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

HangarFlying's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 3,334 posts (3,340 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 4 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Any opinions on WotC opening 5e under the OGL?

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
AlgaeNymph wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Belltrap wrote:

I apologize if this has been asked before, but...

At the height of his power, did Aroden rival Pharasma for "most powerful divinity worshiped on Golarion"? Or in the greater scheme of things, even if his worship was more influential and pervasive throughout the Inner Sea region in his heyday than Pharasma has ever been, was Pharasma still top dog?

No; not even close. Aroden didn't even rival Desna or Sarenrae or Abadar or Gorum or most of the others for power. Among humanity on the nations of the shores of the Inner Sea his faith was very influential, but the further you got from the Inner Sea, the less influence he had. And remember, most of the other core 20 are worshiped on many other planets as well. Aroden, not so much.
So what made Aroden so special that his death ended prophecy through the entire universe? I know, and agree with, the meta reason (prophecy is lazy storytelling), but what's the in-setting reason?

Who said it was Aroden's death that ended prophecy? More likely, it was the other way around, that the end of prophecy had MULTIPLE effects, one of which was Aroden's death.

The in-setting reason is closely tied to how Aroden did die, and it's FAR beyond just Aroden, and it's not something we have plans to ever answer.

Regarding Aroden, one question I haven't seen asked yet is why no plans to answer why/how he died?

Liberty's Edge

The question I would ask is if you were in a city, could you change the appearance of your clothes to blend in with the crowd? I would think that most people would agree that that would be a reasonable thing to do. I do not think it is outside the realm of reason to be able to change the appearance of your clothes to help you blend in with your surrounding terrain. I would think a +2 to stealth would be appropriate. YMMV.

Liberty's Edge

The one time I had an opportunity use flame blade I didn't use the expanded crit range. Then again, I didn't read the spell that closely and didn't realize it was mimicking a scimitar.

I have no problem with what the GM did.

Liberty's Edge

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Instead of a percentage chance to find the lair, I suggest something a little more modern by instead listing a skill and a DC to find the lair. Perhaps different or multiple skills can apply. I don't think allowing perception to find everything is the best solution, unless they want to spend a long time looking everywhere. You know in the first hobbit film where they know the troll lair must be close? They knew the trolls would not venture far from it. A Knowledge monster check maybe? For another monster, they might know it likes to make its lair near a water source or at a higher elevation. Knowledge geography or history might reveal other info, but all dependent upon the specific creature.

A very reasonable suggestion.

May I direct you to this blog post to provide more context as to my end goal.

Liberty's Edge

Thanks for the responses. I probably should have clarified that my intent for these tables is for a sandbox hexcrawl, so the randomness is part of it. Each entry would have a % chance to detects its tracks as well as a % chance to find its lair, if applicable. So an encounter won't always result in combat.

It's too bad Paizo doesn't include the frequency with creature entries to help weight the tables.

Liberty's Edge

Casual Viking wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
if you look at a light horse it only has hoof attacks too with the docile. So combat training helps ponies and light horses but not heavy horses since they have a bite.

Why would that matter? A non-trained heavy horse has a primary bite and two secondary hooves. A combat trained heavy horse has primary bite, two primary hooves.

The Horse companion has Docile until level 4, unless it's a Cavalier's mount.

This is not correct. Being combat trained removes the docile special quality. Being combat trained does not make hooves primary attacks.

Hooves are secondary attacks. A horse would use its hooves as primary attacks if it were not for the docile quality, because its hooves is the only type of attack that it has.

The heavy horse's hooves are always secondary attacks, because it has two types of attacks, regardless if it is combat trained or not.

Liberty's Edge

How do you all go about populating your random encounter tables? Do you tend to flip through the Bestiary and find those monsters you think are cool? Do you look for those that fit a specific theme? If you have multiple areas of similar terrain, do you make different tables for each area, or do you make one list to cover them all?

Liberty's Edge

Did you enjoy your viewing of the new Star Wars?

Liberty's Edge

Yes, I've been going back through 1e and 2e stuff. I never actually played 1e, and was fairly young playing 2e, and after reading through it, I realized that I didn't play it correctly—not that there is actually a right or wrong way to play, we just didn't bother reading the books. Now that I've gone back and actually read through them, it is much more clear now, and I realize how good those rules systems actually were, even with some of the more aggravating nuances.

