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. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 17,000 posts (18,421 including aliases). 16 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 12 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,640 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Why does it seem soo many players/GMs are unable/unwilling to just talk, face-to-face, to the person in question, express their feelings, and get feedback that will proceed to a resolution, or at least an understanding?

Here's some possible reasons:

1. They like the person, and feel like a confrontation would be taken as an attack, so they want to solicit third-party opinions instead.

2. They only see the person once or twice a month at games that are a half-hour drive away and don't have time at events to talk to them, so they go to the more conveniently-approachable internet.

3. For some people, posting a thread about their experiences is truly the equivalent of showing up at Cheers their favorite hangout and talking to friends about their day, like any normal person would.

4. Maybe they're not willing to assume they're right (a virtue all too rare and vastly underappreciated among roleplayers) and want to crowdsource an answer so they don't have to bother the person unless they can be sure it really was an error.

5. In the case of rules disagreements, usually the other party has already stated they believe X to be the case when the topic came up in gameplay, so they need help finding relevant rules/FAQs before approaching them again. What would be the point in trying to have a conversation about it before being able to bring in new information, since the other party is already convinced of their own position?

6. Sometimes, the guy who just did X to you doesn't seem like the most approachable person in the world, you know? They could go to a VO instead, but (a) that might feel like "tattling", (b) they might not KNOW there's someone else to go to, or (c) the person in question is the local VO.

7. Maybe the person is just shy and doesn't like confronting people directly.

8. Have you SEEN how some people react to being corrected, or even just questioned? I kid you not, sometimes I've clicked "reply" on someone's posted question, copy-pasted the relevant rule, and clicked "submit" without typing any words of my own at all; and then been criticized for making personal attacks. This has happened multiple times, all from different posters. I have told someone they got a piece of information wrong and then been publicly chastised, telling me I have no right to tell someone they're wrong. The list goes on. The thought of how the other party (especially entrenched veterans) might react to being approached can be quite a deterrent.

9. Sometimes they're new, and the messageboards are the first venue they found to try and reach out.

10. Maybe they have a rant that's not directed at one person but there was a recent "final straw" and they've just got to get it out in a (relatively) safe space.

---------------------------------------------

That's all just off the top of my head. There's a lot of legitimate (or at least understandable) reasons why someone would react to a situation in some way other than a face-to-face.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Make a Will save."

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
David Haller wrote:
Cheating needs to be shameful. It really needs to be harshly punished, but the nature of PFS makes that challenging (it's hard to really ban someone from play, for example).
No, it is actually quite easy. We've banned people here in Phoenix before.

Same here in the Twin Cities. It's not hard to say "If you cheat again, you're gone."

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh. I just read a post in which a GM declares he hates cheating so much that if he thinks a player is cheating he'll just cheat right back by modifying/lying about the scenario. What an... interesting perspective.

How about instead of that, we first differentiate between having foreknowledge and abusing foreknowledge, and recognize that only the latter is actually cheating. ("No, the cleric has no wands on him - why do you ask?" Because we've been looting the bodies for decades, that's why.) Then, how about when actual cheating genuinely occurs, we acknowledge that calling someone out for their cheating is the adult thing to do while engaging in retaliatory cheating is what kindergarteners do. (And make no mistake, altering the scenario didn't stop being a form of cheating just because "he started it!".)

Cheating is definitely shameful and needs to be handled decisively. But let's be honest about exactly what is and is not cheating, and be better than the cheater in our response.

EDIT: It's also interesting to me that every time a thread comes up about a GM whom a player thinks might have gotten something wrong and the word "cheat" gets mentioned even once, throngs of people jump in with "Whoa whoa whoa, let's not throw around the 'c-word' so lightly!", but when the accused isn't the GM, "cheating" can be the entire focus of the conversation (and even be in the title) and no one bats an eye or cautions anyone against using such a strong word.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
René P wrote:
Player admits to reading the scenario before sitting down to play it. Cool or not cool?
It is cheating. A shameful display.

