|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I would love to know if the author thought that should include moving through solid walls.
No you wouldn't. You're just making a sarcastic attack against anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Originally, I wasn't sure whether your comments/questions about the spell were petty jabs or genuine seeking of understanding, so I asked. You said you were being genuine, but since you're saying things like the above, it's now clear that you've already made up your mind and your only goal in discussing it further is to try to hurt people until they either go away or submit to your beliefs.
I guess, on the bright side, I don't need to spend any more time trying to come up with new ways to explain.
Your interpretation of the spell removes normal restrictions that are not specifically removed...
No, it doesn't. I'm saying you need to make a common-sense reading of "move up to 30 feet in any direction". It doesn't say "move up to your speed" or "move up to 30 feet", which would carry ALL restrictions of whatever movement form it was referring to. It adds extra word-count to specify the extra condition of "in any direction" above and beyond what it would have meant if it had only said "move up to 30 feet". It could have just said "move up to 30 feet", but it spent extra words to specify "in any direction". Why, trollbill? What were they trying to communicate that they couldn't if they'd left out that phrase?
Alex McGuire wrote:
Which is why it's important for prep casters to know the rules for leaving open slots; even if you start at 3am, there's usually at least some point early on that you can spare a measley 15 minutes to fill the rest of your slots.
Just like other specific rules that trump general rules, it trumps the part of the normal movement rules that it specifically contradicts: the part that restricts you to only certain directions. Other movement effects (like, say, Suprising Charge) say things like "you can move" without specifying direction, leaving you to only be able to move in directions you could normally move (and since you're walking, that means "where there's ground"). But since it says "in any direction", specific trumps general for the aspect of the spell that's written specifically. It doesn't have to trump either all or none of the normal movement rules; it trumps the part(s) it contradicts.
I have to say I'm intrigued by the replay teaser, and my head is swirling with speculation. Could it be that you can replay low-tier things, but without access to items/boons so that you can't use replays to "farm"? Hmm...
I'm also slightly nervous about the faction thing, as I've been greatly enjoying their reduced presence of late. But you guys have a pretty stellar track record (in my opinion), so I'm gonna trust you on this. :)
I'm sure I could dig up the link in my archives if you really need me to, but it's been confirmed in the past that the bard's ability really does mean "even while threatened" rather than meaning "most characters can never T10 on Knowledge but we thought it'd be funny not to mention it in the skill description".
I've been following this thread off-and-on, with a particular interest in the things people try to accomplish/avoid by going "low-magic". I'd like to summarize what I'm gleaning so far, and hopefully folks can comment or fill in gaps for me:
• Why the frick would [settlement of size X] have [magic item of power Y] for sale?
If I'm following right, it seems like most of the goals of "low-magic" center around magic items and their screwy impacts on the setting, whereas issues with actual spells (at least in the context of why to go low-magic) is mostly restricted to the issue of being able to carry scrolls of mind-bogglingly specific anti-obstacle spells.
Does that more or less sum it up?
I know GMs that don't allow a take 10 on climbing because there exists a chance of falling.
"The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4."
There are also the ones don't allow taking 10 with the spellcraft check made while crafting items because there is a consequence to failure there as well.
Thing is, I have been asked for such a list.
Point at the Skills chapter, and ask them to elaborate on why that's not enough. Get them to give you their reasoning.
I have been straight up told I didn't know the rules, or that I was trying to cheat, when using Take 10 with some skills.
If a GM claims during a game that you're wrong about the T10 rules, and the situation is not serious, just go with it (so as to keep the game going) and bring it up during a break or after the game. Have the book already open to the correct page when you do so. If they respond like an adult, great! If they don't respond like an adult, report their behavior (not their wrongness about a rule, their behavior) to a Venture Officer (or if it's a Venture Officer, tell Mike Brock).
If a GM just straight-up calls you a cheater just for responding to the call for a skill check with an announcement of your T10 result, leave the table and report them to a VO (or again, if it IS a VO, to Mike Brock).
GMs are allowed to be wrong about the rules, but they're not allowed to be jerks. And refusing to look at a book presented conveniently to them outside of a time crunch, as well as calling someone a cheater without checking the rules first, both qualify as being a jerk.
