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

Jiggy's page

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32. RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter, 2014 Dedicated Voter, 2015 Star Voter. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 17,475 posts (19,102 including aliases). 17 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 13 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,779 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Think of it less like "voting" and more like "sorting". Clicking the button for Item X is NOT saying "I think this item should be in the Top 32".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's easy to tell which contestants have GMs who never let stealth work, or never let them interrogate enemies after a fight, etc...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nkerklaan wrote:
A lot of items that claim in the description to be made from a specific part of a specific creature, but don't list that thing in the crafting requirements.

You're not supposed to list physical materials in the Construction Requirements; do you see any such materials in any published magic items?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It is remarkable how many items seem to be attempts to circumvent bad GMing.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

3 people marked this as a favorite.

"When you activate/don this [REDACTED], it transforms into the Wondrous Item that I originally designed, which is why I still listed a Wondrous Item slot instead of the slot for the item I'm pretending this is. Original text follows."

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hm, terrible versus mediocre. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Covent wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Jacob Kellogg wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Ugh. What are "arcane spell-like abilities"?
Ones that aren't divine?
This is example of erroneous thinking I am referring to: spell-like abilities in general are neither arcane nor divine

I am worried that some good items using good rules-fu will be down voted because they bothered to keep up with the FAQ. Not trying to call you out Drejk, as you are just a current convenient example, and I have seen several people making similar mistakes on different topics.

Perhaps this falls to the "Know your audience, and their limitations" guideline however.

Yeah, a couple years back I found out my item had been getting downvoted by people who were unfamiliar with the spell range categories ("close", "medium", "long") that appear in 90% of the spells in the game, and therefore thought that I was failing to specify the range at all. :/

Hopefully, this time all my terms will be sufficiently obvious. Not that I'm bitter or anything...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob W. Michaels wrote:
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's Jacob's entry!
Which Jacob?

That's my question as well!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Are you familiar with the nature/role of magic items in Pathfinder?
2) Are you familiar with the basic core mechanics used by your item?
3) Did you put together a fun and thematic set of abilities?
4) Did you execute it well?
5) How tight is your formatting/spelling/etc?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seeing an unreal proportion of chain shirts. Most are made of mithral.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
Because the more powerful you make a scorpion whip, the less powerful you make the regular whip and vise versa.

This is not true.

If I'm driving down the highway at 70mph and expecting to arrive at my destination in 20 minutes, then I see somebody pass me at 80mph, that doesn't cause me to suddenly be going slower than I was or arrive at my destination later than planned. I'm still going 70mph and arriving in 20min, no matter how fast anyone else is going.

The only thing that might have changed is my relative speed; perhaps I went from being the fastest guy on the road to being the second-fastest. Maybe you think the whip was the best at something, and now it's only second-best? But if so, why is that a problem?

Quote:
Game balance wise, both should have trade offs that make them useful in some ways but not in other ways that the other one is useful in.

First, "shoulds" are for designing something that's not finished yet, not for figuring out how a finished product works. However it is that it works, it works that way regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks it "should".

Second, your premise that Pathfinder options are different-but-equal (rather than one thing being superior to another) is completely wrong. Just look at the weapon and armor charts: see all those items that nobody ever uses? For any given category there's a small number of "best" items that are just plain old better than similar options. Having the whip and scorpion whip follow this same paradigm that's existed in the system for decades shouldn't be throwing up any red flags for anyone who's looking at the big picture. Like Andy always says, you have to look at the issue in the context of the whole game: an obvious power gap between weapon X and weapon Y is par for the course; it's Pathfinder's "normal".

"Yet another weapon that's better/worse than a different weapon" shouldn't be making anyone familiar with Pathfinder go "Hey, wait a minute, that can't be right!"

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Yes, that's pretty much it. And 1d4, rather than 1d2.

---

You can read it in different ways, but this is a reasonable, good-faith reading of it. It answers all the rule-questions and results in a weapon that's a viable option.

