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

General Dorsey's page

179 posts (3,557 including aliases). 22 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

carn wrote:

The reasons lie with the spells. Those scale in power qudratic or even more with spell level (meaning 81 lev 1 spells are not as useful as 1 lev 9). With level 9 spells you can destroy entire armies or similar powerful effects.

If the wizard of the party in the long run gets that powerful for pure fairness, the fighter has to be powerful in similar way.
But take away items, what is left of a lev 20 fighter.
Dam 2d6+24, Bab +16/+11/+6/+1, AC 25, flat foot 24, 195 hp(using combat expertise and power attack).
If such a guy challenges the army, they laugh about him, surrond him and the lev 1 warriors attack with effective +6, having a 15% hit chance for 2d6+3 dam. Meaning after just about 130 lousy losers (CR 14), he is dead.
On the other hand the wizard can make himself invisible all day and send the summoned monsters till they are dead or just blast them with some fireballs.

And the lev 20 fighter without items has a will save of +8 at best, so any lev 3 wizard with blindness or other nice spells has a decent chance to render him useless.

So either level bonuses or only low level playing(there you dont notice the power difference so much) or different system, where the wizards dont get city leveling spells.

Why wouldn't the fighter use his feats? Great Cleave and Lunge alone would make him awesome in this situation. Combine that with many other feats and he would do just fine. Sure, the army might eventually take him down but who wants to fight a guy who is going to take out 8-30 (more if he is already using a reach weapon and quick draw would let him switch as needed) of them every 6 seconds?

I understand the point you are making. Magic > mundane especially at high levels. Gear is very useful at keeping the characters alive. This becomes more and more true as the characters level. Even the wizard is going to need some magic items if he wants to remain effective, if only by increasing the DCs of his spells.

The best way to avoid the Christmas Tree Effect is to not require it for characters to do well. Don't have the characters battling the most potent enemies all the time. Use more of the lower challenge rating opponents. It makes for a more interesting battle anyway. Also, don't use so much combat. Increase the roleplaying in the game and provide XP for overcoming obstacles by using their skills instead of their equipment.

Give their more powerful gear charges too. So a magic sword would have 20 hits per +. Once it uses 20 hits, then it is reduced by one +. A +5 sword would be a +4 sword after 20 hits, +3 after 20 more, etc. Save the more potent creatures (ie dragons) for when they might need to pull out their big guns.

On the subject of failing skill checks, a hummingbird cannot hover 5% of the time. The captain of the guard may never know who the mayor is of the town he was raised in when there are only 200 people living there. The town militia may not hear the battle raging on the other side of the picket fence, the head cleric of Iomedae may not remember even minor details of her own church.

These are all things that are possible to fail within the rules if you allow for a 1 to be a failure. None of them should ever be failures.

Ash_Gazn wrote:

A Fighter/Sorcerer fought a Wererat and took its Pipes of the Sewers.

The PC, Judging that the Pipes were EVIL, burnt the Pipes in his forge while working on his sword. (double checked w/ the player that he didn't just burn them, but burnt them while he was actively working on his weapon). I Thought this was dumb, and that, at some point, there would be an effect of this.

What makes it dumb? There are currently no rules to say that magic items have any consequences to their destruction except a rare few specific ones. Would you have thought the same thing if the fighter's sword was struck with a shatter spell? What about if a scroll was torn apart by high winds? Those are also magic items being destroyed.

A bit later, the PC acquired a function to throw their sword and do damage to all creatures in a line (like a ray). Well, at that point, just for grins, I decided that since he'd burned the pipes of the sewers while working on the sword, 25% of the time when he threw the sword like this, it would whistle and attract local mice and rats to the area, ie a bit of the summoning power of the pipes got stuck in the sword sitting in the forge.

I don't think this is over the top and, personally, I like when magic items have more flavor than "+1." I wouldn't have gone this route but it seems annoying but not hindering.

The Player decided he didn't like this, and the PC started asking around trying to figure out how to get this latent magic of of this blade. He was told there was an anvil that could be used to get the magic out (which I'd read about in the RPG Superstar and really liked).

Did the anvil seem like it was too far or difficult to get to in a timely manner?


