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. 16,472 posts (17,608 including aliases). 14 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 12 Pathfinder Society characters. 14 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 16,472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
taldanrebel2187 wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
This is what take 10 and take 20 are for.

In my experience, a lot of DMs even run this wrong. You can't take 20 if failure has a consequence (i.e. Disable Device, where you may break the lock or set off the trap). I've seen some DMs even allow taking a 10 on Crafting, which RAW is also not allowed due to the potential to waste the materials.

As a totalitarian DM, I do not allow players to take a 10 when there is a consequence for failure that I deem significant, such as in Crafting. For example failure on a Disable Device may spring the trap. Failure on crafting may waste the supplies. Failure on perception might just trigger a time-lapse trap. Seems some players are used to DMs that don't know any better in Society that let them take 20 on everything, usually as a factor of laziness.

Bit of irony in the bolded part...

You're correct that you can't T20 if there's a consequence for failure.

You're incorrect that this includes breaking the lock you were trying to pick—the core rulebook even lists picking a lock with Disable Device as being a common use of T20.

You're correct that failure would spring the trap, however, precluding T20 for that use of Disable Device.

You're incorrect that the consequences of failure in crafting would prevent T10, because T10 is not T20; T10 is to be used because you want to avoid the consequences of failure. Failure's consequences do not preclude the use of T10.

Also, nice of you to accuse people of laziness for running a mechanic differently when you've got it so jumbled yourself.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wasn't saying he should gain an ability like that at 3rd level or sooner. It'd just be nice if a 20th-level fighter and a 1st-level fighter didn't have the same degree of magic dependency as each other when fighting incorporeal creatures.

A 20th-level fighter without magic is currently completely incapable of defeating a CR3 shadow. The threat of that CR3 monster hasn't changed since 1st level unless someone gave him some magic.

That is what shouldn't be happening. A high-level character should never have an absolute 100% dependency on a specific item/spell in order to have any chance of defeating a monster whose CR he's already passed.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

At the point where you're fighting enemies with access to incendiary cloud, the PCs are flying, teleporting, hopping between different planes of reality, raising the dead, and so forth. Where exactly is the conflict between that setting and the ability to pass harmlessly through a cloud of fire?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Most everything, because some of those rules elements (like the incorporeal bit) make for balancing factors for monsters. You have NO idea how fast a shadow dies if it doesn't have its incorporeal traits. You might even need to redesign those monsters assuming that your players can bypass this defense at a whim.

All it takes is a 50gp oil of magic weapon to be able to at least hurt it. Or a 25gp scroll (or a 0gp spell slot) if you have a caster to hold your hand.

Would it be so terrible to have one or two classes who, instead of relying on someone else's magic, could just do it themselves?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

The important thing, of course, is not to determine how Pathfinder rules work, but to identify a thing (however distant and irrelevant it may be) to which one can point and say "Here's something I'm right about!"

Even if it takes days to establish and isn't actually helpful to anyone trying to learn how Pathfinder works, establishing at least some level of rightness about something—anything—is an essential part of participating in any thread.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Cevah wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Because boni (hehe) don't grant additional spells per day, regardless if they are temporary or not.
I... what? I'm pretty sure that if a wizard with 18 INT puts on a +2 INT headband, he gets a bonus 1st-level spell. But hey, I could be wrong. How did you come to the conclusion that bonuses to your casting stat don't affect your spells per day? Did I miss something?
The first 24 hours, the bonus is temporary, and no bonus spells. After 24 hours the bonus is perm, and you get bonus spells.

The guy I was replying to said "regardless if they are temporary or not".

Quote:
Jiggy wrote:
Quote:
Nor do temp bonuses grant additional rages rounds per day, bard performances, etc.
What are you basing this claim on? I know rage doesn't boost rounds per day with its own CON boost, but that's because it's spelled out in the rage rules. Doesn't mean that applies to every other stat-based ability ever. Where are you getting this idea?
I think there was a faq or post to the effect that temp bonuses do not grant extra #/day stuff.

No, there's not. In fact, there's a FAQ that says the opposite.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

.
.
.
.
.
.
As a monk? I suggest this "kit":

Bandolier (UC) x2 - 1gp
Alchemist's Fire x7 - 140gp
Pants (optional) - 0gp
------------------------------
Total - 141gp

;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Teldil wrote:
The official rules say you can retry a perception check and disable device checks for as many times as you want. Do people actually allow this?

Absolutely.