Basically, scorpion whips are to whips as composite bows are to normal bows. You apply the same feats and weapon proficiencies, but there are some specific mechanical differences. The only differences are those explicitly called out.

So then, for other than RP reasons, why would anyone ever, buy a standard whip?

Why, other than RP reasons, would anyone ever buy a standard shortsword?

I'm not sure where I land on this topic yet, but I wanted to point out that X being better than Y does not mean that you must be misinterpreting X. Sometimes they deliberately make new things that are better than old things.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ooooh, interesting point on needing line of sight to ID the aura's school. Okay, so I guess how it goes down is this:

Round 1: Determine that there is, in fact, magic somewhere in that 60ft cone.
Round 2: Determine that it's a single aura.
Round 3: Determine the location of the aura, and speculate as to what could be producing an unidentified aura in a space where you don't see anything. ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Black wrote:

I'M BACK!

For the first time since 2010 my real life is not so hectic that I can and have actually entered the contest this year. Voting this year is going to be much more hectic I do believe!

GOOD LUCK ALL, I know that this is going to be a great year filled with many Wondrous entires :)

Um...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Jobo wrote:
Well the wizard is not good at fighting. I don't think we are fixing that.

The Wizard is great at fighting.

The Wizard has good defenses, and OPTIONS in combat. "Fighting" is not just "hit it hard". The Wizard is great at fighting because he can buff allies and control the flow of battle.

The Paladin is great at fighting because he can hit things good, and is practically impossible to take down.

The Ranger is good at fighting because he has options, and if he catches you with your pants down (or god forbid you fall into one of his Favored Enemy categories by default) he will shred you. Granted the Ranger is kind of the weakest link of the True Martial Trio.

The Barbarian is good at fighting because he's mobile, resilient, and absolutely BRUTAL at hitting things.

The Fighter is, ironically, not good at fighting. He's good at hitting things but he has:

-No real options.
-No non-AC defenses.
-No special abilities.
-No special mobility, and no option to get such.

Making the Fighter better at hitting things misses the point. He's already good at hitting things.

You need to make the Fighter better at FIGHTING.

One might say that all the fighter has is a hammer, when most level-appropriate challenges are not nails.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PFS does not have any campaign-specific rules on this topic, and therefore the campaign defaults to standard Pathfinder RPG game rules. As such, I'll flag the thread to get moved to the Rules forum where PFRPG game rules questions are handled, so you can get appropriate traffic/comments. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

5 people marked this as a favorite.
YIDM wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


"Should" does not define rules and until they get to be PF devs they don't get to change them. The illusion school is shutdown by spellcraft(a skill) if the spell is cast in front of you, and it has no special protection against detect magic or any other detection spell. I would report them if that was the best answer they gave me.
I'm attempting not be any more jerk-like than I'm already perceived as, being the resident "rules lawyer" of our PFS group in my area.

Jerkishness is about how you treat the people you're disagreeing with.

Are you interrupting games with minor issues?
Are you keeping a moderate tone of voice?
Is your face turning red?
Are you poking the table with the "down-point of declaration" when making your claims?
Are you making commentary on the strength of the other party's intellect or moral fiber?
Are you giving the other person time to speak, without interrupting them, and then paraphrasing their own stance back to them to ensure understanding, all before making a reply?

If you're handling all that properly—discussing the topic at an appropriate time and in a respectful manner—then you're not being a jerk. Some people will still treat you like you're being a jerk, just because you're contradicting them. But those people are toxic to a community, and anyone who values said community has a responsibility to protect it by reporting toxic individuals to leadership so they can either learn to behave differently or be removed from the community.

TLDR: If you value your community, first be sure you're handling disagreements with respect and maturity, then report anyone who won't return in kind.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just make sure to refrigerate the leftovers in a well-sealed container.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Congrats on your successful adventure! :D

Do you have your ITS (Inventory Tracking Sheet)? If so, here's how to do "between-scenario" shopping:

Write down what you want to buy on your ITS. In the box for the Chronicle number, write down the next chronicle you'll be getting. For instance, if you just played that character's 1st scenario, write down "2". Go ahead and add the purchased gear to your character sheet.