But the PC became impatient and decided not to run off to where the anvil was. Being a sorcerer with a fire and lightning fetish, he decided that one morning, while doing his pushups and meditation readying for the day, he would BURN all his spell slots of the day as lightning and fire spells, and channel them thru his blade, burning the magic out.

You know, I might have just allowed this to have the intended effect, except the day he decided to do this, the party was standing in a clearing in a mountain range known for magic being disrupted, or having the "wild magic" trait, ie Spells Don't Work Right.

I triple checked. Yes, he was doing this, in this place, now.

What would you do, as a DM?

At this point, since he knows that the area can cause spells to go awry, something should happen. I would just use a Wild Magic Table I find online that suits my campaign. I would also be wary of screwing him over at this point. It was you as DM who put him in this predicament by changing the rules on a whim. Regardless of how harmless the effect was, he is now in a position of having to second guess his actions as player because a level of trust has been broken.

I think what you did sounds fine from a story perspective and I don't see any harm done. Keep in mind that arbitrarily changing the rules to suit your desires as DM makes it hard for the players to want to continue in the campaign. They won't know what they can and can't do if there is no consistency.

Fleanetha wrote:

Is there a cheat sheet that shows what happens to a druid when wild shaping into various target forms?

e.g., 8th level druid turns into a specific large animal - a summary what stats and other things change due to Beast Shape; what to do with size; what abilities are gained etc etc.

This would be very useful



I actually have created this very thing. Email me at and I will be glad to send it to you.

I allow it but I don't think there is anything in the rules that say you can.

You can also buy larger dice. I have dice from incredibly tiny and rather large.

Also, you could have them pull out just the dice that their characters will need. Most characters only need their d20, weapon damage, and a d6. Maybe only having 2-3 dice to choose from will help.

Usually when I look the character sheets over, I notice that my players usually don't add enough of their bonuses in. I have found that they are usually 18 instead of 20 point buy. They forget to add their favored class hit points or skill points. They forget to add the +1 for a talent they took. I have even seen someone forget to add in their Constitution bonus for hit points and they intentionally had a high Constitution so they could have more hit points.

What purpose would this serve?

Rolemaster and GURPS are probably not good introductory games. If I had to choose between Pathfinder and 3.5, I would go with Pathfinder. If you want to just get them into roleplaying and not be as worried about mechanics, maybe Vampire. I would skip AD&D because it's clunky (unless you just stick with the PHB) and out of date.

james maissen wrote:
General Dorsey wrote:

One of the things I really disliked was the character that had 4+ classes. Rarely was this done for anything other than mechanics. I want the characters to be characters not spreadsheets.

I think many people confuse the mechanics of a character with the roleplaying of a character.

In 3.x I recall having two different PCs that had the same mechanical class makeup. One was my 'barbarian' and the other was my 'ranger'. They served completely different roles, and there was precious little that they had in common.

There's nothing that makes a classA 1/classB 3/classC 2 more or less of a character than a classD 6.

Multiclassing in 3rd edition is making your own character class. There's far more to a character than just the mechanics and the abilities granted thereby.


I agree with you completely. One of the things I remember from the WotC boards was lists of classes with only one thing in mind: optimization for power. I'm glad that we don't see that here nearly as much.

One of the things I really disliked was the character that had 4+ classes. Rarely was this done for anything other than mechanics. I want the characters to be characters not spreadsheets.

I think that the multiclassing feats are a better way to do this. You can use a feat to realize your vision for your character. There is a price to pay but you also get a greater benefit. You still won't have characters with 4+ classes, but you will see more multiclassed characters.

I am glad that every class is something that I want to play from level 1 to 20 now.

aeonite wrote:
MordredofFairy wrote:
No need for Dex or Finesse. A dwarven rogue/barbarian has no need for either ;)
Well, it would be nice to be able to use Disable Device. But in PF that takes an Armor Check Penalty hit, no?

Yes but it may not make much of a difference. If you put 8 ranks in you'll start with +11. If you are wearing a MW Chain Shirt you'll only have a -1 to the check. There are feats you can take to get you up to +5 (Deft Hands and Skill Focus) and there are also traits that can add another +1. If you take the traits Armor Expert (reduce the ACP by 1) and Vagabond Child (+1 to one of several skills including Disable Device) you'd have a +17 total without any Dex bonus.