In my experience, male and female players/GMs have been roughly equivalent in their ranges of "system comprehension" (to use your term), with the only difference being women's ability to recognize their incomplete expertise as compared to men's tendency to vastly overestimate their own rules-fu.
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.
@VampByDay: Remember, most advice on the messageboards is from strangers who don't know all the details, houserules, idiosyncrasies, and so forth of the recipient's games. That is, I can't tell you what would be a great choice for your character in the full context of a home game I'm not a part of; I can only give you advice based on "default" Pathfinder, based on what's in the books.
And what's in the books assumes you're going to have all those +X items; monsters' attack bonuses and hit points and save DCs and so forth factor that into the math. (And they kind of have to; if the math assumed you didn't have those, then if a PC gathered them all up, they'd be seriously hard to threaten without obliterating the rest of the party.)
This issue that you've encountered (that by default the game pushes players to take the same +X items over more "interesting" options) is one of the big issues with the Pathfinder system. Such a big issue, in fact, that if you search the boards you'll find all kinds of houserules or other suggestions to get rid of it: careful cherry-picking of monsters, tweaking monster stats, making the "+X" bonus a side-effect on other items so you can have both, or even getting rid of those items entirely and handing out their bonuses as level-based effects. Heck, I'm writing a whole new d20 system that completely removes gear's role in character progression. Find the solution that suits your table. :)
See also: Treadmill, Christmas Tree Effect, Fate Worse Than Death
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.
I think part of the issue is that a GM has far more opportunitiy to do something that may be inadvertently perceived as cheating.
You think that's part of the issue of whether the discussion can include the word "cheat" or needs to use a softer synonym? I don't understand why a difference in likelihood of one party or the other cheating would have any bearing on the appropriate terminology for describing that theoretical possibility.
Or perhaps you misunderstood what I was talking about in the same way Seth did, thinking I was referring to a difference in willingness to declare a verdict on someone's action, when in reality I was referring to the difference in allowed vocabulary.
First, this is a Pathfinder rules question, not an organized play question, so I've flagged it for moving.
As for the question of where to keep your thrown weapons so you can "draw" them instead of digging them out of your backpack, I'm curious: do you ask the same question about swords or other melee weapons? Or do you assume it comes with whatever sort of scabbard or other basic contraption it would need in order to perform the function it was designed for?
Being able to "draw" your weapon is the default assumption. It's what you're able to do until you put yourself into an unusual predicament; it's not something you have to work to achieve.
Until you're trying to fit a yard sale's worth of weapons on your body or trying to keep them hidden from view, you can assume that all your weapons can be "drawn".
Yeah, but isn't it kind of weird to think that a GM would be scared off by being talked about in the same manner they were already being talked about back when they were still just a player? Are we assuming that GMs somehow become more sensitive when they start GMing than they were before? Or maybe we'd have more good GMs if players' feelings were more considered; perhaps they'd feel more secure transitioning to the role of GM if they were already being given some grace when they were just another face in the crowd. If you're just a participant, and nobody blinks when someone says you might have been cheating, perhaps that makes the idea of getting more invested seem unappealing and directly contributes to that smaller percentage you mentioned?
I dunno, that's all just speculation. There's any number of things that could be extrapolated from the difference in how we handle our GMs/players; I was originally just observing that the difference exists.
I think you missed what I was talking about. Regardless of whether the person under scrutiny is a GM or a player, this community actually does a pretty consistent job (overall) of sussing out whether there might be a legitimate reason for the action in question. (Hooray! Everyone give yourselves a pat on the back!)
What I was talking about is how those discussions are executed. If the word "cheat" is never mentioned, both discussions pan out about the same. But if the word "cheat" is used and the subject is a GM, a whole chorus of people chime in with "Now there's no need to use such a strong word, it only fosters bad feelings and division within in the community and makes the person feel attacked and let's not demonize this person and..." Heck, even if the eventual conclusion of the discussion *IS* that the GM cheated (however rare that may be), folks will still get chastised if that's the word they use to say it. But drop the "c-word" when a player is being looked at, and nobody even blinks; the discussion just continues on as normal. Is the word somehow less likely to foster bad feelings or cause divisions in the community when directed at a player rather than a GM? Are players somehow less likely than GMs to feel attacked or demonized when their suspicious behavior is described (even tentatively) with the word "cheat"?