Next game, when you get your chronicle, fill in the "starting gold" with however much gold you had at the bottom of your previous chronicle. Under "gold spent", write the total of the things you bought (the things on your ITS with the new chronicle's number). Over in the notes box, write "ITS - XXXgp". Then do your math and get a new total gold amount at the bottom of your new sheet.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I've got an entry written up and templated, and probably won't come up with anything else within the next couple of days, so I guess that's that. Probably won't submit until I've slept on it anyway, though.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Maybe you're not looking for the same things in games that I am, or you just weren't actually getting them in home games.

Plots that revolve around your characters. Decisions that actually drive where the campaign goes.

That's the big thing for me.

Actually, PC actions DO "actually drive where the campaign goes" in PFS. Right on down to the life or death of major NPCs.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Thejeff more or less adequately responded to your questions, Jiggy, but there's one in particular I felt I should address...

Jiggy wrote:
How are your restrictions any less "arbitrary" than those in PFS?

Well, I don't change them for no apparent reason based on the season, for one thing. Let's take my example of the tiefling, and their holier cousins, the aasimar.

What, exactly, was broken about them before Blood of Angels and Blood of Fiends came out, to where they were forbidden?

Whatever it was, did those two books "fix" it to make them more balanced? If ANYTHING, it made them considerably more powerful, yet they were added as acceptable races.

Change of the season, however, and suddenly they're broken again, and not allowed, despite nothing in particular coming out making them more powerful.

Okay, so you saw something change, made assumptions about the reason behind it, disliked your own assumptions, and therefore decided to label the change "arbitrary". Yeah, that makes sense.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Remember, it's an actual campaign. Are there PC options you don't allow in your campaign? I know there's plenty I don't allow in mine. How are your restrictions any less "arbitrary" than those in PFS? PFS allows material from literally over a hundred books. Do you?

Aside from that, PFS has some pretty unique merits. One is portability. Can players from your campaign bring their characters around the world and play them with different people? If one of your players moves to a different city and finds a new group, can he bring the character he's spent the last year and a half getting invested in? If one of your players travels somewhere (work, vacation, convention, whatever) and finds a group of like-minded players, can a game suddenly happen?

Another thing I personally like is the wealth system. I hate how wealth is a built-in part of character power progression, I hate the impact it has on PC decisions ("It's an adamantine door? Take it and sell it!"), and I hate all the table time spent on dividing loot. In PFS, you don't have to worry about that: you can play without thought of your budget, then get handed some gold at the end and do your shopping away from the table ("off-screen"). PFS lets me tell/experience stories that aren't about looting! For me, that's huge.

There's also the social aspect: I get to play with a lot more different people in PFS than in a home campaign, all without sacrificing my PC's story. If I play in home campaigns, the PCs in each group will never meet. In PFS, both the player and the character can meet a wide variety of other people, which can be enriching all on its own. Additionally, the annual multi-table special event is super fun, getting to work with dozens and dozens of other players in an exciting event. When was the last time one of your home sessions could be described as an "event"? There's also the phenomenon that gamers who constantly have to get along with a wide variety of people and gamers who spend decades holed up with a select group of like-minded gamers will, to put it gently, not develop at the same rate. I find that elitism and what I call "one true way-ism" are more prevalent among long-time home-gamers than among folks who primarily play PFS with large playerbases. But that's a bigger topic, that would probably need its own thread.

The fact of the matter is that PFS is a campaign with its own pros and cons; there I things I get in non-PFS games that I can't get in PFS, but there are also things I get in PFS games that I can't get elsewhere.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...Do you mean "detracts"?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Augury is simply one of the myriad game elements that completely falls apart when the GM decides ahead of time which things the PCs will and will not know. See also: Perception, Sense Motive, divination, and Knowledge skills.