I was going to use 5e with my new campaign, but I think I've finally settled on using 1e as the vehicle to tell my story.

Liberty's Edge

Good as always.

You know, my brother posted the journal for my RotRL campaign because I was unable to do so......................................................................

;-)

Liberty's Edge

AwesomenessDog wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Fortunately, in this instance, RAW and RAI agree that one cannot get the sneak attack bonus to ranged attacks.
Wrong on both accounts, not only is it harder to dodge ranged flanking than melee, but there is no wording to differentiate the two.

I mean, you keep on keepin' on with your house rule. It's not my place to tell you how you should run your home games.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Reflecting back upon your time playing 1st Ed. AD&D, did you adhere to the rules for demi-human class and level limits?
Absolutely not. Hated level limits, and they were one of my favorite things to see go away, finally, in 3rd edition.

Did you keep the racial class restrictions (dwarves can't be magic users, etc.)?

Did you give humans anything extra to make them more attractive to play?

A significant part of my homebrew was that I invented several dozen different variant races and subraces for players to choose, and I tried to spread out the options for classes and level limits a lot better. I generally kept the same themes (no dwarf wizards, for example) except if I felt that breaking a theme for a particular sub race would be fun.

If I remember correctly, I gave humans a free stat boost of their choice; this was before 3.5 actually did the same. I also had a demon-infused race a la tieflings before they came along—I called them kulgores and/or skavelings in my homebrew.

Thanks for the insight!

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Reflecting back upon your time playing 1st Ed. AD&D, did you adhere to the rules for demi-human class and level limits?
Absolutely not. Hated level limits, and they were one of my favorite things to see go away, finally, in 3rd edition.

Did you keep the racial class restrictions (dwarves can't be magic users, etc.)?

Did you give humans anything extra to make them more attractive to play?

Liberty's Edge

Reflecting back upon your time playing 1st Ed. AD&D, did you adhere to the rules for demi-human class and level limits?

Liberty's Edge

Fortunately, in this instance, RAW and RAI agree that one cannot get the sneak attack bonus to ranged attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Started mine back in 2011, and we are just getting ready to finish book 3. Though, we usually only average twice a year.

Liberty's Edge

Cevah wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cevah wrote:

If you think the +2 flanking bonus is the exact same thing as the flanking condition you get the result that ranged flanking does not work.

If you think these are two distinct things, then you get ranged flanking does work.

Yep that is the same summary we had 200 posts ago.

Only 1 to 3 believe they are distinct like you.

Developers agree with me (you don't agree they do.)
The FAQ agrees with me (you don't agree it does.)
45 people clicked FAQ / approximately 42 think your theory is incorrect but would like them to tell you no

I agree that you and the developers agree. I don't however think you are correct. What they want and what they wrote are not in agreement.

You think the FAQ agrees with you. I think the FAQ does not apply since it does not clarify things and only applies a specific rule which actually implies the opposite of what you think.
45 clicks means 45 people want an answer. The only clue I have as to their opinion is if they posted the fact that they clicked the FAQ button. Since there have not been 45 posts with such information, I cannot determine how many agree or disagree.

/cevah

So you admit that the developers likely side with his position, and yet you still argue that he is wrong. That makes absolutely no sense. I honestly think that at this point you're arguing purely for the sake of arguing.

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Downie wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
This problem stems from GMs allowing the player(s) to "ready" an action as a way to cheat the initiative rules.
I'd argue that pacing is equally important as a reason for why the rules aren't too specific. If there are bad guys in the room with a hostage and they're trying to persuade the PCs to surrender without a fight, or if the players are exploring and suspect they're being stalked by an invisible enemy, then forcing everyone into initiative order due to some RAW-mandated specification can really kill the pace.

That's why you don't roll for initiative until the combat starts.

I mean, really, this whole thread is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Liberty's Edge

Qaianna wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

IMO that's not even a houserule, it's just a logical interpretation of the initiative rules.