Do these extra die rolls prevent the story from continuing? I agree that some things don't need die rolls but if the adventure doesn't stop because the DM wants to determine who notices a change then it's not as big of an issue as you are making it.

I don't have people roll for things like that. I just don't think it's wrong so long as the adventure isn't over because we missed something with no idea to even look for the clue.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Yep. It ignores all of the creatures' supernatural and spell-like abilities, it ignores the problems with hitting Engulfed allies, and instead it tells you only things that are immediately obvious to any untrained yokel looking at the thing.

You want a knowledge check to tell you that attacking a cloaker while it has engulfed your buddy is a bad thing? That would be something I would put under "common sense."

Isn't knowing that the creatures fly important even if you see them flying? What if they weren't supposed to be flying and instead were being moved by telekinesis? Knowing that they fly is useful. It changes the tactics available to you. If they weren't supposed to fly a simple dispel magic would have stopped them. Your character's concerns were confirmed when you realized they actually can fly.

I don't see the same problems you are seeing, sorry. I am with mdt on this. Next time just ask for the information as soon as the creature is encountered. Also discuss with your DM about making a list of what is known with each DC. Yes it's a lot of work for the DM, but someone has already done this and the document can be downloaded from the link I posted earlier.

Kais86 wrote:

General Dorsey-That seems a tad ridiculous, it also strikes me as wrong, you can't learn something twice, especially not in the short periods of time being discussed here. That would imply you learned it, forgot it, and learned it again in the span of about 6 seconds. You have to give them information that they don't have without that check. Otherwise you are wasting their use of skill points which is bloody annoying for any player.

The GM equivalent would be buying a book that you never get to use.

That's not even close to what I was saying. I am saying that the PCs did know something about these creatures and it confirmed that these were cloakers and not something else mimicking cloakers. It may sound wrong, but that is often a very bit of important information.

I also highly suggest that the DM have a list of exactly what the checks will grant for each creature.

Here is a movie scene with a non-magical guy doing some amazing things:

Watch the scene in Die Hard 4 where Bruce Willis is doing some crazy stuff on the back of a fighter jet.

Watch Charlies Angels for some amazing things that mundane people do.

We see normal people in movies, TV, books, etc all do some crazy things. We see them dive through windows even though in reality that would probably cut them up and could cause some serious harm. Diving through a window can be rather tough, contrary to what the movies show us.

In the real world, we have seen actual people run into raging fires to save people counting on their superior conditioning and training to protect them. We have seen real people run through a firefight to save others counting on their superior skills and ability to ignore pain. We have read actual stories about people who face the same dangers that will kill most of us counting on their abilities, skills, and physical conditioning. You can find many true stories in the media.

We have seen our heroes leap from cliffs, helicopters, airplanes, buildings, etc, all without a lot of protection. That's what we want from our heroes. And it's ok.

If I want to play someone who has to fear every mundane thing out there, I would just play a level 1 commoner who is never going to level. I would much rather play the hero who can do heroic things.

I know it's frustrating to learn what you are already seeing. Something to keep in mind though is that you were able to confirm what you saw was accurate. Sure they were flying and liked to ambush but what if the cloakers were actually not cloakers and instead something that looked like a cloaker. Based on your knowledge you were able to make decisions that would be consistent with cloakers. What if you gleaned the information and the cloakers did something that wasn't consistent with your knowledge (maybe they had DR/5)? That would tell you that these aren't your normal cloakers. That's what confirmation does for you.

That being said, I think the DM might want to figure out a way to be consistent with the information given. There have been some good ideas mentioned in this thread. I have also seen something here: that covers all the monsters in the Pathfinder setting so far. It's not expensive and everyone in the group could chip in $1-2 for a copy. Well worth the cost.

I leave it up to my players to write the code and I retain the right to line-item veto. The one player I have who is playing a paladin wrote up a great one for her paladin who worships Iomedae. She works hard to stick to the code even during times when ignoring the code would make things easier. It makes for better roleplaying than just copping out because the code is hard to follow.