You can tell your GM is telling his own story and you're just the audience when:
• Perception DCs on traps are 1 higher than the searcher's T20 result
• The only creatures who lie about anything important are things like succubi or other demons with unbeatable bluff skills
Augury and similar spells never give helpful information
• Knowledge skills get a per-round limit or an action cost, or are only allowed to ID things that you've personally seen previously in this same campaign
• Anything that would change the type of "feel" a given scene has or makes things play out differently than the GM expected (like bypassing an obstacle, not getting caught, pre-buffing with effects that actually matter, or using a tactic that makes a fight easier than anticipated) is labeled "game-breaking", "unbalancing", or other derogatory terms.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

When I was running my now-retired melee cleric, my biggest money-saver was greater magic weapon. Carry a mere masterwork weapon for the lower levels (with a couple of scrolls/oils of magic weapon in case you face DR/magic or incorporeals, just like a fighter would), then once GMW comes online, you've got a magic weapon all day without dropping the cash for it. Starting at 8th level, that's saving you 8,000gp.

You can do something similar with magic vestment, but it saves you a little less money since armor is cheaper.

An Extend rod for your shield of faith and barkskin is much cheaper than rings and amulets.

By "spelling" those four gear slots, you can save a LOT of money.

Hope that helps!

Omar is still only at 3rd level, but that does make me feel better about not upgrading the weapon until really late.

The lesser extend rod is 3K and would only change the Barkskin from 30 minutes to 1 hour at my level. Shield of Faith only has a duration of 1 min/level so it would go from 3 minutes to 6 minutes. Once I get to 5th level, it would work well with Greater Magic Weapon where the duration would go from 1 hr/level to 2 hr/level -- basically all day.

One thing I did come up with is getting Muleback Cords instead of the Handy Haversack, save about 1K gold. That would put me at light encumbrance and a cloak of resistance isn't needed because of my domain power.

First, note that for clerics, GMW is 4th-level, not 3rd-level. Fortunately, you don't really need to extend your hour/level buffs.

For barkskin and SoF, I wasn't meaning for you to extend them right now, at 3rd level. But around 5th-6th or so, Extending barkskin when you're expecting trouble (like at the front door of a dungeon) will easily last multiple encounters. And then since you would have the Extend rod anyway, the ability to potentially stretch a SoF into two encounters is just gravy.

Undone wrote:
so you can cast a summon spell/save or suck before they go

A summon spell takes the entire round, so there's no such thing as casting that "before they go". And a melee cleric is not opening combat with a SoS spell.

Even so, Improved Initiative is solid for a different reason: you're going to want a buff spell in most combats: usually divine favor. Getting that off fast is important. In fact, if you can find room for Additional Traits to pick up Fate's Favored, even better.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I was running my now-retired melee cleric, my biggest money-saver was greater magic weapon. Carry a mere masterwork weapon for the lower levels (with a couple of scrolls/oils of magic weapon in case you face DR/magic or incorporeals, just like a fighter would), then once GMW comes online, you've got a magic weapon all day without dropping the cash for it. Starting at 8th level, that's saving you 8,000gp.

You can do something similar with magic vestment, but it saves you a little less money since armor is cheaper.

An Extend rod for your shield of faith and barkskin is much cheaper than rings and amulets.

By "spelling" those four gear slots, you can save a LOT of money.

Hope that helps!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015 aka Jiggy

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kiraya TiDrekan wrote:
Also, I think its awesome that the Jacobs all still have the same avatar. :D

I had it before it was cool.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sarvei taeno wrote:
i was always curious bout the 1 round thing where does it clarify that it ends at the start of ur next turn instead of the end of ur next turn. pls actually show where u found it dont just say somewhere in this chapter cause ive been looking and cant seem to find it.

Sure thing:

Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, The Combat Round, third paragraph, second sentence wrote:
Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ADULTLINK210 wrote:
official

Things you can find in Chapter 15 of the OFFICIAL Core Rulebook:

"Elven chain" is mithral chainmail with an ACP of -2.
"Mithral full plate of speed" is mithral full plate with an ACP of -3.

Those are 100% OFFICIAL facts, right there in black and white.