Quote:

For example, lets say a character is trying to hear noise from inside a room behind a closed door. The DC to hear this noise is 20. The character tries it, and rolls a 12. If he keeps standing there rolling, he will eventually get a 20.

Let's assume the noise level remains EXACTLY the same inside that room for the entire duration.

Why should he be able to retry it over and over, if his character WAS NOT able to hear this the first time?

This very morning I heard a faint beeping coming from somewhere outside. Couldn't figure out what it was. I listened for a while, then didn't hear it anymore. I shrugged and went on with my morning. Then like a minute later, I noticed the beeping again.

Did it stop and restart? Did I lose track of it because it was so faint? I don't honestly know.

Perception: working as intended.

Quote:

Another example is traps. Assuming the PC CAN reach the target DC with a good roll, why should he be able to keep rerolling until he gets it?

Not detecting the trap the first time, as I see it, should mean his character CANNOT detect it and therefore not allow him any more tries.

What an unsuccessful search means is that he DID NOT detect it, not that he CANNOT detect it. Not only is it totally legit for someone to retry a Perception check to search for traps, but the rules actually call this out as a common use of the Take 20 mechanic, which is just basically just fast-forwarding through 20 checks and assuming he eventually "rolls" a 20.

Again, working as intended.

Quote:
If the trap's DC is reachable for him, whats the point of even rolling at all.

None, if he's got the time available. See also Take 20, as mentioned. But if he's in a hurry (impatient caster with buffs ticking down?) then maybe he just wants to make a couple of quick rolls and hope for the best.

People do better when they can take their time. Working as intended.

Quote:
He can just roll until he gets a 20, and that way, either discover the trap or verify for certain there is no trap he can identify.

Yep! :)

Quote:

Why would a player not sit there rolling for hours until he can get the highest possible roll ? Otherwise he can't be certain he didnt miss something.

Any new light on this would be appreciated :) Thanks!

Sounds like you understand the rules, and just disagree that they produce a good gaming experience. I recommend giving them an honest go for a whole campaign and seeing how they do. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

The Perception skill lists a lot of example DCs. Have a look at the chart. Rule out anything that obviously relies on sight, such as "notice a visible creature" or "find the average concealed door".

Now, take a look at what's left, and see which one see what's closest to the current situation. It sounds from your description like the only detectable stimulus would be the sound of the creature breathing. If so, then it's going to be harder than "hear the details of a whispered conversation" and probably harder than "hear the sound of a key being turned in a lock". Given those benchmarks, you're probably looking at a base DC of 20-25. Then you add your distance modifiers and so forth.

If there's some other means of detecting the creature, such as nasty body odor or if he's making noises besides breathing (maybe basketweaving?), select different benchmarks as appropriate.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Does this thread actually accomplish anything? I mean, my wife has a 3XP character, along with a character sheet for a 2nd-level aasimar, but it hasn't been played as an aasimar. To my knowledge, even if she comes in here and says HEY LOOK AASIMAR she's still out of luck unless she can actually get a game in before the deadline.

Right?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Especially if they fall over. ;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sniggevert wrote:
An ogre would have 8 squares (cubes really) that it occupies if we look at it from a 3D perspective, whereas the fighter only occupies 1 square(cube). I'm assuming it's looking at one of the top row of squares the ogre occupies (in the 5-10 ft. range), and if you choose one of the top corners of those and look to the top corners of the wizard, nothing would oppose it.
Cover wrote:
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

You choose one of your own corners, but have to draw lines to EVERY corner of the target's square. If ANY are obstructed, there's cover.

So going 3D doesn't negate the cover either.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
Yes, now go read the soft cover rules and half high walls rules on the next page, either if which can be used to say a Large Ogre that's twice your size can consider you not cover if its closer to the cover than you. Or if the cover is half your height.
Soft Cover wrote:
Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged (and therefore reach) attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.

Nothing there about getting to not consider the PC as cover, so on to...

Low Obstacles and Cover wrote:
A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.

So there's no cover as long as both of the following are true: fighter is half the ogre's height, and the ogre is closer to the fighter than the wizard is. The first is true, but not the second, so the cover is not ignored by this rule. So moving on again...

Big Creatures and Cover wrote:
Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.

Okay, so the ogre gets to pick which of his squares he uses to determine if the wizard has cover. Still nothing about ignoring cover. The only other subheading of cover that seems potentially relevant would be...

Partial Cover wrote:
If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM's discretion.

But all that does is halve the bonuses. Still nothing about ignoring the "no AoO" rule or negating cover.