Oops, I've played scenarios that I'd already GM'd. I guess I'm a shameful cheater.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Guides are guides. Despite what certain folks who don't use them would like others to believe, guides are not proclamations of the only viable way to play a given class. Guides rank the various options so that the reader can make an informed choice; they don't say "here's what you take at each level" and leave out the rest.

This notion that Guides somehow condemn any sort of deviation from a theoretical perfect build is something fabricated by those whose own sense of worth requires that "the other" to which they feel superior be as different from themselves as possible, even if it requires falsification of what "the other" is actually like.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Dafydd wrote:
Please don't say that a light weapon is not a one handed weapon. That argument is just idiotic imho, as it implies that light weapons require NO hands.

No, it implies you've read the Core Rulebook at some point:

Core Rulebook, Equipment chapter wrote:
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.

Please don't call people idiots, especially the people who actually did the homework.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@John Lance - I love the idea of versatile heroes instead of hyperspecialized ones. My favorite character I've ever played was a versatile and heroic melee cleric. Unfortunately, it took a ridiculous amount of work (and number of books) to make it happen. Every feat, spell, purchase, class decision, and so forth had to be soooo carefully chosen that it was ridiculous. I dreaded the thought of someone eventually auditing my PC, because I knew it would take forever. And that was just to come up with somebody who could be relevant in multiple areas but never the best at anything.

Basically, I have to fight the game - and use a lot of system mastery - to do an effective generalist. Which saddens me, and is part of why I decided to just go ahead and write my own new system. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
A straight-up autistic Wizard would actually be a pretty good character concept...it would at least be an honest treatment of what walking around with a bloated INT and a 7 WIS and CHA really means.

Keep in mind that, at least in Pathfinder, a 7 in a stat is not some kind of disability.

The stat spread, before race, for all those billions of NPCs in the world is 13/12/11/10/9/8. That means that any time the 9 or the 8 lands on a race's penalized stat (such as a dwarf's CHA or a nagaji's INT or whatever), which is going to be one third of the entire population of that race, they're going to have a final stat of 7 or less.

So unless you're prepared to assert that one third of the entire dwarven race has a social handicap on the level of autism, then (at least as far as Pathfinder is concerned) you're wrong. Which in turn also means that calling non-handicapped representations of a 7 in a stat is wrong as well.

Maybe you assign different meanings to the stats in your own games, but you don't get to hold anyone else to that.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
CrimsonVixen wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:

So the last session of my home game took a new spin on the succubus in a grapple. Our wizard decided to telekenetic charge one of the NPCs into the flying succubus to drag her down to the ground so we could all get a piece of her.

It didn't work and I think he should have just tried to impale on his ranseur instead.

And here is an example of why Sorcerers are better than Wizards. Telekinetic Charge is a 4th level spell, Unnatural Lust is a 2nd level spell. I would be surprised if a 7th level Sorceress couldn't match Charisma with a Succubus in an encounter. Why move towards the Succubus when you can make her come to you? And once you're grappling with her, that's when the Rogue sneak-attacks her in the back from behind.

Fixed that for you.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
The thing is if it is an ABILITY check, or another kind of check

Why does the circlet of persuasion care about whether it's an ability check or not? The item description certainly doesn't say anything like that.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the record, two different developers have commented that the circlet is fully intended to work on more than just skill checks and ability checks, including concentration checks for CHA-based casters.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish I was able to read someone's thoughts and understand their meaning without having to Google every string of 2-3 words to see if it was secretly the name of a vaguely-related topic rather than actually meaning what the words themselves are.

:(

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fourshadow wrote:
In Dungeons of Golarion, there is a vault with 3 black widow spiders. My sons tripped the release of all three, but surprised me with the idea to step back through the door. As a result, they could took care of these spiders one at a time instead of a full assault. I was pretty impressed as we had only a few playing sessions at this time.

Why does it seem like new players always have the best ideas? Veterans never seem to try interesting or clever things. Heck, I can even see a decrease in clever ideas in my own history of transitioning from "new player" to "veteran"! What happened to me?!