The party and a band of pirates notice each other. Everybody draws and readies their weapons, staring at each other and ready to fight while the paladin tries to talk to the pirate captain. Then the pirate captain roars and lowers his pistol to attack. Roll initiative. Nobody is flat footed because everybody has basically already been in initiative, delaying until negotiations turned sour. I suppose to be more rules accurate you could roll initiative when negotiations start, but I consider that a little distracting to the flow of combat.

Not only that, to some players it'd imply combat. Which is awkward if there's a chance for a noncombat solution, and that's the point of the hurried negotiations.

If the pirate captain is roaring and lowering his pistol to attack, the non-combat solution has already failed.

Liberty's Edge

This problem stems from GMs allowing the player(s) to "ready" an action as a way to cheat the initiative rules. Just because a player declared that their archer was readying his bow to shoot the goblin if it draws a sword/takes a step/picks it's nose/whatever, doesn't mean that that player can automatically shoot the goblin before it completes its desired task. That is literally what the initiative roll determines: who gets to go first?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

Up to 41 people that have clicked FAQ!

Keep em coming!

I hope they respond with "previously answered", or something like that, because I just want to watch the world burn.

Liberty's Edge

Well, as you can tell, I didn't do the posting for this last session. Elsbeth's player is holding on to the journal because we have all decided to give Fantasy Grounds a go. Meeting only once or twice per year does not cut it and hopefully FG will help.

It was a fun session. We played for about 10 hours and spent pretty much the entire first half doing nothing but RPing. That was a nice change of pace. The four battles we did get in were a lot of fun too. The party is definitely optimized for giant opponents (two dwarves, with one being a ranger with giants as a favored enemy), but it's still fun for me to see them lay waste. It's kind of funny because now the base ogre is considered a mook.

Having Lucretia in with Barl certainly gave that fight the needed difficulty level. If she wasn't there, the group would have walked through it with no problem. As it was, it was a fun dynamic fight. And, for the first time ever in my umpteen years of playing RPGs, I finally got to cast fireball in combat—did respectable on the damage, too.

Liberty's Edge

It is with a sad heart and with much reluctance that I must cancel all of my subscriptions.

Additionally, if there are any pending purchases or transactions, please cancel those as well.

I look forward to resubscribing once my situation has improved.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe one of the reasons stated as to why they don't do this is due to the limitations of the page count and the six-month release schedule. Essentially, the information required just for the high level stat blocks takes up so much space that they wouldn't have enough room left over for the adventure, considering all of the other stuff that is included in one book (page count limitation). They would have to have a seventh installment in the series, which obviously messes with the 6-installment cycle (release schedule limitation).

But you did say "experimental", so perhaps they could try making the AP without including the stat blocks, and provide the stat blocks as a separate free "GM AP guide" download—if you're willing to alienate the small minority of gamers who don't have access to the Internet and/or a printer.

Liberty's Edge

Thanks!

Liberty's Edge

Hello,

I just received an email notification for my pending shipment. In it, I noticed that you planned on shipping me Pathfinder Unchained. Pathfinder Unchained was already sent to me in a previous shipment a number of months ago, and while I greatly enjoy the book, I have no need for a second copy. Please ensure that this book is not included.

Thanks!

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

One page of errata for a book that's 300+ pages long? That's pretty darned good!

Liberty's Edge

theshoveller wrote:
Dustin Ashe wrote:
Interesting. I guess they're sold out or nearly sold out of their first print run. I wonder how many books that was.

They sold out in the UK *months* ago, I don't know the situation elsewhere.

I'm not massively happy with the changes to unarmed strikes - there are a raft of things that Monks now can't do because their attacks no longer count as 'Melee Weapon Attacks'.

Reading the errata, I don't see where it says that an unarmed strike no longer counts as a melee weapon attack, rather it says that instead of using a weapon for a melee weapon attack, you use an unarmed strike [for a melee weapon attack].

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
the condition and the term "no actions" strongly suggest no movement
No walking long distances, but not 'no movement' as in paralysis. That you don't lose Dex to AC says that in your mentally confused state you can't make any planned or complicated actions, but you can still respond instinctively - or reflexively - to danger.

So, would you say that if you are making a Reflex save, that you are in a Zone of Danger? Or, more concisely, that you are in the DANGER ZONE!

