|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Yeah, there seems to be a trend that when someone states an opinion, they believe that they know what all possible thoughts are on the topic. They've already stated their side, so anyone mentioning a different set of information must be disagreeing. And of course since I know the entirety of the reasons someone might disagree, I don't have to read all the words before I can reply to them; I already know what their position is! You can see this in most discussions on frequent topics, such as alignment, healing in combat, optimization/min-maxing, and everything else that comes up with any sort of regularity.
But that's all kind of a tangent, I suppose.
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
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.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Same here in the Twin Cities. It's not hard to say "If you cheat again, you're gone."
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.
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.
Slashing Grace not working on natural slashing attacks from a medium or lager creature? Malarky I say!
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.
@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. :/
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.
Fixed that for you.
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?!
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.)
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.