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

Grimmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,744 posts (10,377 including aliases). 2 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 18 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,744 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't tell you how many friends I've lost over this same issue. I used to have so much love in my life, now I am all alone.

just kidding. seriously though, try to keep things in perspective.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Hyperbole is one of the biggest problems on the rules forum, in my opinion.

That's a big one, and another one I see is ascribing motives. Saying "You are intentionally misreading that because you have an agenda." When in fact we have seen over and over that people can reach different conclusions from the text, because it isn't always written with the precision of legal writing or programming language.

Trusting folks that they really do believe the page says what they are saying it says, could be another example of good faith.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good post, needed saying.

wraithstrike wrote:

To those of you saying it doesn't work I will ask a 3rd time tell me how the mentioning of scying in the teleport spell is supposed to work then?

It is a rule in the book so saying it doesn't work is just like saying "I dont like what the book says".

Also it is referring to the spell, not just a descriptor, which is shown in my last post.

Feel free to check the spells I referenced as examples.

Hey Wraith, the basic idea is that teleport has these two conditions that need to be met. Location and Layout. Once those are met, you can attempt, so you look at the table to figure your chance. Scrying gets mentioned there because it is one way you may have gotten some familiarity with the layout of the destination, which will help your odds of a successful teleport... But if you don't know what location you want to go to, you are still out of luck.

Now I am not saying this is how it's supposed to work, but when my group read this over that is what we thought the description meant. So, it is one possible conclusion some might reach when reading these spell descriptions. Keep in mind though, we didn't play 3.x before pathfinder, so we decided this without knowing the legacy.

Anyway, if that interpretation was shown to me to be different than the designer's intended one, I think I would keep my take on it in play as a house rule, because it supports a lot of story possibilities I enjoy.


Now as for Paizo making a ruling here, and calling it a clarification rather than errata, I see some folks (not you wraith) seem to feel they are being disingenuous or unethical. I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt here though.

Pathfinder was pretty much a tweaked version of 3.x when it started out right? And I understand there was a pretty short time between beta and 1st printing. It's always possible that in areas where multiple interpretations of the text are possible, the team that designed pathfinder favored one interpretation, and will indicate so when asked for a clarification, even if the text wasn't changed in the conversion from 3,x to PF in a way that spelled out this preference at the time.

When we ask them for a ruling one way or the other on an issue that has more than one possible interpretation, they should still be able to choose the one that they feel is more in line with the vision they had for their version of the game. I don't find that capricious or stealthy, it's kind of just part of their job.

Even if they have changed their mind since core, or just never thought about it til they were asked, they still have to decide what they think is best for the game, and if the text can reasonably be interpreted to support the position they decide to officially take, then I guess it's still fair to call it a clarification.

I don't have a problem with clarifications as a mechanism to make rulings, it seems an appropriate for a project like Ultimate Intrigue that tunnels in and fleshes out an interesting area of the game that never had detailed rule support.

Just some thoughts I have as I read through the thread, not meaning to be confrontational towards anyone or stir the pot, and sorry for rambling.

Melkiador wrote:

I don't think you have clarified what it means to "have a clear idea of the location" at all. Could you give some examples of cases that would and wouldn't give enough info, so we have a baseline to judge from.

For instance, I could say I have a really clear idea of the location that is the 8 5-foot squares surrounding the target of scrying.

To my mind, this kind of thing is best left up to the particular group's take on it. But for PFS I suppose it would be nice to have a document that looks a little deeper, for sake of table consistency. But then again, the way PFS scenario's are written, the scenario would probably spell out how the author intended it to be run I'm guessing?

Planescape had some of the finest art in RPG's too. I never got to play there but it always set my imagination running wild.

Specifically for settings with pathfinder support I like Open Design's Midgard and Frog God's Lost Lands so far.

Me too, it will be nice to have a pdf with good bookmarks for navigation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am actually the last person on earth with no Facebook account but feel free to link or reprint my comment anywhere as you see fit.

Jerrid 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (12) + 5 = 17 1d20 + 15 ⇒ (5) + 15 = 20

Sam Will: 1d20 + 2 ⇒ (16) + 2 = 18 Sam Perception: 1d20 + 10 ⇒ (3) + 10 = 13

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow. I know it is soon to say this having just turned the last page, but my strong first impression is that this little adventure is one of the best examples of adventure module writing I think I have read in the modern era, full stop.

It has that gygaxian detail thing I love from the old classics, but manages to strike a balance so that none of the detail is wasted. The author somehow also includes a strong story/plot element that will satisfy the expectations of modern gamers, all without taking any agency away from the players, as narrative elements in adventures can do.