:(

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the one hand, magical equipment is a built-in part of character progression, every bit as much as levels and feats and class features. On the other hand, just like with feats or spells, there's a little wiggle room for less-than-perfect choices. (And really, the sharper of a player you are, the more wiggle room you get.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheBobJones wrote:
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how Arcane Mark works. How does that give me an extra attack?

It's a touch spell. The rules for touch spells say that on the turn you cast it, you can deliver it with a touch attack as a free action. Spellstrike (once you get it) says that any time you're able to deliver a touch spell with a touch attack, you can deliver it through a sword attack instead.

So once you have Spellstrike, any time you cast a touch spell you can deliver that spell with your sword.

Now, combine that with Spell Combat, where you get your normal attack plus a spell. Have that spell be a touch spell, and the Core Rulebook says you get to make a touch attack, and Spellstrike replaces it with a sword attack.

So any time you use Spell Combat to attack and cast a touch spell, the touch spell can be channeled through your weapon for another attack. That's not actually unique to arcane mark; you can do this any time you use a touch spell with Spell Combat/Spellstrike. The only special thing about arcane mark is that it's a cantrip, so you're not losing resources when you do it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, you're playing an INT-based class and saying you don't have enough skills? You're playing a magus, and you're not satisfied with damage?

I suggest a little patience. Play through your sessions at 3rd level, enjoying that Dervish Dance you're planning. Also, consider the spell frostbite. At 3rd level, that lets three of your attacks deal an extra 1d6+3 damage, and it keeps scaling up with your level. With Dervish Dance, that means at 3rd you can deal 2d6+7 per hit, three times per spell slot. Then at 4th it's 2d6+8, four times per spell. And so forth.

As for skills, keep in mind that you'll be boosting INT, gaining some more skill points. Also, what are you doing with your FCBs? If you're putting them into HP, consider taking Toughness and then spending FCBs on extra skill points.

Oh, and by the way, what race are you? I'm looking at your stats and having trouble figuring out how that's a 20pt buy...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even if your GM wanted to be a stickler that you still had to cast a spell as part of Spell Combat (which is perhaps silly, but not disprovable as far as I'm aware), I would point out that there is nothing in Spell Combat that indicates that the spell to be cast has to be chosen at any time prior to casting it. So if your GM says that since you're using Spell Combat you have to cast a spell, you can just cast light or ray of frost or something.

EDIT: And even if you DID have to cast the shocking grasp that you originally told him, not having someone to attack would NOT make the spell "fizzle", because it's a touch spell, and you can hold that charge indefinitely, so next turn you could walk up and poke somebody else.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What might get you the most bang for your buck as far as your play experience with an illusionist would be this:

Don't ask them what it means to interact. Instead, ask them for the difference between "encountering" an illusion and "interacting" with it. Don't speak the word "interact" except in a sentence that also references "encountering".

I think a lot of the issues with illusions is that people get hung up on "interact" and try to define that term in isolation, instead of in the proper context of being something that's more than encountering but less than proof. If you can get the GM thinking of interaction as something with an inherent relationship to encountering instead of being something that exists on its own, you're much more likely to get a reasonable ruling.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Do you chaps use gank?

More often than I use "chaps".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Usually, the best place to look for an answer about how something works is in the rules about the thing in question. So since you have a question about how the handy haversack works, let's look at the handy haversack:

Handy haversack wrote:
Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action

And there you have it, right where one would expect it to be. Happy gaming!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
I'm not sure that they do stack. Both say they stack with any other bonuses to speed, but both of them are "Fast Movement (Ex)". Doesn't that make them the same bonus?

I don't think we can assume that two different class features are automatically the same just because of the name. The monk, rogue, and ranger all have a class feature called "Evasion", but they're different: the ranger's works in light or medium armor, while the rogue and monk only get to use it in light or no armor. Similarly, how many classes have a class feature called "Ki Pool" that all work differently?