You can just send me an email to gendorsey at

I'm open to suggestions on how to make it better and to correcting mistakes.

Maybe it's me, but shouldn't a paladin be doing everything he can to follow his code? If he is just ignoring it "for the greater good" then why is he a paladin in the first place? He should be the shining example of what a good person does. If he follows a specific deity then his actions should remain in line with that deity's teachings. I don't think there should be an easy way back in because the paladin took the easy way out of his code.

If you want to have that option, then play a fighter who strives to be a paladin but just can't stick to the code well enough. Pay for an atonement every now and then for roleplaying reasons. You can even take a level or two of cleric if you want to simulate the guy who just can't cut it as a paladin but works hard to represent his deity.

I'd like to add that the rules of the game are how reality works for the characters. Sure, in our world a fall from 100 feet most likely means death but in the Pathfinder worlds it may not to powerful characters. Note that most people will still fie from those falls. It's only the ones have conditioned themselves to take hits from some of the most dangerous beings in the universe. That's how the physics of Golarian work. There are planes where these rules may change.

Most of the rules should probably be viewed from the level 1-2 commoner point of view instead of the high level character who is fighting dragons point of view. A sword is lethal to most people. A fall can be lethal from 20 feet. High level characters are not the norm. It isn't realistic for a fighter to be able to craft a +5 flaming wounding defending bane vs dragons greatsword yet he can do it without any ability to cast spells.

It's not about realism, it's about plausibility in the world that the characters live.

JBinDC wrote:
We've been playing and have a question about whether someone needs to roll for each creature they would be moving through a threatened square for. Example: A rogue is tumbling past 3 baddies...does he make 3 Acrobatics checks or is it just one and the penalties for multiple creatures just stack against that one roll?

I would think you'd have to roll for each baddie since it's possible that they would each have their own CMD. Each baddie beyond the first would have a cumulative +2 bonus to its CMD. That's how I read it anyway.

I did get it updated with some of the changed suggested. I don't have any place to put it so if someone would like the file, just let me know.

Khazaad wrote:

Explain this to me...

An enemy has been recently blinded, is lying prone, under the effects of a silence spell, and ambushed by an invisible (and undetected) assailant casting a fireball...

Does he still have his tactile abilities? In other words, can he still feel changes in temperature or pressure? Have you ever sensed someone or something behind you that you couldn't see or hear?

...why, in the name of ALL that is fantastical, imaginative, and even REMOTELY reasonable does the target have the same capacity to half the damage as well as a well informed target would? We are talking about reflex right? REflex is a REsponse.

Look at it from another point of view: maybe the blast is enough to jostle him so that he takes less damage? Maybe he is able to roll with it just enough because he felt the changes in the air and the blast moved him. Even explosive experts aren't always right when they place C4 on stationary objects. A fireball or lightning bolt (or other spell) is fired at a distance without much time to do proper calculations. This is where the caster's abilities come in. In the case of the wizard, he uses his intellect to place the blast in the best location but he can be wrong.

If fireballs and lightning bolts are OP, then fix them.

No fixing needed. A level 5 wizard with an Intelligence of 16 casts the spells with a DC of 16. He can improve this with feats and by increasing his Intelligence. A poor reflex save at this point is +1. Classes that don't generally focus on Reflex also don't focus on Dexterity. So let's assume that the character has a 14 Dexterity. That brings his wonderful save up to +3. That means he already has 40% chance of success. If the caster has just one feat to grant a bonus or casts a spell to increase his relevant ability this survival chance can drop to 25%.

It doesn't really get any better at higher levels without magical aid. The same caster at level 20 with a 22 Intelligence (easily done without any magical aid) casts the same fireball with a DC of 19. The target would have a Reflex save of +8. So he now has a whopping 60% chance of making his save. The caster can easily change this to 30%-40% if built properly and casting proper spells beforehand.

In just the Core Book, 7 out of 11 classes have poor reflex saves. The others are expected to be able to survive those blasts: bard, monk, rogue, and ranger.