In my view this is a future classic and a turnkey piece of adventure module writing.

I am trying to work out which pledge level is best if all I'm really after is PDF of the main campaign book, and pdf of the player gazetteer.

TrollFace Mafia wrote:

This scenario wasn't really me just strolling off. We got attacked by a group of wolfs, and I expected the party to follow me, but then they started doing other things. (Like the alchemist went on a quick search of alchemical components instead, and the other 2 party members went back to sleep or something.) When they said they weren't following me, thats when I decided to go by myself.

We were actually out in the forest looking for some missing merchant wagons. For the lootz. I went off to see if these wolfs might be the cause of the wagons going missing. But nobody followed.

Ok well with that information, I guess what I would have done is award the full unadjusted 800 xp (but to the whole party). The reason I would, is to encourage outside the box thinking because I think the strategy you used was awesome and the possibility of play like that is one of the reasons tabletop rpg are so great. But the way he did it is not so bad, give him a little leeway. He might have written right in his pre-written notes "sleeping dire wolf, CR2" or heck that might have been even written in a pre-written module he was using. That's really not unheard of to adjust the CR because of circumstance or environment that make it less or more difficult than encountering the creature normally.

Come to think of it, what matter more than the XP is this... was it a high five moment at the table when you basically solo'd a dire wolf with wits alone? Because that would be high fives all around at my table I bet if someone did that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's two separate things to consider here

1.)Should you still get XP for overcoming a challenge if you do it without combat

2.)Should the CR rating of a creature ever be adjusted because of conditions that affect the difficulty of facing it

I say yes to both questions.

Your GM says he gave an adjusted CR to the wolf because it was asleep but he might be offering that explanation because it has more support. There's a possibility there are other factors making him feel inclined not to give a full XP award here.

-Was this an individual XP award to you alone? That is mostly a holdover from AD&D, it really doesn't suit Pathfinder well at all. Level disparity is rarely fun in a standard PF game.

-Was this dire wolf encountered while you were striking out on your own? Again here there are some groups and tables where this sort of thing is expected and ok, but it could violate table etiquette in other groups where splitting the party is frowned upon.

There's no doubt when a challenge is placed before the party they should get full XP for overcoming the challenge, but was this dire wolf actually a challenge that was placed before the party? Or was it just some scenery the GM had to insert when you went off for a jaunt through the woods while everyone else waited to get on with the adventure? And by scenery I guess I really mean "warning sign to get back with the rest of the group before you become wolf meat". Not saying that's the case but those sort of things do happen sometimes.

Every table is different so we don't know, table top games have a very fluid social contract. In any case, adjusting the dire wolfs CR by one because it was asleep when it was met wouldn't be unheard of even if it had been placed as an obstacle for the party to overcome.

Adjusting it just because it was overcome by another means other than combat would not be too cool, but even with that there are cases when I have wondered what was best to do. For example if it was something that would eventually be faced again, do you just get awarded the full XP multiple times? I'm not sure what's best in those cases, but as long as there's trust between the players and GM and things aren't devolving into an adversarial state, then it usually isn't too hard to come up with something that works for the needs of the particular adventure.

Great thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Great thread.

While I had never specifically likened my PbP habits to an addiction before, I have always kept an eye on my online gaming to make sure I was approaching it in a healthy, positive way, and it has lapsed at times into something that was a source of great stress for me.

The issues for me have had to do with managing what I commit to. Respecting and valuing the shared time of others, and trusting a group of strangers to do the same.

IRL I don't get to game as much as I'd like to, for the usual reasons.. difficulty co-ordinating the schedules of gaming friends. PbP seemed like such a boon when I discovered it... play with any one any time! But of course it's not that simple.

The games I joined didn't move fast enough for me, so I tried starting my own games, and it was better, but still not fast enough, so I started another, and another, trying to find the right bunch of players who wanted to post as often as I did. Of course I ended up very over-extended and burned out.

I think the trouble is that I was looking for the same thrill of real time face to face gaming, and comparing my PbP experience to that standard, I thought something was falling short, even when things were going very well.

In the end something I was told by an experienced PbP'er who joined my first game I launched turned out to be true. PbP is a marathon, not a sprint.

There are other difficulties I face but they are more particular to my own specific circumstances. For example, my work has very slow periods and very busy periods, so I have to force myself not to bite off more than I can chew during work down-time, because before long I will be busy again and all those games I joined or started will still be going, and trying to keep up with them will be very stressful.