This shows that class features can't be assumed by default to be self-existent things independent of source, so in turn we can't assume that the barbarian's and bloodrager's Fast Movement are the same ability. We would need something saying so, which we don't have.

The closest we have is the thing about parent classes, which says they don't stack unless specified. Both abilities specify that they stack with everything.

So, it looks to me like they stack.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dot.

EDIT: Hrm... I like it, but I was already working on a similar project of my own, so that's a little frustrating. :( But looking over some of the blog posts, it does look like we went in different enough directions on some things that mine's still worth doing, so there's that. Best of luck, Sean! It looks pretty good so far, and I'll probably end up playing it at some point. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Because really, winning the fight means that your "how long it takes me to kill you" score was better/shorter than the opponents'. Whether that's by shortening your own or lengthening theirs, it's still crossing the equilibrium threshold that matters.
Not always - maybe you're trying to defeat an enemy before they can kill one of your friends. In that case, having a high AC won't help you.

And that specific case is about as relevant to the topic as is the specific case of when all you need to do is not-die until the ritual finishes (or whatever). Metrics remain useful even when you can contrive exceptions to the overwhelming majority of situations.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if something could be put together for the defensive value of increasing your opponents' number of rounds/attacks that it takes them to kill you. That is, figure the monster's value on the metric proposed in the OP, and then measure a PC's ability to make the monster's score worse.

Because really, winning the fight means that your "how long it takes me to kill you" score was better/shorter than the opponents'. Whether that's by shortening your own or lengthening theirs, it's still crossing the equilibrium threshold that matters.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Reposting, since my edit got pretty buried.

I wrote:

For instance, in my current story idea, I've got five female named characters (and five named male characters). One of them is a part of a purely platonic mercenary duo with a guy, so she "fails" the test. One is an Ahab-like character determined to take down the main (male) villain, and it later turns out they used to be in a relationship, so she "fails" pretty hard. One is the main character, and it's a romance, so I'm expecting her to "fail"—or at least come very close. The story should ultimately "pass" with the last two, a couple forest women who try and help out the heroes.

That said, the mercenary and the MC are intended to be quite independent and willful—arguably moreso than the forest women, in fact, who are extremely dependent on each other. I resent the implication that any female character who doesn't have the Conversation is somehow less independent or well-rounded than a female character who does.

That's not the test. Whether they're in relationships (platonic or otherwise) is irrelevant.

Do two of the named female characters talk to each other about something other than a guy.
That's all. They can talk about anything they want. It can even be stereotypical female stuff. As long as it's not about a guy. If they chat about battle tactics or about the other female characters or complement each other's lipstick, it doesn't matter. It passes.

He didn't say they were passing or failing based on those relationships, he was using those relationships to predict whether they might pass or fail. The one who is constantly in a working relationship with a man is likely to have most of her (visible to the audience) conversations either with or about that man. The one who's chasing a man is likely to have most of her conversations about that man. And so forth.

Probably. It was a speculative prediction about an as-yet unwritten story.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
There are examples of cases on that side. Is there a single example you can name of a white guy even claiming he was mugged going to jail for a hate crime?

If your response to challenge the provability of that one specific off-the-cuff example, then you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I quite like the Bechdel Test (though my remark about its source still stands—the original comic was pretty hostile towards movies that don't "pass"). It's something I check for regularly in my stories. Sometimes I pass, sometimes I don't. 's all good.

I was about to ponder aloud the likelihood of Pathfinder campaigns passing the Bechdel test, but then it occurred to me that it would depend almost entirely on the PCs, since you never really see a scene without them. Hrm.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Many of my interactions with people who have a problem with "social justice" end up complaining about "censorship" and "reverse racism" and feminism ruining discussions. So, they clearly believe privilege exists, they just think that women, minorities, people with disabilities etc. have too much of it, and white, heterosexual males have too little.

To be completely fair, I have long felt that (as a white guy myself), if I were successfully to defend myself against a mugger, having that mugger be black (or some other minority) would make me worry that I'd go to jail for a hate crime. It's just that over time I've come to decide that those sorts of injustices against majority groups are less of a priority than the injustices against minority groups.

