|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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!
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.
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. :)
Matthew Downie wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
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".
got any funny stories?
Slave Pits of Absalom:
Most of the party is trying to not escalate things in the bar/
GM: Um... Bad Moon Rising.
This repeats a couple more times until all the basic brawlers have left.
Later, on the ship:
"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?"
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.
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.
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.
John Compton wrote:
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?
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.
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. :/
...and remind them that the opposition will be reflected in what scores they choose.
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.
the secret fire wrote:
And how many INT>CON>DEX...PUNT Wizards have you played with in all that time? Just askin'.
The same number as I'd have seen if people's rolled stats included a highest number, a second-highest number, and so on.
My assertion is not that point-buyers never make soulless, cookie-cutter characters. My assertion is that the creation of those characters is not the result of point-buy.
I've never played a rolled-stat game. Every game I've played (whether PFS or home game) has been point-buy. (Interestingly, that means that every awesome, unique, deep, and engaging PC that I've ever played (or played alongside of) has been made with point-buy. Just sayin'.)
In the homebrew I'm currently running, PCs got the Heroic NPC stat array.
Or none of the above? I don't understand why people are having trouble with this. The blog says nothing about the Technologist feat (or the rules surrounding it) being changed. So you still don't get to make those checks. The blog just points out that it's okay for Pathfinders to infer that if you can't find an opening mechanism for the door, then maybe the thing at chest height right next to it is involved. Or that something shaped like a "normal" weapon might itself be a weapon. Or a spot with an imprint shaped like a hand might do something if you put your hand in it.
Not by making skill checks, just by thinking. There is gameplay space available between "metagaming" and "making skill checks".
I was in Trial by Machine. Even in a 7-man party, I felt like my two-hand-raging-Power-Attack and my rage-boosted 2nd-level hit points were very nearly the only reason we survived. And that's with a GM who seemed very UNinterested in PC deaths. With a sterner GM or more moderate damage output, I think we'd have all died. Possibly twice.
Bill Dunn wrote:
I'm looking for an effort to put together the major points of an attempt at diplomacy, the tactics used, and all fitting with the PC's perspective and what they could and would understand of the situation.
I've never seen anyone try to get away with less. Ever. Rather, what you describe here is the group of people who are feeling (accurately or not) pointed at when certain posters talk about people who don't care about roleplaying.
For instance, Corrik describes a situation where some players are trying to have an in-character dialogue but the player of the "face" isn't, and labels the face-player as the source of the problem. Well, a player who prefers to do it in the way that you described as being acceptable would fit the villified role in Corrik's example, so they (and others on their behalf) feel attacked.
So they explain that their own flaws shouldn't affect their characters. Then certain other posters respond with things along the lines of "Pfft, well sure, if you don't care about roleplaying," effectively painting people who do the very thing you described as perfectly acceptable as instead being only interested in smashing stuff and rolling dice.
And it just goes round and round. And then some kind of rogue eidolon shows up and gets all "clear" and "communicative". ;)
Okay, maybe I just wasn't clear before, so I'll try again more thoroughly.
So you're in this scene. So that means the game is underway, which means you started playing at some point, which means that character creation is done, which means at some point everyone (all the players and the GM) decided that the assortment of characters everyone was playing was A-okay, which means that (whether explicitly or implicitly) everyone agreed to let Player C lead the way in social situations.
That means that the situation you describe is the result of one of the following (but if there's a third option I missed, by all means, point it out):
If the situation is #1, then the group discusses the issue and finds the resolution that's best for them. If the situation is #2, then the whole group is pretty immature and A/B have no right to hold C accountable for their own failure to point out a problem that they saw coming.
Basically, either way it's time for an OOC discussion about expectations and roles; but I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where there's fault on the part of Player C.
Mark Hoover wrote:
In respect to this thread then that means explain how, or at least why, you're using a skill. Don't just wait til someone comes up to you and go "I use diplomacy. 25; what info do I get?" That's my opinion though and others' most certainly will vary.
In my experience, the oft-discussed category of lower-CHA-than-my-PC players are doing exactly as you ask: they say "I ask him about [topic]; should I roll Diplomacy?"
The "I Diplomacy him" player seems (near as I can tell) to only exist in the minds of internet dudes who want there to be only one type of player other than the method-actors so that the method-actors can feel superior.
JCAB, there's a difference between "certain players attempting to play certain characters could reduce other people's fun so let's address that" and "the only two possibilities are that you're fully able to act exactly like the character you're playing or else you just want to diplomacy people and punch faces and count loot".
The former seems to be what you're describing, while the latter is the very small world in which certain posters apparently live. The former is something that's just part of being a reasonable person (and is connected to every aspect of the game, not just the roleplaying), while the latter is very far from reasonable.
I was replying to the latter.
the secret fire wrote:
There are people who want to play a character that they themselves are not capable of representing completely, who nevertheless care a great deal about roleplaying, immersion, and the fun of the other players; and are interested in far, far more than just "diplomacy-ing people", punching faces and counting loot.
I don't understand why it is hard for you to accept that this category of people exists.
the secret fire wrote:
If you, the player, decide to "talk pretty", then you are not playing a dumb, uncharismatic brute, are you? If you decide to play an oaf and then conveniently get eloquent fishing for a bonus in social situations...eh, no. That's just schizophrenic, terrible roleplaying.
Earlier in this very thread, the secret fire wrote:
Play however you want, but I have been known to greet statements like "I use diplomacy" with -20 penalties to the roll and hand out similarly large bonuses for great roleplaying, even from otherwise socially inept characters.
So a group settles on which person is going to be the face, but then keeps butting in on that person's face activities, to the point of causing internal consistency issues, and it's somehow the face-player's fault?
Maybe the standards for adult behavior vary by region, but when I'm at a table and someone else is the face, I follow their lead rather than trying to take over or ignore what they're doing. If they talk it out, I back them up (or not, depending on what I'm playing). If they say "I use Diplomacy," then I say "I assist" (with maybe an additional "Oh, and you're gonna mention X when you talk to them, right?").
Trying to do what was already agreed to be someone else's role (and for that matter, agreeing to it in the first place if you're not planning to respect it) and then blaming the resulting issues on them is just being a grade-A jerk.
Lemmy said otherwise, I even specifically mentioned that in my post.
I may have misunderstood him (or you), then.
So, most of the dwarves I've seen?
the secret fire wrote:
Wait, so your players are only allowed to act the way they really are in real life, and you're accusing other people of getting rid of the roleplaying aspect of the game? You literally just labeled the imagining of being a different person as not roleplaying.
What specifically do you think the word "roleplaying" means?