining one, causing the spell to end. See concentration on page 206.

You can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Some spells last for a short time after you cease concentrating.

Since Call Lightning does not have a duration of "concentration" the Concentration rule (quoted above) does not apply.

Summary: Calling a bolt cannot be disrupted or lost.


Calth is correct, Whirlwind attack is melee only, snap shot does not change that.


Lucas Yew, the problem with that would be that even if they know what a change will be they still have to wait until ALL changes are decided upon and THEN they have to figure out the new text layout. It is not a simple process, it is the same process as editing a book because...it is a book. :)

Even if they know all the changes if it isn't time to go to print yet they have to wait until that happens. If another change occurs between the time they do the PDF and the print versions there would be confusion.

Imagine version 3 (random number) is only available in PDF because when it finally went to print they had a new version (4). At best you annoy the book users for purchasing an out of date book, at worst there is mass confusion in the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can download the changes here.


Gisher is correct.


jewelry: full price
precious stones: full price
non-magical, non-adventuring gear items: more specificity required


Imbicatus, there is no basis for ruling that way. SU abilities generally do not require patience or concentration. They are not SLAs or spells.

nekoyami, yes, there is nothing that conflicts in this case. Both types of claws are active but the stacking (overlap) rules state that the better ability (better claws) take precedence. Since the sorcerer claws are still active the bite is active.

Its like having an enhancement to strength from two sources. If one enhancement is at +2 for 20minutes and the other at +4 for 2 minutes you get the +4 for 2 minutes and then the +2 for the remaining 18 minutes because it never went away.


Imbicatus, there is nothing preventing him from having the bite from Dragon Disciple while using the claws from Lesser Beast Totem.

Activate both types of claws, benefit from the Lesser Beast Totem claws (overrides the bloodline claws) and the Dragon Disciple bite.


No, I don't agree that they would have responded that way. We have no idea how they would have responded.

The fact is that when people are answering a rules question the details of that answer may violate other rules until corrected. It is human nature to focus on the problem and not other extraneous things.

Put another way, the example in Sage Advice violated the rules although the point it was making regarding Death from Massive Damage was still valid.

Back to the rules:
A level 11 spellcaster does 110 damage with Harm, save for half (55 damage). When applying the damage it cannot reduce the hitpoints below 1 hitpoint.

The application of the damage occurs after the save, not before. The only way "Interpretation 2" would work is if damage is applied before the save. Nothing in the game works like that.


I checked my copy of Dragon 315 it is discussing an entirely different issue regarding Harm...Death from Massive Damage.

Dragon Magazine #315 p111 wrote:
...What if I have 110 hit points and an 11th level caster casts harm on me. I'll take 109 points of damage from the spell if I fail my save, or 55 points if I make my save, right? In either case, I'll have to make a DC 15 Fortitude save to avoid death from massive damage, right? If my hired lackey, who has 49 hit points receives the same spell, he'll take either 48 points of damage or 24 points. In either case he's not subject to death from massive damage. Is this correct?

The example is in error and it is not the main subject and when errors are not the main subject they are less likely to be caught.

The second example should have been 110 on a failed save which is then reduced to 48 or 55 on a successful save which is then reduced to 48.

In any case, the spell's wording clearly states that it deals 10 per level, then if the target saves you deal only half, but then it states you cannot reduce the target's hp to less than 1 so the order is total->save->reduce to minimum.


Link or quote?


CRB p294 wrote:
Harm charges a subject with negative energy that deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level). If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount. Harm cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

The spell is pretty clear actually (Interpretation 1).

Save against the full damage and then apply the damage. Application of the damage cannot reduce the creature to below 1 hp.


There is nothing within the rules to allow this.


Bill Dunn, it wouldn't be done retroactively, it would be for subsequent saves.


Yes, you can use Aid Another if the GM determines you have a method of affecting the outcome.

In the case of poison...any number of things could be tried to help.


chuffster, why? This is not reality. If a flying creature had a speed of 1,000 he still wouldn't have to make any kind of special check to land. No more than people stopping on a dime when running.

That kind of realism simply is not part of this game. Heck, there are any number of rules and game elements that violate reality (and I don't mean the magical elements).


I am not sure what your question is. Whether you count from corner to corner, leading edge to leading edge, trailing edge to trailing edge, or center to center, the distance is the same.

A 5' step is a 5'step regardless of size.


Don't forget to reference the general polymorph rules. They state that you lose your movement types (such as swim speed).

CRB p212 wrote:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form.