Liberty's Edge

Having actually run the numbers for a similar discussion, a Kasatha using two greatswords is inferior to one using one longsword and three shortswords, and no one bats an eye at the thought of the second configuration. Greatsword away. The best combination would be to use four sawtooth sabres.

EDIT: Link to my post.

I guess I ran 2 greatswords vs 1 greatsword/2 shortswords. Regardless, the point still stands that running 2 greatswords is inferior.

Liberty's Edge

Technically, they're NPCs, though most, if not all, GMs just let the players control them.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You all do realize that this entire thread is irrelevant unless Tacticslion favorites all of his own posts, don't you?

Liberty's Edge

Oh, dear God.

That said, there's nothing to stop TWF and natural attacks. So, I guess I would say that as long as your natural attacks isn't being made by an appendage that is part of the FOB sequence, go have fun.

Liberty's Edge

The only things that don't get multiplied are extra damage dice from things like sneak attack or flaming burst.

Liberty's Edge

Why don't we consider centaurs to be lamia-kind?

Liberty's Edge

emirikol wrote:

New live link to this:

Linkified

Linkified the link.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
RogueMortal wrote:
Curse of the Crimson Throne also had a reference to Ghost Busters. Paizo was asked to remove it due to copyright issues though.
Actually, I don't believe anyone has ever asked us to remove content of easter eggs for copyright reasons. We HAVE removed several on our own though... mostly ones that crept into print from authors or even developers who thought they were being sneaky or cute but were, unintentionally (I hope at least) putting us in a position where we COULD get sued for copyright infringement. Which is why easter eggs tend to annoy me more than they amuse me.

Since we're all just having fun here, what was the Crimson Throne one?

Liberty's Edge

John Spalding wrote:

I took a crack at it and haven't found anything useful. I am pretty sure it isn't a book code. I have tried a bunch of core books and the ISWG.

Anyone have a lead?

Sent you a PM.

Liberty's Edge

Do you enjoy hexcrawl type campaigns or do you prefer a story focused campaign?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Power of Imagination
Ironically, soon the people who watch the show will be in position to spoil it for the book readers.
And do you think the people who watch the show will do as good a job of keeping the secrets?
I hope so. And by that I mean I hope they bombard book-only forums and take utter glee in spoiling the books. Much as many of the book readers have done through the entire series run (admittedly, with a lot more vehemence in the first couple of seasons).

You know nothing...

Fortunately, I don't frequent those sites. Though, I'll probably have to avoid Facebook, YouTube, TV, and people.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Power of Imagination
Ironically, soon the people who watch the show will be in position to spoil it for the book readers.

And do you think the people who watch the show will do as good a job of keeping the secrets? Probably not. Sorry, but "the show and books are going to be different by that point" is nothing more than a pathetic excuse to try and make themselves feel morally superior, and justify them blabbing.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:

This thread has got me to think and write. Here lies the result.

Linkified

Made the link a link.

Liberty's Edge

5e is a good game. I'm glad I decided to change my mind and buy it.

Liberty's Edge

Well, technically, yes, it moves, otherwise it wouldn't be a gust of wind.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Kudaku Sometimes the truth needs to be said.

Liberty's Edge

I assume this is for PFS purposes?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In reality, the answer is "it depends on where the large creature is standing in relation to the corner and the target".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JohnF wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
You can't take 10 if the DC is greater than 10 and you don't have any ranks in it.

Why not?

You aren't going to succeed at the check, but nothing says that "Take 10" guarantees success!

There may be times when you actually want to do this. If the check has a DC of 12, and there's a penalty for missing the check by 5 or more, then taking 10 means you aren't going to succeed, but you guarantee you aren't going to fail catastrophically.

Because knowledge checks are trained, if you don't have any ranks in it, if the DC is greater than 10, you can't make the check in the first place.

A crafty GM would still allow a character to take 10 in order to not give away the DC, but it would be an auto fail.

Liberty's Edge

You can't take 10 if the DC is greater than 10 and you don't have any ranks in it. If you do have at least 1 rank, then take 10 to your heart's content...for that one time on that one knowledge check.

1 to 50 of 3,334 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.