Also, I have a mental illness, and there are days or even weeks when I know I'm not particularly well, and I would not show up to game with a face-to-face gaming group on those days because I'm not feeling like myself. In PbP you make a commitment to have a constant presence, and for me that means I have to put myself out there and be seen at my best and my worst, which is a little scary.

No I get what he probably means, it's not as contradictory as it might sound. A sandbox can still be set with rich lore, which is a story element, it just doesn't have a predetermined plot.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Best paizo thread of all time.

Long live the thread necromancers.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guys! Sorry. trux PM'd me and said that my post was not appropriate for public, and should have been said privately or not at all. I'm sure he is right. Guys I suffer from bi-polar disorder... I have something called manic episodes, and mild hypo-manic phases, during which I basically have no filter if that makes sense. Basically I see a dot in my campaign page, click it, read the new posts, whatever goes through my mind comes out my finger :/ Not an excuse, I am an adult and need to manage these behaviors in my day to day life all the time. Some people (a few) actually like me when I'm like this and even feel that it is the real me, but the general public usually is made uncomfortable by it. Just sharing this so you know I was not intending to make a value judgement about anyones contributions, just "I read this and it made me feel this way shrug" I'm an odd duck I know :/ If you know me though, I am actually full of love for the world.

Maybe it is a good idea if I undot this thread 0_o So I don't lurk it and leave unsolicited observations (-_-) Oh well.

Sorry! Game on.

Very cool of you.

Yeah that was it, I remember there was some comment about NPC's that made me feel funny I think. Because hey, Trux is not running GMPC's to steal spotlight, he is just running them for continuity (one is his character he had to give up to take over running, and the other was abandoned by a player and he's been running that PC so the party can be healed and stuff). I mean come on now he usually leaves them in the barn and they only come with if requested, you know?

Anyway I didn't know if I was imagining it, there just seemed to be some undercurrent of tension.

Just commenting as a lurker reading the game.

I am not enjoying reading this game as a lurker so much the past couple weeks. There is a hint of an adversarial mood coming through with the posts from the new players or something? Dunno, can't put my finger on it. I always chalk it up to misunderstanding based on the limits of a text based medium (no body language to read) but reading this game gives me a case of GM burnout just by proxy lately :/

Hope you are not burning out Trux, and hope work is good too...

Maybe this is not the best place to bring this up, but I am wanting to make a house-rule to just give that early entry to everybody instead of specific races. I have wanted to do this pretty much ever since magus came out and I never saw another eldritch knight ever again. With ACG out now, I especially want to make a house-rule to make the old "hybrid" style PrC's viable compared to new hybrid classes.

My question is, what would be a good way to word such a house-rule, to make it formal for my games? And what balance issues should I be wary of in attempting such a thing?

Basically my thinking is that going straight into EK didn't turn out to be ZOMG broken for aasimar it should be ok for anyone else too.

137ben wrote:

I think you have misread my post. I said that some forum posters (not the designers) have claimed that FAQs (any FAQ, not just this one) is 'always what the rules said'.

Sorry, I did misread you.

Thanks Liz. Definitely, I get that it's a setting and I wouldn't have it any other way.

My question was prompted by the mention of an included adventure mach1.9pants. I was asking about that portion of the book specifically.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:

So I'm wondering how those people will interpret this FAQ: A year ago, the FAQ said that SLAs count for spell prerequisites, meaning that that was 'always' what the rules have said. But now, the FAQ says that SLAs don't count for spell prerequisites, meaning that that is 'always' what the rules have said. Anyone who really believes the FAQs match the rules in the books is going to have to practice some serious doublethink. We have always been at war with East Spell-Prerequisasia!

Kind of an unnecessarily unpleasant post here overall but this part in particular is flat out wrong if I'm not mistaken. The design team explicitly stated that they were trying this FAQ as an experiment to see if it opened up some new possibilities without breaking anything. They asked for feedback from those who implemented the ruling. They most definitely never claimed it was "always what the rules have said". It was a change and was presented as such (IIRC).

Hmm well I had mixed feelings about this FAQ all along. On the one hand, I am a fan of EK and AT and would like to be able to enter them earlier, but not just for certain races.

...and a brand new, full-length adventure.

Does anybody know what levels the adventure is for?

I would be all over this software if I had a PC.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:

From SKR back in 2011. Hope it helps The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.

The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances.