That is what I was talking about; not who cheats more or who gets accused more or anything like that, but rather who we're supposed to talk plainly about and who we're supposed to tiptoe for.
Marc Radle wrote:
Incorrect. I believe the rule you missed is located in the activation rules for wands, in the Magic Items chapter.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Same here in the Twin Cities. It's not hard to say "If you cheat again, you're gone."
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Isn't it interesting how we as players espouse rules/RAW when it comes to things like the GM sticking to tactics, not making things up, or adhering to the take 10 (or whatever) rules, but when it comes to things like wearing a shirt to earn a re-roll (RAW), we conveniently ignore it. Seems like sometimes we only like adjudication when its in our favor. Just an observation.
On the other hand, adhering to tactics and T10 rules for all three days of a convention doesn't knock anyone over by the end, nor can the size of someone's belly or bust (or the ratio between the two) force the GM to modify statblocks.
(I do agree with your overall point, though: the roleplaying community has a LOT of double-standards.)
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.
Easy Jiggy - it *would be* a display of cheating if they read it purely with the intention of playing it. Shameful if they admitted to it purely to bypass the strict reading of cheating.
That's kind of the point. There are all kinds of good reasons that a player might already know the scenario they're playing, so if your only data point is that the player has read the scenario, a reasonable person cannot infer that the player is in fact cheating - they'd need to get more information to make such a judgment.
That's why I called out DM Under the Bridge - he was willing to condemn someone with no other data than that he'd read the scenario. Notice how I made no such call-outs to the many people who asked for more information instead of just assuming the worst.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I don't understand what difference that makes, except perhaps to help you backpedal.
Although, I am reminded of a particular time when I prepped a scenario to run, but when I got there one of my players realized he'd already played it. Since I hadn't played it yet, I offered to switch places with him, letting him use my materials to run it while I played, so everyone who showed up for an afternoon of gaming could do so.
Per your earlier statement, that's another example of a shameful display of cheating.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Which in turn makes me wonder what happens when a player is trying to be on top of things by looking up the rules for the spell they're planning to cast on their next turn (maybe even stats for a monster they're planning on summoning) and he just sees them scrolling through some upside-down text. I think I'd be pretty disinclined to be courteously prepared for my turn if every time I did so the GM asked me if I was verifying monster stats.
Okay, that's pretty spiffy. Thanks!
EDIT: As a disclaimer, I read the first several posts and then kinda skimmed after that.
A couple of things:
First, in the equipment chapter of the CRB, it explicitly states that a potion/ink vial "is made out of glass or steel and holds 1 ounce of liquid".
You don't need to buy any special variant item, because steel is already an option for default potion vials (and the weight is still negligible, per the chart).
Second, if a GM can roll 10d6 falling damage when your character hits the bottom of a cliff without asking if there were any potions in your pockets, but then when you stand up and pop a potion out of your sleeve he says that the little spring might break it, then they are a bad GM.
I have another task for those forumites who enjoy mathy stuff. :)
So let's say I have a character named Alice. She attacks once per round at +15 to hit and deals 2d6+20 damage on a hit. (For my reference: 10+5+5)
Now let's say I also have a character named Bob. He can attack twice per round. Each attack is at +11 to hit for 1d6+14 damage.
Now suppose I have a third character, this one named Charlene. She can attack four times per round. Each attack is at +11 to hit and deals 1d6+8 damage.
Against target ACs of 15, 20, and 25; what is the average damage per round for each of these characters? Please do not factor in crits.
Thanks in advance!
Jiggy? Why wouldn't you show it to children? One Piece character's have a sort of child like mentality, are drawn in a child like fashion, and seem to be made "cool" in the way a child would make them cool. The violence is pure cartoony and I didn't notice any adult situations, language, or nudity in the various episodes I have seen. Heck I haven't even seen any romance or even teen drama in the show. I would say from what I have seen that this show is solidly marketed to young children.
Hm, you haven't seen much then. Aside from thematic elements like murder and torture and racism and whatnot that might go over a kid's head, there's also blood spurts, nudity, flashing for money, fist through your back and out your chest, dismemberment, and even a borderline rape scene.
It starts out looking like maybe it's a kid show, but before long it becomes clear it's not. Though it does keep the goofy stuff as well, like fart jokes and whatnot.