Now go do math.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lifat wrote:
If your player argues, ask him to show you the rule that says charging somehow prevents AoOs. Burden of proof is on him.

He'll probably point to the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook, where the Actions in Combat table lists various actions and whether or not they provoke, and the table says "Charge: No". That's where this misunderstanding usually comes from in the first place.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:

we are totally off-topic, but in essence, it is quite likely that in every story you read or watched there was something of the sort, because Conflict is about opposing forces which cannot all simultaneously exist in harmony, with 'loss' or 'attrition' being inherent, and, but for de-railing the thread, could probably be identified in any given narrative.

but how about them CLW wands, eh?

That's just the thing, though: conflict is, as you say, about opposing forces who want different things, and something's gotta give. But the attrition being discussed does not fit that description. The attrition in Pathfinder (whether hit points, daily resources, gold, whatever) is something that one interested party has, and must manage its expenditure in order to leverage success for their side of the conflict.

Attrition and resource management are one way of engaging the plot's conflict; they are not part of the definition of conflict.

Removing attrition as a central game mechanic does not remove conflict from the storytelling. Attrition and conflict can interact, they can be part of the same story, but they are in no way inherently linked.

And here's why I don't think it's off-topic: CLW wands (or other forms of plentiful between-combat healing) drastically reduce (eliminate?) an entire axis attrition, but have no effect on the conflict in the story. If some of the other posters are correct that players are getting less and less interested in attrition, it need not have any impact on the level of plot conflict, because it was never really a part of the conflict in the first place.

Recognizing the independence of attrition and conflict from one another helps us figure out what we can do about HP recovery without sacrificing the story.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The action of charging does not itself provoke, but the movement made as part of charging would provoke as normal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I DO NOT REQUIRE THE KONAMI CODE

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, also, stop using single-monster encounters. Neutralizing an enemy via grapple is a lot less overwhelming when there's 3-4 more enemies to deal with at the same time. (Especially considering the grapple-guy is typically standing still with reduced AC for a couple rounds.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You seem to be assuming that I was already moving. I finished inputting the flight coordinates per your suggestion, pressed "engage" "launch", and WHAM! Lightspeed crash. :(

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it's not on the Additional Resources list, it's not legal.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Paragraphs. You have an introductory sentence giving you the general idea, and then clarifying sentences giving you the details on how the introductory sentence works. It is a paragraph, not a bullet-list.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, you don't have to do it all at once, so you can do however many levels you can afford now, and then do more later when you have more prestige.

Alternatively/additionally, you could post your build and describe what you don't like and what you want to do with it, and maybe we can help you get the most bang for your retraining buck. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want my highly-skilled swordsman to feel different than my brawny axe-wielder. If they're both just spending combats Power Attacking for the same damage as each other, then they feel pretty "samey". To me, that hurts the experience.

That's not to say there aren't people who say they want to play concept X but really just want mechanic Y. Just that the existence of those people doesn't mean there's zero reason for anyone else to want a mechanic to match up with a concept.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The GMs who are turned off of the idea of PbP because a guide on the internet said preparation was a good idea, are not the GMs who are skilled enough to "wing it".

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
For the wrist sheath, saying nothing about provocation would have been more appropriate than saying "as normal" if no provocation was the intent.

Wait... you think I'm saying the intent was no provocation? That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that "provokes as normal" means "provokes in the same circumstances in which it would normally provoke".

So popping a scroll or potion would provoke, but not a wand or dagger. Just like normal.

Because the provocation is "as normal".

Just like how casting an unmodified spell provokes but casting a quickened or defensive spell doesn't, and Eschew Materials doesn't change that distinction: because the provocation is "as normal".

Just like how performing a reposition provokes from the target of the maneuver but not from other enemies and not at all if you have the feat, and the Repositioning weapon ability doesn't change that distinction: because the provocation is "as normal".

Normally, drawing a potion or scroll provokes while drawing a dagger or wand does not. The sheath leaves this alone.