Isn't spell resistance enough? Speaking of spell resistance...what a crock! The CRB relates SR to "armor class vs. spells". That's freakin' awesome. Can wizards get saves vs. sharpened-metal-objects-swung-at-face?! Arrrgh.. that's a different post...

Wizards to get saves v sharpened-metal-objects-swung-at-face, it's like spell resistance but it's called Armor Class.

I think it's because most classes do just fine between levels 5 and 15 or so. If I recall, one designer said that 4-14 is the sweet spot for d20. I don't know how true that statement is as I can run games just fine at any level without having to go beyond the Prime Material Plane.

I do agree that the game gets much harder to run the higher the level because the characters have amassed a ton of power.

When I do class evaluations, I like to use level 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20. It gives me a good overview of how the class progresses. In other words, just because it's awesome at level 20 that doesn't mean the class can be played until it gets there.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
They don't? In my PF core book, the fireball says it can ignite combustibles. And there's a bit on catching fire in the Environment section (chapter 13). I don't see a change in favor of the arcanist...

Sorry, I need to write more precisely. The fireball rules say, "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area." That's fine: we're looking at paper, etc.

However, the rules for catching on fire specifically state: "Spells with an instantaneous duration don't normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash." If your fireballs catch people on fire, you ARE changing the rules directly, in favor of the arcanists.

I didn't say people catching on fire. I intentionally mentioned only combustibles.

I think the problem is that many of us DMs want plausibility, not realism. Yes, a fall from several hundred feet should leave a mark if you don't have a way, magical or not, to protect you from the sudden stop at the end. The fighter does have ways to deal with that, one of which is hit points. If the fighter brought his ring of feather fall then he'd be ok.

We also expect plausibility with magic. When someone casts a fireball we don't expect icicles to fall from the ceiling. We do expect there to be a large ball of fire that could ignite combustibles. If the wizard changes the fireball to an iceball, I don't know of any DMs that will allow the new iceball to ignite combustibles.

That's the plausibility we seek. There is an internal consistency with the game and the physics of the world the characters live in. I understand your point and I have seen what you are referring to but it's more often than not a perception difference between the players and the DM. It's nothing a little talk can't fix.

Not unless the spell specifically states:

Polymorph: Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals. Although many of the fine details can be controlled, your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature's type. Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature.

There are some advanced and templated animals that you can change into, check out the sharks for some examples.

Aelryinth wrote:

Your absolute statements keep getting you into trouble.

An Intensified Chain Lightning gets to hit a number of targets equal to Caster level (maximum 20), doing dmg equal to caster level in d6's, max 25d6.

An INtensified Magic Missile gets to hit a number of targets equal to CL/2, doing 2-5 spread out as you like, max of 5 at cl 10. Thematically, there is NO DIFFERENCE.

What you argued was that Magic Missile couldn't be restricted to 5 targets max. that logic, Chain lightning couldn't be restricted to 20 targets. Since Magic Missile can't be limited to 5, Chain Lightning can't be limited to 20, which makes Intensified Chain Lightning as Impossible as Intensifed Magic your logic.

It's the same bloody thing, and it doesn't work.


Chain lightning specifically says that it strikes a number of targets equal to your caster level +1 (one primary and your caster level in secondary targets). Each bolt deals 1d6/level damage. Intensify would increase that damage as per the feat description.

Magic missile, on the other hand, specifically states that it creates a number of missiles (1 per 2 caster levels after 1st, to a maximum of 5 missiles) each dealing 1d4+1 damage. There is no caster level in damage that is dealt per missile. In fact, comparing the two spells only makes it clearer to me that Intensify would not affect Magic Missile but would affect Chain Lightning.

I see your argument. I just don't agree with your interpretation.

In the games I run there aren't very magic items to be had. The party is now level 7 and they have two magic swords, two shields (one of which isn't used much), a few suits of armor, and some cloaks of protection. They killed some displacer beasts and have commissioned three cloaks of displacement but won't have them for quite some time.

They are doing just fine. Some things that needed to be done:

1) Don't focus on magic items and make it special when the items are found.
2) Decrease the CR of the opponents but increase the numbers so they still feel threatened and often find the battles to be more fun and rewarding.
3) Don't set up encounters where magic items are required.