So I just read all the things you asked us to read, and didn't come across anything supporting your claim that soft cover doesn't prevent AoO's. Was it somewhere else, perhaps?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

SCPRedMage wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
John Compton wrote:
That means that if you're playing a character that you intend to grandfather in as an aasimar or tiefling, it's critical to play the character as an aasimar or tiefling.

...crap. Guess I'd better get my wife's 3XP, currently-statted-out-as-her-first-aasimar-but-not-played-as-such-yet character into a game ASAP.

Quote:

What about for GMs?

...
If a GM intends to use a character made of GM credit to build an aasimar or tiefling, simply write something to the effect of "This character will be an aasimar when I play it" on the most recent Chronicle sheet that grants XP.

Okay, so at least I don't also have to worry about my own current 3XP slot.

Alright, just gotta get my wife into a game...

I don't see why that second part you quoted wouldn't apply to your wife's character; just have her write "AASIMAR!!!!!!111one" on her latest GM chronicle for the character, and she should be good, assuming it's all GM chronicles.

If it was played as something else, then she decided to rebuild but has nothing but GM chronicles since, I imagine simply documenting the rebuild on the latest GM chronicle would work, too.

Because none of hers are GM chronicles.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Dancingweasel wrote:

Magus.

Im sure its a lovely class but I find it cheesy.

Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, what do you mean when you say "cheesy"?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

John Compton wrote:
That means that if you're playing a character that you intend to grandfather in as an aasimar or tiefling, it's critical to play the character as an aasimar or tiefling.

...crap. Guess I'd better get my wife's 3XP, currently-statted-out-as-her-first-aasimar-but-not-played-as-such-yet character into a game ASAP.

Quote:

What about for GMs?

...
If a GM intends to use a character made of GM credit to build an aasimar or tiefling, simply write something to the effect of "This character will be an aasimar when I play it" on the most recent Chronicle sheet that grants XP.

Okay, so at least I don't also have to worry about my own current 3XP slot.

Alright, just gotta get my wife into a game...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Witch's Knight wrote:
Jiggy I'm curious, how does that work in your head? When something whose head is nearly as large as your entire body sticks your upper torso into its mouth and bites down, how do you survive? Is it because your skin is too tough for the teeth to properly tear into you, or because you are such a Badass that you keep fighting almost unhampered in spite of the horrific physical damage you've sustained? Because, I'll be honest, I love them both, but they could both be modeled without 400 Hit Points. However, if you already like the abstraction the way it is, then yeah, this change probably wouldn't be for you.

A combination of both: my muscles are so freakin' epic that it'll take more than that to put me down, and even if you do hurt me pretty bad, I'm getting good at pulling a Boromir.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

50ShadesofGoblin wrote:
Then DO review it after the game.

Too many GMs don't seem to do this. "Accept your GM's ruling and move on" is a much easier pill to swallow if you know that they'll have done their homework by the next game. I try to make sure I verify everything a player disagrees with me about, even something as basic as claiming that AoO's don't interrupt spellcasting. Yes, I really did look that up to verify that my having ruled against him was correct. He may never know it, but still.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
:)

Is this class one of your babies?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Kinda not the point...
Player has a crippling hexagonal hole in their build. You know of a hexagonal peg. How is suggesting getting the two to meet NOT the entire point of the thread?

I meant not the point of my specific post that you seemed to be replying to.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the biggest things here is that you need to pick your battles. The GM thinking that the 2nd-level evil cleric's bane spell doesn't grant a save is not something to spend time on. Just a quick "Don't we get Will saves on that?" is as far as it should go. If the GM says no, just go with it.

Similarly, if the "discrepancy" is something that could easily be the result of a feat, template, item, buff spell, etc; then it could be that the GM is actually right, because MWAAHAHAHAAA!!!

The only time you should spend significant time to make sure it's being done right is if it's serious, like if it's the difference between life and death, or causes your character to not function, etc.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

32 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't read the whole thread, but to my way of thinking there's one big thing that the fighter needs to be "unchained" from that's more important than anything else:

Realism.

"You can't shoot a bow that many times in 6 seconds!"
"You can't jump that far!"
"You can't just cut through a door like it's butter!"
"You can't wrestle something that big!"
"You can't cut something incorporeal without magic!"
"You can't break that world record!"

You can't, you can't, you can't, you can't, you can't... No, you can't. That's why I'm playing a fantasy game starring someone who isn't YOU.

Currently, the name of the game is "if real people can't do it, then fantasy people can't* do it either".