First, you have a misconception. Most Bardic Performances do not require instruments. Only those Bardic Performances that require a Perform check may require instruments. Primarily that is Countersong and Distraction. Inspire Courage does not require a Perform check and thus does not require an instrument.

Second, Inspire Courage can either be audible or visual.

CRB p37 wrote:
Inspire Courage (Su): A 1st-level bard can use his performance to inspire courage in his allies (including himself ), bolstering them against fear and improving their combat abilities. To be affected, an ally must be able to perceive the bard’s performance. An affected ally receives a +1 morale bonus on saving throws against charm and fear effects and a +1 competence bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls. At 5th level, and every six bard levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +4 at 17th level. Inspire courage is a mind-affecting ability. Inspire courage can use audible or visual components. The bard must choose which component to use when starting his performance.

So assuming he chooses visual and his companions can see him it works fine underwater.


Axolotl, not to belabor the point here but, just because it is something you cannot imagine does not mean that it has not happened.

The program's accuracy is not the issue here. I acknowledge that Lone Wolf works very hard to make Hero Lab as up to date and accurate as possible. This is good.

The problem is what happens when certain users believe that the program cannot possibly allow them to make user errors. When shown the rulebook the argument then becomes variation of 'Hero Lab trumps the rulebook!'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aaron "Lawful G" Beal,

Thank you for seeing things from my point of view. I understand that such a disclaimer would have to be carefully phrased.

After some thinking, I believe that the disclaimer probably doesn't need the 'user error' statement so long as it contains the 'not a substitute for the rulebooks' and the 'not a Paizo product' statements.

With those two statements it should be much easier to show people their user errors because the regularly occurring situation seems to be that when there is a user error then it almost always leads to the 'not a substitute for the rulebook' argument which then regularly leads to the 'not a Paizo product' argument.

Without the last two arguments it should be a relatively simple matter to ask them to check for user error or even to show them the user error.

You mentioned that you have already done something similar at conventions.


CRB p465 wrote:
This bright silver or gold +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.

It is Light Armor, it does not need such a statement.


Yes, it is one category lighter for the purposes of move speed. So Medium becomes Light for the purposes of move speed.

The FAQ was specifically addressing the "other limitations" section not the "movement" section. Basically, there was a question as to what kinds of "other limitations" applied.
Basically, does a magic enhancement that requires medium armor work with Medium Mithral (that counts as light) or does it need Heavy Mithral (that counts as medium)? The answer is whatever the type was before Mithral is factored in (ie Medium).

CRB p154 wrote:
Mithral: Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than steel but just as hard. When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor, and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. This decrease does not apply to prof iciency in wearing the armor. A character wearing mithral full plate must be prof icient in wearing heavy armor to avoid adding the armor’s check penalty to all his attack rolls and skill checks that involve moving. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonuses are increased by 2, and armor check penalties are decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 0).


_Ozy_, I made a comment regarding the rules, you then took my comment regarding the rules and made a judgement that had nothing to do with my comment regarding the rules.

Ergo, you were commenting on something which I had not been discussing as if I had been discussing it. The phrase putting "words in my mouth" was the closest I could come up with to that.

Had you addressed my statement and THEN said 'and, if someone were to try this and I'm GMing...' then there would have been no problem. But you didn't even try to address my statement.

When you comment on someone's statement as if they had made some other statement you are in fact treating them as if they were advocating for that other statement.


_Ozy_, I was not making any statements as to the advisability of this option, I was only stating that it is supported by both the rules and the math.

Please try not to put 'words in my mouth'.


Axolotl, they are not made of straw. I have GM'd Hero Lab users who thought that Hero Lab was accurate until shown otherwise. Showing them otherwise is very very difficult.

There have been Hero Lab users that argued, on this very message board, that it was a Paizo product or that, at least, it was in some way connected with Paizo (backed by Paizo or the HL makers had a direct hotline to Paizo) and thus it was 100% accurate.

I, am not judging accuracy of the program. It seems a fairly accurate program.

I am however requesting that a disclaimer be publicly posted, that I can point to, that states that user errors are a thing, that Hero Lab is not a substitute for the legitimate Paizo rules sources and that it is not a Paizo product.

Yes, many of you know these things already. Congrats. But arguments with those that don't HAVE occurred.


Kchaka, and yet, that is what the rules and the math supports. :)


Malag, it wasn't being pedantic to correct your statement. Some people erroneously believe that when you lose your dexterity bonus that means you are flat-footed. Some of those people even believe you cannot make attacks because you are "flat-footed" when you lose your dexterity bonus.

So, whether you meant it that way or not, you made an incorrect statement that warranted correction.