My players are having a blast and they aren't even asking for more items. They are very content with masterwork items and having to think about tactics instead. I haven't changed the rules at all. I have changed how I use them.

There's also a couple of Ioun stones and the Luckstone as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mageye wrote:
I got a second opinion from the pastor of the church I used to go to and he said that for someone that doesn't have a knowledge of the game that he would say he would treat it as any other thing that takes our time away from god and say that we must have a balance of how we use up our 24 hours each day and that if the game becomes the center of who we are then maybe it is a bad thing for us. "To much of a good thing can become a bad thing" So I will continue to play the game but I will not let the game play me to the point that it controls my life. Also I made a phone call to my therapist and discussed his statement with him and he said the reason he mad such statements he had heard bad things about the game I asked him have you ever seen the game played he said no I asked him how he can judge something when he has no knowledge of the thing he is against and he said I'm right his statement was wrong and that he felt that he let his religious up bringing as a catholic get in the way of treating me. I will be seeing him on the 14th again and possibly will be switching to another therapist.

That's actually good from both the pastor and the therapist. If you feel that this therapist has been helpful up to this point, you might want to consider giving him another chance beyond the 14th. He admitted he was wrong. Hopefully this means he can get back to the business of treating your condition and leave the preaching up to the preacher.

You should do what you feel is best for your treatment. Don't get caught up in the minutia. You won't find a perfect therapist. You just need to find one that helps you.

RunebladeX wrote:
Do people people actually think Mageye should play pathfinder when being Bipoler is a mental disorder? and his mental condition could be as bad as him actually having problems WITH REALITY or bouts of depression to point of suicide!? thats why i think his condition should come first and foremost cause pathfinder actually could put his life at risk!!! He needs a therapist who can give him advice on wether pathfinder is even safe for him to play or how it could effect his condition.

Bipolar disorder does not affect one's grasp of reality. Playing games should no effect on his disorder but that is something I am not qualified to speak to since I am not a mental health professional. I am someone with a serious mental disorder (PTSD) and I have found that doing something I enjoy that isn't harmful (like roleplaying games) actually helps me deal with things when my disorder is in overdrive.

I see a psychiatrist often and for many years I saw a psychiatrist and a psychologist at least twice a month each. When they both found out I played RPGs, they asked me what I enjoyed about the games and that was it. The entire conversation lasted maybe 10 minutes with each of them. Both of those professionals had been practicing for more than 30 years each at the time. I still see one of them (the other has since retired due to Parkinson's). She has not brought it up at all since then. At one point I was hospitalized and my girlfriend brought me the newly released Book of Vile Darkness. Not a single therapist there thought it was a problem and this was a gaming book that directly dealt evil.

RPGs should have no effect on bipolar disorder. Bipolar disorder does not change one's grasp of reality. Schizophrenia could be an issue but Mageye doesn't have schizophrenia.

Mageye wrote:
I see a therapist for bipolar disorder and also am part of a assemblies of god church. I had a visit with my therapist today. Well I decided since I had quite a bit of a wait before my appointment to read my Pathfinder core rulebook in the waiting room since I wanted to refresh myself on the rules. Well my therapist ask if he could look at the book and I said sure he then went on to tell me that being a christian man that I shouldn't play games like pathfinder that they promote the work of the devil. I later after the appointment was thinking about this when I got a phone call from the pastor of the church I go to about something there putting on anyway I asked the Pastor about his thoughts on D&D and he said he had no comments on that subject. So I guess I'm wondering whats so bad about the game that makes these men say I shouldn't play it?

I would seriously find another therapist. If this therapist had done some research, he would know that he is wrong. If he is going to help you with personal issues and instead wants to preach, then it's also a reason to find another therapist. The idea of RPGs being the work of the devil or causing people to do stupid things was debunked decades ago.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Where can I find the statement of Ex being the default?

You can't and James Jacobs came in and already said that there isn't a default.

Anguish wrote:
I don't consider myself merciful... I consider myself conscious of the idea that my players are playing to have fun, and build features set in concrete that don't work out to be fun are... not fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My houserule has always been that if you take a feat but later are granted that same feat as bonus from a class or prestige class, then you can select another feat in its place. It isn't RAW but it makes sense to me that you don't have to learn what you already know. Instead you can take that time to learn something else.