It's not that the sheath doesn't provoke, it's that it sometimes provokes, depending on whether retrieving the contents would normally provoke or not.

So I am definitely NOT saying that "provokes as normal" somehow means "doesn't provoke". I'm saying that "provokes as normal" means "doesn't change the determination of whether retrieving a given item provokes".

Does that make more sense?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding whether the wrist sheath provokes:

I think some people still think that "provokes as normal" means "always provokes" rather than "does not change anything about provocation".

Well, let's look at other rules with the same "provokes as normal" language:

Eschew Materials wrote:
Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.

Does that mean casting spells with negligible components now always provokes, even when quickened or when cast defensively? Or does it mean that Eschew Materials simply doesn't change the equation?

Here's a weapon special property called "repositioning":

Repositioning wrote:
If the wielder confirms a critical hit with the weapon, he can attempt to reposition his opponent as a free action. These reposition attempts still provoke attacks of opportunity as normal.

Is this overriding the normal reposition rules, saying that these repositions always provoke even when you have Improved Reposition and even from enemies other than the target? Or is it simply stating that this item doesn't change anything?

There are also too many instances to list where something gives you movement and says that it provokes "as normal". Are these preventing any benefit of tumbling or of the grace spell? Or are they just affirming that they're not changing anything?

Remember, folks, you only get to say that a rule means X if you're willing to say that the same rule means X every time it appears. If you're not willing to say that examples like the above always provoke even if it normally wouldn't, then you can't say it about the wrist sheath either.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:

My introduction to spring-loaded wrist sheaths was by a GM who had no trouble letting you put a scroll in regular wrist sheath, but balked at putting them in spring loaded ones. His reasoning was that the action of the spring would more likely damage the scroll than push it out, and since scrolls aren't stiff by nature, it would also be likely to get stuck up your sleeve.

Then there's the issue of unrolling the scroll to read it, so a lot of GMs would say you still have to take a move action to unroll it. I think the assumption is that unrolling it is a free action as part of the move action to get it out, but if you don't take a move action to retrieve it, you can't have the free action to unroll it. (Like drawing a weapon as a free action while moving--it's a move action otherwise.)

When we get out BoL scrolls for someone else to cast, we make a point of saying that we unroll them and hold them up for the caster, just to avoid this problem. (That's probably being too literal, but I get paranoid with BoL.)

It would be nice to see this clarified: I'd love to be able to do it, but I know a lot of GMs won't allow it, so I usually warn players away from it.

Sounds like that GM doesn't understand scrolls very well.

CRB, Magic Items chapter, Scrolls, Physical Description wrote:

A scroll is a heavy sheet of fine vellum or high-quality paper. ... The sheet is reinforced at the top and bottom with strips of leather slightly longer than the sheet is wide.

To protect it from wrinkling or tearing, a scroll is rolled up from both ends to form a double cylinder. (This also helps the user unroll the scroll quickly.)

It's not a piece of parchment or even ordinary paper; it's "heavy", and it's either vellum or "high-quality paper". In either case, it's also got built-in reinforcements. Suggesting that this is more likely to be damaged (or at least, sufficiently damaged to impede use) than a wand (which is, according to the CRB, literally just a stick) is kind of absurd. And on top of the material used, scrolls are rolled up, which makes them far sturdier—the rules even call this out as something that helps protect them from damage. And you don't have to be a physics major to realize that pushing on the end of a cylinder (as opposed to a flat sheet) will not easily damage it.

The rules also say that it can be "unrolled quickly". Nowhere is an action cost listed, not even in the Combat chapter's "Actions in Combat" table. The emulation of the "draw a weapon on the move" mechanic is purely made-up, and far outside the purview of a PFS GM. Can I also load my light crossbow as part of my move action to retrieve it? Why not? If loading and unrolling are both going to be move actions on their own, but you're going to allow one as a freebie while drawing, why not the other?