Citation:

CRB p468 wrote:
A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including from character abilities and spells) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Weapons cannot possess the same special ability more than once.

The rule applies to enhancement bonuses and equivalent enhancement bonuses. Flat-cost enchantments are not enhancement bonuses nor are they equivalent enhancement bonuses.

Note: Back in 3.5 there was a GP cap that basically prevented you from adding flat-cost enchantments that would push it over a certain limit. That rule does not exist in Pathfinder.


Flat price enchantments do not affect the +enhancement pricing system.


*laughs*


Axolotl, do those people argue that their sheet is 100% accurate because some program did it for them or do they admit they made an error?

Again, this is not a matter of program accuracy.

It is a matter of people arguing because people believe that the program is infallible and thus cannot have errors (even though user error is a thing). People are arguing that it is a rules source and "made by Paizo" or "backed by Paizo" and thus trumps the rulebooks (which are actually the rules source).

Guys, stop pretending we are attacking the program. WE ARE NOT ATTACKING THE PROGRAM.

We are frustrated with USERS who incorrectly use the program because there is no statement to the contrary telling them that it is not a rules source or that it is subject to user error.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, I am NOT blaming the tool. I have gone out of the way to NOT blame the tool. Even 3 of 4 points made by Nefreet do not blame the tool.

What I am asking for is the company to make it crystal clear to the users of the tool that that the tool is subject to user error, not a substitute for the rules, and not in any way a Paizo product.

Somehow, some way, these things have become prevalent enough where I have had repeated arguments with multiple users.

One more time: all I want is a statement from Hero Lab stating, in black and white, these things. One I can point to whenever an argument about a rule pops up and people try to point to Hero Lab as a rules source.


BBT, it is good that you do that, but some do not. It it those that are the problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nefreet and I on the same page..I think that was one of the signs of the apocalypse. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aaron "Lawful G" Beal wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

1) Rules atrophy

HeroLab is a crutch. Why bother to learn how your character works when the program does it for you? I have watched over the last few years as once great rules gurus have devolved into "because HeroLab says so". This isn't anecdotal forum experience, these are real people I game with. The example I often use is the 12th level Bull Rush specialist who kept applying a miscellaneous -4 penalty to his CMB. When I looked it over I realized HeroLab was applying his Power Attack penalty. Not something that'd be happening if he just went off his character sheet.

Forgive me, but this seems sorta elitist and dismissive, it reminds me of people in Call of Duty who are like "Git gud n00b". You say it's a crutch, I say it is a convienance which makes the game more accessible to newcomers and veterans alike. With pathfinder a system with so many rules and their interactions, it can be quite intimidating, and anything we can do to make it less so is too the good. As for veteran gamers relying on it, I see that as a testament to the quality of our program and how often it is correct. Of course there will always be areas where we have a bug, but I'm proud to say more often than not, we're right.

Also, as an untyped penalty to attacks power attack it would apply to CMB rolls in any round where you used it. It sounds like the person you were talking too was leaving his power attack on all the time, instead of only when he needed it, which is an error on the user's part, not the program's.

You missed the point of his post. He is stating that users do not bother to check their numbers and learn the rules because they think Hero Lab is an infallible rules source and won't let them do anything against the rules. Hero Lab is not being used as an extra tool, it is being used as the ONLY rules source thinking that it won't let them do something against the rules.

Solution: Make huge disclaimer when they open (and/or purchase) the program that it is not a substitute for the rules, is not a Paizo product, and that user errors make cause errors in the character sheet.

Aaron "Lawful G" Beal wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

2) Rules arguments

This tends to happen more at Conventions (but not in this last year, as I don't allow HeroLab at my PFS tables) but the rate of rules arguments during a session is greater when people are tabbing through HeroLab. This relates to Rules Atrophy. When people have a number in front of them, on their screen, and I'm telling them that's wrong, they're more likely to argue the point and eat up game time. They feel empowered by the "evidence" in front of them. It takes away the authority of being GM. By simply not allowing HeroLab at the table I eliminate that unneeded stress.
Again, this empowerment is a positive in my book. Perhaps you're always correct when you try to set your players straight, but every DM is not you. I get many many bug reports from players and DMs that think HL is doing something wrong, only for me to point them at a rule they had forgotten. Every DM is not always right and the program can help point that out to their players. In my opinion, GM authority is less of a concern than everyone understanding the rules by which they play. If the GM doesn't like the way the official rules go, they are free to negotiate with their players how things will work at their table (although not in PFS, obviously) but the player has to be made aware of the deviation first.

Again, this is not about empowerment, and again you are missing the point.