Zurai wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
As things presently stand, the citation is required stating anything other than extraordinary.

Please cite me the rule that states this.

I'll give you a tip: there does not exist a rule that says feats are extraordinary abilities. Thus, an exception is not required, because there's no rule to counteract.

Yes, it should be made clear that Arcane Blast is a Su or Sp ability, but just because it doesn't say it's one of those does not automatically mean it's Ex. In fact, the very definition of an Ex ability precludes Arcane Blast from being one without an exception being made.

I was actually looking for the rule for the last couple of days that says feats are extraordinary. I can't find it anywhere in the book. I know it was in 3.5 but this isn't 3.5. I stand corrected. I actually was coming here to the thread just to say that I was wrong and noticed that you posted pretty much what I was going to say.

There is a description of what Extraordinary, Supernatural, and Spell-Like abilities are. Most feats would qualify as Extraordinary but there are some that would be Supernatural or even Spell-Like. The feats should make it clear but I think this is the time for the GM to make clear and consistent rulings. Just because a feat doesn't follow the laws of physics doesn't make it non-extraordinary but in this case I believe that this particular feat should be non-extraordinary. It isn't a spell-like power so it can only be a supernatural one.

Sanstree wrote:

This character is going toward mystic Theurge druid and wizard (divination)

The opposition schools for me were a role-playing choice. They were evocation and necromancy....

Reasons evocation just destroys whatever is in the area of effect and necromancy is against the natural order of things.

My 2 cents is also consider the character and make the choice based on mechanics and Role-playing......

This is exactly how I determine what schools to give up. When I played an evoker in 2nd Edition I had to choose two schools to give up out of Illusion, Enchantment, and Necromancy. I chose Illusion and Enchantment because he was not going to be a subtle character. Those schools didn't fit the concept. I do the same thing now. I determine what the character would do, not what it best mechanically.

Senevri wrote:
Isn't that pretty good for monks? 8d10 greater vital strike...

You'd have to multiclass since monks can only have BAB +15 and the feat requires +16. I would suggest Fighter so you can get it as a bonus feat without losing any more monk abilities unless you don't mind. You'd also only end up with 8d8 Greater Vital Strike since you won't be level 20.

My computer died and I don't have access to the files for the time being. I think I need a new motherboard. Anyway, has anyone else made corrections or adjustments to my file yet? I would like to see what people have come up with.

Themetricsystem wrote:
Also, as a slight derail it is worth noting that Tome of Secrets (An amazingly well done 3PP book) did a redo of artificer that is balanced and flavored quite differently, it is really worth a look. D20pfsrd if you are interested. They make for really interesting characters, you don't need to be playing ebberon for them to add some panache to your game.

I have the Tome of Secrets and I didn't really like the artificer in there. I think the idea was neat but something about it just didn't click with me. I can't really put my finger on it, something just seemed off. If one of my players wants to play one, I could reevaluate the class. As of right now, I don't have to worry about it.

Themetricsystem wrote:
General Dorsey wrote:
Starting play with crafted items is not sacrificing, it's starting play with more power. I build all my characters, even those above level 1, as organic characters. I expect my players to do the same thing.

What about crafting is non-organic? There is nothing from keeping a player from creating a backstory, plot hooks, or anything else like that when they craft. At level on I can understand as due to the fact that you have no skills as a level 0 character.

You can only craft for 8 hours a day max regardless, and if the PC has ranks invested in the craft skill then that would mean by extension they would have spent time doing said craft. The PC is going to be starting usually with no less than 18 years under his belt, that is plenty of time to get some crafting out of the way in downtime.

Would you impose this same expectation on an alchemist making alchemical items or potions? What about a wizard with scribe scroll? Or how about an Artificer better yet, the whole class is based around crafting.

I don't use back story as an excuse to get more for less. I don't allow that in my games either. Starting with extra gear unbalances the system in favor of classes that are already on the higher end of the power curve.