I want my fighter to stop the dragon's bite by grabbing him by the teeth. And then body slam him.

I want my fighter to swing his sword and bat your enervation right back at you.

I want my fighter to get save-or-die effects at the same level your wizard does. Maybe even earlier, since I'm supposed to be good at killing things.

I want my fighter to have things he can do that no magic spell can duplicate.

Unchain the fighter from "realism". Everything else will follow.

*:
Unless there's magic involved.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Unless I've misunderstood something, when you assign a higher-level pregen chronicle to a 1st-level PC, you can "scale it down" (reduce the gold to 500gp) and apply it immediately.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:
For 'under-powered' builds, how are they going about spending the gold they have accrued?

Sometimes, they simply aren't. I've overheard players mention "Yeah, I don't really have anything I want to buy, so I've got XX,000gp sitting around."

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kinda not the point...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

WAAAANNNNT.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

nosig wrote:
Are they TRYING to be a liability? (or are they just the round peg in the square scenario? are they running a Social Neg. Channeling Cleric in a scenario full of mindless undead?)

I just had a thought about this: how come I never see the flip side of this asked when talking about someone "breaking" a scenario?

To use your cleric example, if he's a negative channeler who's also great at social skills but struggles to contribute in a scenario that's all-combat against undead (and maybe constructs, too) or otherwise hinders his abilities (like a single enemy with high HP not being too scared of a negative channeler), we all just say "Oh, the scenario just wasn't a good fit for him, not his fault, everything's fine, etc etc etc".

Yet when he goes into a scenario with lots of opportunity for social success and plenty of mook-heavy fights where his negative channeling nukes the board, how do we respond?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Drogon wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Fromper wrote:
I didn't realize there was a BAB +3 prerequisite until I just looked at it. The real question is what type of PC could be effective walking around like that all the time? Non-druids can't even take Natural Spell to cast spells in that form, and you'd be too small to be effective in melee. It's a cute idea, but doesn't seem practical.
Urban Barbarian with an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists. I've seen one wreck games with that.
Now, if I could do that by being a bunny with sharp pointy teeth I might have to make this character.

Wildshape, maybe?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I guess that's what I get for just having the ARG.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

This is a rules question, as PFS does not have any special rules about how Crane Style works.

As for your question, no, you don't need a free hand to use the Crane Style feat, as long as you don't intend to deflect anything with Crane Wing.

First, feats do not require you to use the things in their prerequisites unless they say so. Claiming that the prereq of Improved Unarmed Strike requires you to be able to make an unarmed strike in order to use Crane Style is like claiming that you have to use Power Attack every time you use Cleave; i.e., it's nonsense.

Second, even if it *did* require you to be capable of making unarmed strikes, that doesn't mean you need a free hand. Unarmed strikes can include kicks (and other things).

Third, if it required you to be able to make an unarmed strike to function, then it wouldn't say that it has an effect while you're using Total Defense. Total Defense prevents you from making any attacks, so that theory would make Crane Style shut itself down when you tried to use it as intended. That's ridiculous.

Fourth, if it were reasonable to infer from the prereqs that it requires a free hand, then we wouldn't have Crane Wing wasting word count by spelling it out explicitly.

TLDR: Feats do what they say they do.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Does that really belong in this thread?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mark Seifter wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
I think I might actually make a kitsune that hangs around in fox form all the time. might be neat to do as a character duo with another character like a monk who he follows around and pretends to be his familiar.
You make it sound like "fox form" is actually a small (tiny?) four-legged fox instead of a medium anthropomorphic one. Is that what you mean? Because I don't think kitsune can actually do that.
There's a feat for that.

Seriously? What/where is it?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
I think I might actually make a kitsune that hangs around in fox form all the time. might be neat to do as a character duo with another character like a monk who he follows around and pretends to be his familiar.

You make it sound like "fox form" is actually a small (tiny?) four-legged fox instead of a medium anthropomorphic one. Is that what you mean? Because I don't think kitsune can actually do that.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

HangarFlying wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Majuba wrote:
Bacondale is correct with his examples of benefits not gained.
So when the FAQ says temp bonuses apply to "anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses", what does it mean?
Because boni (hehe) don't grant additional spells per day, regardless if they are temporary or not.

I... what? I'm pretty sure that if a wizard with 18 INT puts on a +2 INT headband, he gets a bonus 1st-level spell. But hey, I could be wrong. How did you come to the conclusion that bonuses to your casting stat don't affect your spells per day? Did I miss something?