The point here is that the players believe Hero Lab is the rules source and that Hero Lab is 100% without fail accurate. As a result they argue with the GM pointing to HERO LAB as the source and not the RULE BOOK as the source. Even when the GM points to the RULE BOOK the Hero Lab user argues that Hero Lab is a Paizo product and therefore must be right.

Again, the problem is the perception of your user base.

The reality is that Hero Lab is not a Paizo product and is only as accurate as the user using it. User errors can make anything inaccurate.

Solution: Make huge disclaimer when they open (and/or purchase) the program that it is not a substitute for the rules, is not a Paizo product, and that user errors make cause errors in the character sheet.

Aaron "Lawful G" Beal wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

3) Time killer

The game that made me finally put my foot down involved a Mystic Theurge who spent more time tabbing through HeroLab than he actually spent doing his turns (and during a fast paced PFS Special). He had so many circumstantial modifiers that he'd have to edit or whatever during game that I just kept telling him he'd have to delay until he figured out what he was doing. In regular play I still see this happen. Players waste their turns tabbing this or that while others get frustrated at the slowdown. Being indecisive is already a prevalent problem. Adding clicking and scrolling to that is too much.

One, it sounds like he might have not been used to the character or used to using HL, if navigating around to click on things truly took him so long.

Two, it could have had something to do with the fact that Mystic Theurge is a class we can't support very well in HL. He may have been employing a variety of workarounds that could prove clunkier than usual.

Three, I think keeping his character accurate and taking advantage of whatever bonuses he should be getting is important enough to give him and others a break on the time pressure.

I have little comment on this, this is more of a program issue that I can understand as a work in progress.

Aaron "Lawful G" Beal wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

4) "I own HeroLab"

This literally happened today. A player stated she'd spent $150 on HeroLab packages and wanted to bring a new character to game next week. With the aid of my VC we diplomatically tried to tell her HeroLab wasn't Paizo, and that she'd have to own the sources she was planning on using. But it's not a discussion that usually goes well. You know that look people give you when they're clearly not believing what you're telling them? Yeah. That's the sort of look these players all share. It creates tension and usually means they're completely turned off to PFS. It creates an enemy rather than an ally.
I don't think we've ever implied that Hero Lab was owned or operated by paizo, or that it was a replacement for owning the required sources for PFS. In fact, our Character Creation Stations at the various Cons we attend all have signs saying "you still need the legal source handy". I do know that we can't control how people react to you explaining that to them. Sorry that you're in a difficult position here, but I feel laying the blame at the feet of our product is unfair.

And this is the heart of the matter, you take no responsibility for how your user base is using your product.

Instead of saying, 'Yup, how our users are claiming that Hero Lab is 100% accurate or a rules source or even a Paizo product is an issue, and that is a problem we will address.', you instead deflect the blame onto the user base.

The problem with that is, this is not an isolated incident. I've heard it from many Hero Lab users, not just one. In most cases it takes hours of argument across multiple gaming sessions with each user to prove why Hero Lab is not 100% accurate (usually due to user error) before they get it.

Solution: Again, the simplest solution is a big banner disclaimer when they open the program. Then at least those of us that try to refute that Hero Lab is not a Paizo product would have something to point to.

PLEASE, educate your user base. It should not be the GMs job to educate your user base as to the limitations of your program (user error, not a substitute for a rules source, not a Paizo product).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Very excellent summary Nefreet!


Might as well jump on the bandwagon here since HL is taking opinions.

I have long had an issue with people using HL and not because I find HL to be a flawed program, far from it.
I find it makes people lazy, they think HL is a rules source when it is not.

I have gotten tired of people telling me "but Herolab...." when trying to justify why they have an error in character (or rule understanding). I have also had people tell me that Herolab is a Paizo product (it isn't) and thus must be accurate.

In my experience there are some people (I wouldn't hazard a guess at a number) that use Herolab to the exclusion of rules sources and as a result do not even understand how the character (or the rules the character is based on) works.

If there isn't already, it would be nice if HL made a HUGE disclaimer that it is not an official rules source and that while you try to make it 100% accurate that there may be errors (primarily user errors but occasionally program errors).

Additionally, a statement that a character constructed using Herolab is not a substitute for actually knowing the rules would be nice.

I don't expect either statement to change most people's minds, but maybe it'll cut down on the idea that any character constructed using Herolab is automatically accurate.


Use a Familiar Satchel (Ultimate Equipment p64). Costs 25gp, weighs 6lbs, provides total cover, and your familiar is carried with you. :)

1 to 50 of 7,357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.