There is no difference between an alchemist using his brew potion feats or a wizard using his scribe scroll feats. Yes, it's part of the class. I might be willing to make a concession so long as it's not overboard. It's something that I would have to discuss with the player. A few potions or scrolls (one shot items) is very different from getting several thousand gold worth of wondrous items.

I don't actually have any artificers in my games so the issue will never pop up. I don't run Eberron and won't be porting the class over.

Starting play with crafted items is not sacrificing, it's starting play with more power. I build all my characters, even those above level 1, as organic characters. I expect my players to do the same thing. I don't have any problems with players crafting items. I have a problem with higher level characters starting play with crafted items but they didn't really put the effort into crafting. Sure they spent a few points but did they get ambushed because they didn't put those points into Perception? Did they have to wait longer in combat because they took Craft Wondrous Item instead of Improved Initiative? Did they actually spend the 1 day per 1,000gp of crafting while the rest of the group went off to do a mini adventure?

When characters are built above level 1, they are already at a huge advantage. They have exactly what they need and the builds are easier to optimize because they haven't had to deal with that pesky leveling up process. To give them additional gear on top of that puts the character above the point he should be power-wise.

This is all from my personal experience as both a player and a DM who used to allow for crafting items when creating characters above level 1. It really did unbalance the game in favor of the crafter. I no longer allow it.

Zurai wrote:
General Dorsey wrote:

Not to mention that it also works in an antimagic field.
No, it doesn't.

Why not, it's an extraordinary ability? I don't have access to my PDF so I can't look it up. Is there a clause that says it won't work?

Turin the Mad wrote:

Arcane Blast is 30' range ray that deals untyped damage permitting no saving throw. That you can convert ALL of your spells / spell slots to untyped damage is pretty sweet - it means that that character can ALWAYS deal damage to a foe. I'll happily take that.

The ability could use some clarification - as it stands, these rays are dished out as an extraordinary ability ... making them the perfect "fall back" attack at close range.

Not to mention that it also works in an antimagic field. And as a touch attack, it's pretty useful.

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
I see no problem with this. They spent the skill points and feats to do as such. Some games don't give a lot of down time to do things so at least give them the starting items; and if they can use those skills in down time latter one, they did earn the capability to do so anyway.

Yes they spent the points but it's not a sacrifice. They haven't invested anything yet. I don't have a problem with someone spending skill points and feats along with the time necessary to craft items. That is the price they pay for saving money. When they start at a higher level they don't feel the sacrifice they only feel the benefits. That's an issue for me.

K wrote:


Tanks are an MMO concept. In DnD, you don't have them because encounters are won by Tekken juggling enemies so they don't get actions AND because there is no way to force enemies to attack the tank.

The very idea of a Tank is a result of DM fudging. If the DM uses an ounce of tactics he ignores the Tanky Guy and kills everyone else.

A well-played Wizard is all the tank a party ever needs.

As a very long time DM, I have to say that if the DM is always throwing only highly intelligent monsters at the party, then he is probably doing something wrong. When I DM, there is a wide variety of monsters from giant spiders (no intelligence) to devils. I have each creature fight the way it should, not the way many people on these boards tend to think.

A devil with a 13 Intelligence will fight very differently than a demon with a 13 Intelligence. I try to take the entirety of the monster and make the encounter interesting based on what the creature(s) would do. I look at alignment (demons are not very organized). I look at all the stats; a strong and intelligent creature will fight very differently than a dexterous and intelligent creature.

I agree that tanks are an MMO concept and I would love to see the term eliminated from these conversations. I don't agree that the fighter sucks either. The fighter has his place, just like every other class. I have seen parties push on even though the casters were down to few spells because the fighters wanted to keep going and could.

It should be mentioned that I love long combats (5+ rounds) and so do my players. We don't look for the 1-round win because that's simply not fun for us all the time. Sure it's nice once in a while but that's what other games are for. For us, we want to enjoy rolling the dice and earning the levels.

Abraham spalding wrote:
It could be so complex as to have different words during different seasons, and different contexts for the words based on the time of month.

I was going to suggest the same thing but add in lunar cycles and possibly even environments. Druids who spend more time in the arctic might have 17 different words for snow.

1 to 50 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.