That means that the kinds of people talked about in the above quotation could easily be people who have legitimate concerns but just suffer from a lack of perspective. Educating them should be about granting that perspective.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
meatrace wrote:
None of the iconics' sexualities has come into play in any published adventure, as far as I know, nor should it. It's a game about killing monsters and taking their s&~@.

That's what the game is about for some.

Not so much for others.

Not by way of disagreeing, but I'd say that the amount of ink dedicated to those topics in Pathfinder is considerably more than other RPGs which are widely available. It follows that that is the content that most people are interested in.

Derail:
Just to offer a different viewpoint here, ever since I joined the hobby I had always figured that the amount of rules text devoted to any given topic was proportional to how much that topic needed rules. Nobody needs a multi-layer rules system to determine what the next sentence of a conversation can legally be, or to resolve whether being bisexual is too much of an advantage over single-sex orientations without spending some character resources on it, and so forth. But determining who's stronger, who saw the ambush coming, or whether it's fair that you're good at shooting fire and stabbing; that all needs rules, because even very mature people need something to go by other than simply declaring "I block his sword!" and expecting it to work.

Thus, it's my belief that the difference in word count has more to do with what things need more/fewer rules than with what the game is built to focus on during actual gameplay. Not saying there's anything wrong with some folks wanting to just kill monsters and get loot, but I don't think you can infer that intent just from "amount of rules".

Silver Crusade **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
got any funny stories?

Slave Pits of Absalom:

Most of the party is trying to not escalate things in the bar/crackhouse grit den and just get our guy out. The sorceress' player asks the GM: What's the name of the place next door?

GM: Um... Bad Moon Rising.
Sorceress: I cast ghost sound to make a voice come from just outside the door, shouting "Free grit at the Bad Moon Rising next door! Free grit!"
GM: *rolls a bunch of Sense Motive* Two of the patrons leave.

This repeats a couple more times until all the basic brawlers have left.

Later, on the ship:
I spend multiple rounds looking for the Lady while the party is fighting two sailors and a gnoll. My wife's archer (who doesn't have Rapid Shot yet) takes a shot, crits the gnoll. Next round, she takes another shot, gets another crit, killing him.

"You know, because he had two eyes."

So we keep looking for the Lady (and I've done almost nothing else). I open a door, and find another gnoll, with an axe raised in a ready position.

"Oh, hi! Have you seen Lady Salhar around somewhere? I'm trying to find—"

The gnoll's readied attack crits me (handaxe is x3), taking me from full HP to 1 HP. I then mime pulling an axe out of my chest, and continue:

"Yeah but seriously, have you seen her?"

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Always good to have a plot hook in your back pocket.

Any kind of hook in your back pocket is a bad idea.

Cheliax

4 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Morgen wrote:
Yes, there needs to provide some justification for the stance

Okay, here you go:

There are many magic items which straight-up let you cast a spell. For example, the cloak of arachnida says, "Once per day, the wearer of this cloak can cast web." Several other items use the same language: the user/wearer/item can cast [spellname]. Scabbard of keen edges, strand of prayer beads, ring of friend shield, ring of telekinesis, etc.

Meanwhile, the ring of invisibility instead says, "the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell." The hat of disguise similarly says, "...allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell." There are plenty of other items which use wording like this as well.

So I ask you, what is the functional difference between those items that refer to actually casting the spell and those which reference a spell to describe the effects of using the item? I believe that in attempting to answer that question, you will see why the issue is not as clear as you think.

I don't see any real difference here. if it says AS the spell, it means it operates AS the spell. The items have spell effects and caster levels built in. Ipso Quacko Dotto.