Quote:
Nor do temp bonuses grant additional rages rounds per day, bard performances, etc.

What are you basing this claim on? I know rage doesn't boost rounds per day with its own CON boost, but that's because it's spelled out in the rage rules. Doesn't mean that applies to every other stat-based ability ever. Where are you getting this idea?

Quote:
The temp bonuses do get applied to each and every die roll

The FAQ doesn't say every roll, it says "anything related to that ability score". It also says just like permanent ability increases, and it even uses carrying capacity (which is not a roll) as an example of something that a temporary bonus to STR would affect.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Hm, I actually like the CRB's idea of hit points, where you literally get tougher and it takes more actual physical damage to put you down. I enjoy that level of badassery in my fantasy, where no, getting bitten by a dragon does NOT kill you, because you're just that damn tough. Perhaps I'm the minority here?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Majuba wrote:
Bacondale is correct with his examples of benefits not gained.

So when the FAQ says temp bonuses apply to "anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses", what does it mean?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sammy T wrote:
Usually on these boards we discuss how to handle optimized/min-maxed/OP characters and their players. I'd like to turn the discussion to approaches to helping those players with sub-optimal builds that actually make combats more difficult.

In theory, shouldn't the "approaches" be the same ones advocated for the other side of the coin? Perhaps the thing more worth examining is approximately where that line is between "merely not optimal" and "actual liability that merits intervention"? (Much like determining the line between "merely powerful" and "actual over-optimization that merits intervention".)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bacondale wrote:
Some items grant temporary ability bonuses for the first 24 hours of use. These bonuses do not grant the full effect of the ability bonus
FAQ wrote:
Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do.

LINK

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If you start with the roleplaying concept, you'll often run into characters that just don't work, no matter how much you like the idea. More so, the higher the necessary performance is.
I'd see this more as a failure of the system to support viable character design, not as a player failure.

One of my goals in my rewrite is to remedy this.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Dojen wrote:

I don't have my core rulebook handy, but I found this section in the prd. But I am not seeing a table to go along with this detailing what happens at +1, +2 - +20.

Also I may incorrectly be assuming that the prd contains everything in the core rulebook. But to be honest I barely look at my book because i can search the PRD.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html

The PRD contains everything from the CRB that isn't setting-specific (so I think the only thing left out is the list of deities, but I could be wrong).

Anyway, you might want this link.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dojen wrote:
Do monsters stop attacking them or do they finish them off? Do some creatures start eating instead?

Most creatures, even "mindless" ones, have self-preservation instincts; if something is trying to do them harm, they'll defend themselves rather than sitting down to lunch. Ever approached a dog while it was eating? It's a bad idea, because it will stop eating to fight you.

Quote:
Along the same lines, when you reduce an enemy to 0 do you need to take a turn to finish them off to keep their cohorts from bringing them back to fighting condition? Or do you assume that they are dead once they hit 0?

Well, it's not a binary choice between "attack again" and "houserule that 0=dead". Putting aside for a moment that landing at exactly 0 is somewhat rare, how an intelligent character treats such an opponent will vary by situation.

If the enemy group is seen to have a dedicated healer? Might be good to finish him. But if you have other threats to defend yourself from (remember that if the guy at 0 attacks, he drops to -1) it might not be worth the action to "finish" the guy at 0.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kazaan wrote:
These two FAQ responses seem to be at odds. The Myrmidarch FAQ states that "stacking" class abilities like Weapon Training cross class even without explicitly stating that they do so while the Fighter Bonus Feats ability posted a mere 1 month later sets the standard that your character is assumed single-classed and that class abilities do not cross the class boundary unless given explicit permission.
Myrmidarch wrote:
Armor Training (Ex): At 8th level, a myrmidarch gains armor training, as the fighter ability. At 14th level, he gains armor training 2.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice to see some acknowledgement of the "hideous can mean high CHA" idea. I once saw a post where someone said that if you've got the CHA of a troll, villagers will mistake you for one and attack you on sight. I asked him what the villagers do when you have the CHA of a snot-coated demon, but he didn't answer.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I glanced over the free PDF a bit, and I was very intrigued by a couple of things.

One is the way there's saves tied to every ability score instead of just three. I'm shamelessly stealing this for future homebrew stuff.

The other is the "proficiency" mechanic. There's a bonus (which scales very slowly with level) that is applied to anything you're "proficient" in: certain skills, certain saves, certain weapons, certain tools*, and your save DCs. This will be influencing future homebrew one way or another as well.