I'm not an athlete, but I can easily to a standing broad jump of 5-6 feet, over and over again without fail. It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump. With a running start, it's even easier. If I were an adventurer, a 5-foot-diameter pit would be a trivial obstacle. Why waste game time making everyone roll to jump over the pit? Why not let them Take 10 and get on to something relevant to the adventure that's actually a threat, like a trap, monster, or shady NPC?

Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things.

This is the SKR quote I was talking about earlier. I'm glad someone with better search-fu found it.

Avoron wrote:
"The focus of your check cannot be the distraction that prevents you from taking 10, nor can the possibility of failure be the threat that prevents you from taking 10."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember SKR or someone explaining that the danger of the task you are performing with the skill check doesn't count as a distraction. It's only outside danger/distraction that stops take 10. The example given was a long jump over a pit I think.

Take ten helps realism I think. Someone who can jump 5' can pretty much always jump 5'. Try to jump 10 you might trip. Try to jump 5' while an arrow whizzes past your head you might trip.

Hope Endzeitgeist reviews this.


Just gotta make those calls I guess. I would have had it work normally. Surface is still there under the water.

If I did decide water was going to stop the spell from working I'd call for a low DC spell craft or knowledge arcana check on the spot to determine it wasn't going to work before the player wasted the action and the spell slot. Caster should have some idea how his magic works.

I'm running a published campaign that doesn't have "magic marts" and I'm constantly paranoid that the players will be pissed off.

I thought about just allowing normal pathfinder shopping even though it kills the vibe for me, but that makes a whole new set of problems I would have to tweak for, because this campaign has weird things like low level evil cultists each carrying an unholy mace. If the party can sell all those for 50% and buy what they want they will end up with monty haul levels of loot.

Ratguard wrote:

I am actually surprised at the hostility that Magda is showing

"Second PC has decided not to stabilize the first PC but instead chase after the worg (it matches his character actually very well). "

I was surprised too, but if you think about it, the advice was very good if the player is indeed meta-gaming. If this is the exception to the rule and isn't what it looks like, there's no need to create an adversarial situation over nothing, but Magda's post still has a lot of good points.

Seems like the OP's group is getting along fine though, and everyone still read the OP as a "help me deal with problem player" post.

My advice: You as GM know if that worg was alone KingmakerDM. If he was alone, even if that's unusual for a wort, don't just make his whole pack appear as a "gotcha" moment to punish the PC.

Instead just have the worg try to ambush the lone PC.

I want that Dire Boar!


Now how about when you have a large party (7-8 PC's)? Will max HP for enemies still favor SoL/SoD then, and devalue healing and blasting? I am talking max hp enemies, not PC's.

Any pics available anywhere?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Assassin is a one level dip for an arcane trickster or something like that. Other than that, NPC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyanne Miller wrote:

Nice to see you, Grimmy. Glad you've been enjoying our meeting!

I really have. Internal monologue, pushes, and hooks are the lifeblood of PbP.

I think the boards should have a feature so you can link multiple gameplay threads in a campaign. I think myth-weavers does that.

My Bard's Gate game has PC's split in 3 locations right now, it's so confusing. Which scene(s) should be in spoilers at that point? lol

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

I will write a short adventure for you Grimmy! What sort of themes would you like to see? It'll let me kill two birds with one stone 'cause my brother wants me to write a tabletop AP (or run a Paizo one after cleaning errors) for him and his girlfriend. :D

Hmm, well I just started this game. It's supposed to be some urban investigation but it's converging on orcus cult activity in a big cemetery outside the city.

I have a little dungeon under a barrow mound already (cemetery was built over ancient burial site) but I could use some other set piece encounters for crypts and things, or city locations they hit during the investigation.

Come to think of it I could probably slot the first Alvena adventures right in.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Yeah, I'm kinda getting that "Ashiel for president" feeling again.

GRIMMY! *rage-hug-pounce*

How ya been? :D

I'm really good, I went and played 5e for a while and it scratched that rules-light itch that had been bugging me, so now when I play pathfinder I feel like "gimme the crunch!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seriously, the preferred play style when my group gets together is about as far to the opposite extreme of an Ashiel game as you can get. But it is so fascinating to think that maybe the problems we try to avoid by reigning things in, could also iron themselves out by pushing the system to it's limits.

I haven't seen it with my own eyes but it looks good on paper and seems like it would be a blast.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I'm kinda getting that "Ashiel for president" feeling again.

Sorry for the necro but this is still confusing me.

Where is the text Chad Clemmens quoted from?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This Core Campaign appeals to me, I think I'm going to go give PFS a try.

1 to 50 of 2,744 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.