If you don't see any real difference, then you need to brush up on sentence structure. (Though really, who doesn't?) The phrase "as with a disguise self spell" is defining "alter her appearance". That means that the parameters of the spell are only relevant insofar as they pertain to the manner in which the appearance is altered, not to a broader event such as the activation of the item or how long it lasts.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Morgen wrote:
Yes, there needs to provide some justification for the stance

Okay, here you go:

There are many magic items which straight-up let you cast a spell. For example, the cloak of arachnida says, "Once per day, the wearer of this cloak can cast web." Several other items use the same language: the user/wearer/item can cast [spellname]. Scabbard of keen edges, strand of prayer beads, ring of friend shield, ring of telekinesis, etc.

Meanwhile, the ring of invisibility instead says, "the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell." The hat of disguise similarly says, "...allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell." There are plenty of other items which use wording like this as well.

So I ask you, what is the functional difference between those items that refer to actually casting the spell and those which reference a spell to describe the effects of using the item? I believe that in attempting to answer that question, you will see why the issue is not as clear as you think.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WiseWolfOfYoitsu wrote:
Jiggy, you did catch that we're talking about a 1 level dip?

>.>

<.<

Possibly not...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greg Hurst wrote:
Well hopefully this doesn't come up anytime soon, but using the "dead condition" example I'd probably rule the cleric would effectively die of the same mechanic as the other team member. (negative HP, 0 CON, etc..)

If you're going to have the HP damage be part of what the cleric takes on, make sure it's also part of what the target is relieved of. Otherwise, it makes using a class ability into a bad thing, which is usually a red flag that something's gone wrong on the interpreting.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*reads thread title*

Do you mean "wewewease"?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Am I the only one whose reaction to such an item is to figure how to make a delayed-effect version and then "spike" the drinks at wild parties?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Eltacolibre wrote:
Negative levels remove spellcasting slots tho, the highest levels.

You sure about that? ;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if future BBEG demons or other high-CHA outsiders will start taking this feat...

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
I just walked into a room of PFS and asked 'Hey, do you need another GM?'

I walked into a room of PFS and was told "Hey, we need another GM." ;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Sweet! Then maybe I'll take the bloodrager I played in Pits into it. Thanks John!

Of course the decent person I was talking about is my bloodrager. Why's everyone looking at me like that?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Will Slave Ships be any less "murderhobo or lose" than Slave Pits was?

That was a rather violent adventure, and #6–05 has numerous non-violent elements to it. So…yes?

Not so much the violence, but rather...

Slave Pits spoilers:

1) Part of your chronicle gold is contingent upon robbing a business just because you're there.
2) The only person who can point you to the ship you need is inexplicably locked inside his shop during normal business hours, making it "break-and-enter or the scenario's over", and then if you do something other than run from the guards like proper criminals, your character is imprisoned (reported dead).

So what I'm saying is, can I play a PC who is actually a decent person, and still be able to complete the scenario/get full gold/keep my character?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
As long as the GM rules the same way for harpies' songs as he does for hold person, I'd be cool with either interpretation.
Not the same thing. "You come to me" is mental control. Shutting down someone's connection between their brain and their nervous system is not.

That's not what hold person does. If it did, you'd collapse. Instead, it's a mind-affecting effect that compels you to hold still.

So just like Captivating Song is a mental influence that continually compels you to walk, hold person is a mental influence that continually compels you to freeze. They most definitely fall on the same side of the PfE divide, whichever side that might be.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
I've seen the same movie, with my girlfriend, and we both though it was a provocative film about someone in a tight spot and some of the things your mind does to cope with it.

I saw it with my wife and I thought it was Cast Away in space but a lot less interesting. I could try to examine agenda-pushing, but I'm too distracted by how they temporarily changed how space works just long enough to kill the chatty dude. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
...and remind them that the opposition will be reflected in what scores they choose.

Derail:
I'm seriously considering no longer putting in the work to create full statblocks for enemies in my homebrew, instead just assigning AC, attack bonus, etc at numbers that will highlight the various party members' strengths and weaknesses regardless of whether a "real" statblock could produce those numbers.
Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Smartphone my ass.

Fun hobby: reading statements like this as though the word before "my ass" were a verb.

1 to 50 of 2,640 << 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.