*I also like that certain skills have been replaced by the concept of being proficient with certain tools that you would have to use for that skill anyway. For instance, instead of having Disable Device as a skill, since it always involves thieves' tools, you'd just be proficient in thieves' tools and get that proficiency bonus to anything you use those tools for. I like it!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Lormyr wrote:
Jason Hanlon wrote:
Question to all: How have you built strong characters who could hold their own, without having them dominate encounters?

Pretty much all of my PFS characters are an 8 or 9 on a 1-10 scale in terms of optimized for the role I built them for (I prefer a bit more versatility to full power for PFS). But that has very little to do with dominating encounters or not. Player restraint is a much more potent factor.

My builds will always be optimized within the parameters of their class and specific role. But what I chose to do with those builds can and will vary from table to table based on the needs of my peers. I have no problem playing slightly to severely inefficiently if it means the other players PCs will get more spotlight time and have more fun.

I'd be careful with this method. If it's obvious that Player A could be soloing the encounter, and it's only because he's graciously stepping aside that the other players are allowed to participate, that has the potential to come across as really condescending. I'd guess presentation is a huge factor here.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I'm working on a massive set of houserules (to the point of really being more like a new game), and right now I'm looking at the concept of being denied your DEX bonus to AC.

I like the idea of having a mechanic that represents the ability to catch your opponent unawares (or in a position where their defense is compromised, such as while climbing). However, I'm not sure I like it being a denial of DEX to AC.

This is in part because of how it affects characters differently based on DEX score. Someone with 10-11 DEX is identically easy/hard to hit regardless of whether they saw you coming or not? Really?

Additionally, my new system involves a scaling defense based on your combat ability. Thematically, that would have to go away if DEX went away, which would be HUGE, but if I didn't do that it'd be kind of a weird thematic disconnect.

What I'm thinking of instead is having a "condition" of sorts (maybe called "off-guard" or something) where the attacker gets a flat bonus (maybe +2?) against you if you're "off-guard" against their attack.

Any thoughts? Thanks!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nefreet wrote:
Nobody checked the FAQ?

To be fair, no one would realize that particular FAQ was relevant unless they were already reading it down to the end.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
heliodorus04 wrote:
I stand by my descriptives and note, to the audience in general, your apparent need to silence me without instead defending your play style.

Wait, my playstyle? When did my playstyle get mentioned? Because what we were talking about...

Earlier, you wrote:
min-maxers are looking for something that non-min-maxers detest 'competitive playing'; the idea is how much better can I do this than anyone thinks it can even be done

...was (1) not a playstyle, but rather an assumption of the motives behind a playstyle, and (2) not descriptive of me in the least.

Which is of course why I didn't "defend" it. I don't defend things that I don't actually do, especially not because some guy on the internet made up a motive for the folks who do.

It would be like if I came out of nowhere to say that non-min-maxers are just looking to cover up their below-average math and critical thinking skills. Can you imagine if I responded to you requesting that I not make comments like that by saying "I stand by my descriptives and note, to the audience in general, your apparent need to silence me without instead defending your play style"?

Because that's where you're at right now. You're the guy who ascribes undesirable (and completely fabricated) motives to others, then responds to being called out on it by implying guilt ("without defending") and playing the martyr ("oh, they want to silence me!"), all while believing yourself to have an "audience" to whom you seem to think you're displaying something.

Play the game however you want, but your "anyone who plays this other way must be doing it because of X" crap to yourself.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
heliodorus04 wrote:
min-maxers are looking for something that non-min-maxers detest 'competitive playing'; the idea is how much better can I do this than anyone thinks it can even be done.

After reading this statement, I'd like to request that you stop talking like you have any idea what "min-maxers" are looking for.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For reference:

John Compton wrote:
From there, we drew up a fair window to allow players to lock in another native outsider or three and resolved to require only 1 XP on those characters--the aim being that most participants would have the opportunity to create and play at least one new character in that time.

(Link to full post)

Now, let's zoom in a little, adding some bolding:

John Compton wrote:
From there, we drew up a fair window to allow players to lock in another native outsider or three and resolved to require only 1 XP on those characters--the aim being that most participants would have the opportunity to create and play at least one new character in that time.

I think it's safe to say that it's fully within the intent for players to intentionally "bank" more than one soon-to-be-restricted PC. Somewhere there's a blurry upper limit, but I think it's very reasonable to say that "bank more than one on purpose" is definitely within the spirit of the grandfathering rules.

1 to 50 of 16,472 << 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.