No, the means of getting a scroll into your hand has nothing to do with how long it takes to unroll it; saying otherwise is a houserule, most likely created retroactively in order to get a desired gameplay result. (Waaaay too many GMs subscribe to a "results first" aproach to rules, but that's a topic for another thread.) Either it's always an action to unroll the scroll, or it never is.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragnmoon wrote:

Sadly you are incorrect here, The item itself says it provokes when used.

PRD Wrist Sheath wrote:
As a move action, you can bend your wrist to cause some or all of these items to drop into your hand (provoking attacks of opportunity as normal).

The problem here is it doesn't say what you think it says. It doesn't just straight-up say retrieving the item provokes, it says the retrieval provokes "as normal". That means that the wrist sheath is not changing the rules of provocation: if retrieving that item would normally provoke, it still does; if retrieving that item would normally not provoke, it still doesn't.

That's what "does X as normal" means. This isn't even the only place in the rules that talks about provoking "as normal". When you look at other examples, it'll become clear that "provokes as normal" does NOT mean "always provokes". It means "this item/spell/ability/etc has no influence on whether the granted action provokes or not".

I see no reason that the SLWS would be any different than other such abilities.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

4 people marked this as a favorite.

When someone says "You can't do that, it's not realistic/believable" while we're fighting a dragon who is somehow using its wings to fly.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the broader PFS question of whether to allow only what is listed or to allow other things:

In my mind, Pathfinder's many open-ended lists can be divided into two main types:

1) You can have X, Y or Z. Additional options may be available at the GM's discretion.

2) You can have any [category], such as X, Y or Z.

In Type 1 lists, the list is exhaustive unless and until the GM adds to it. In PFS, only the listed options are available.

In Type 2 lists, the list is not the rule; the category is the rule, and the list is a clarification of the types of things the rule is talking about. In PFS, it is my opinion that GMs should NOT limit options to the examples in Type 2 lists. This is partly because in some sense you're actually violating the written rule if you don't include at least one unlisted thing (or so the Grammar Nazi tells me). But perhaps more importantly, well, try searching the CRB for "such as", and I think you'll soon discover that treating that type of list as exhaustive is a terrible, terrible idea. A 20th level fighter could only select longsword, greataxe or longbow for his capstone; Disable Device becomes the only skill that can't be aided; a very rough wall and a ship's rigging are the only DC 10 Climb surfaces in existence; goblins and the tarrasque are the only creatures whose Knowledge DC is not 10+CR; and so forth.

So I think it is absolutely appropriate (and in fact vital, at least for GMs who want any kind of consistency in their own practices) to allow more than the explicitly listed items to work in the sheath.

As for WHAT additional items... Well, that's another story. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lifat wrote:
the GM decided that sinse the character using his knowledge hadn't actually seen such a creature in real life and at most had studied paintings of them

Problem, right here. The GM doesn't decide whether the PC has seen X before. The Knowledge check decides that.

The GM could houserule differently of course, but that's a big enough thing that they really need to tell the players before the campaign starts.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cuttler wrote:
But DM argued that it was because we had seen 9in books, tv, directly, etc) those creatures many times in our life so we knew it right away. On the other hand, if you would see an amorphous creature for the first time of your life, it would not be obvious that is a demon, devil , abomination, etc....

Sounds like your GM doesn't understand the Knowledge skill. Making a successful check means you HAVE seen those creatures before (whether directly, in books, through stories, etc). So your example of "if you would see an amorphous creature for the first time of your life" is not true if you made the check successfully.

Just because this is the campaign's first encounter to feature that type of creature doesn't mean you've never seen it before. The PCs did not jump straight from infancy to adventuring.

Seems like your GM thinks that nobody's seen (or heard of) any monsters prior to the start of the campaign, and that a Knowledge check represents making an assessment of something you've never seen before in order to make educated guesses about its physiology.

Barring houserules, this is wrong.

The Knowledge check is simply the player finding out what the character already knows from past experience.

You don't make a Knowledge check to see what you can figure out about something you've never seen before. The Knowledge check tells you whether or not you've seen it before, and what you already learned since that time.

1 to 50 of 2,779 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.