|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Because they're able to have +2 STR, they can get +2 to Will saves on top of the +2 against enchantments, and (though this is less relevant for a bloodrager) they can ditch their FCBs in favor of total wand access to an arcane casting class without UMD. Low-light vision and immunity to sleep is just gravy.
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 don't know whether it would be called "high-magic", "low-magic" or something else, but I prefer to play with the level of magic that fits with the default mechanical assumptions of the game. This is a result of these two factors:
Basically, for me, it's just "pick a path and commit; keep it consistent". And since I don't have time to make all the accommodations for picking a path other than the CRB's default assumptions, that's where I tend to land.
It's more or less just pizza sauce (with meat and other "toppings") that you eat with a spoon. I suppose the consistency might be slightly different, but that's basically what it is. The material difference between pizza sauce/toppings and "pizza soup" is how you perceive it more than how you prepare it.
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?
The person who doesn't like to talk around people or isn't very quick on their feat for dialogue probably shouldn't play the party talker.
Why not? What's wrong with a player saying "I want to convince him to do X" instead of acting out the exact dialogue? What does that hurt?
Your roll playing should be heavily dependent on your mechanics. Mechanics aren't just numbers. They are a representation of how the world and characters function.
I don't think anyone was saying otherwise. Rather, the topic of the thread is when the player wants to play a character (both mechanically AND in how the character functions in the world) and someone else tells them they "shouldn't" for no other reason than that the player doesn't have the same level of skill/ability.
Sort of like how you said a low-CHA player "shouldn't" play a high-CHA character. Nobody's talking about claiming their low-STR character is strong or their low-INT character is smart; we're talking about a player not being allowed to be different than their character.
Re-read the very rule you just cited: you can only make a short/partial charge "if you are able to take ONLY a standard action on your turn". It even states the restriction a second time: "You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn".
So unless the spell being talked about in the quote-chain you replied to inflicts some sort of condition on you that causes your turn to only allow a standard action, then no, you can't ready a charge, short or otherwise.
My point was just that I didn't see any reason for the big debate about the morality of intentionally killing a companion when there's any number of ways to explain why you don't have the companion and what the focus represents.
Because there's a right way and a wrong way to play Pathfinder, of course!
The reason why it is a problem is because you should be attached to an animal companion, it should be your friend. If they should die you should want to bring them back.
(Bolding mine.)Play the way you should! /sarcasm
This is tricky, especially considering that DD was written with the assumption that bloodline=sorcerer (since at the time there was no such thing as having something even remotely close to a bloodline without being a sorcerer). I don't think anyone can say with certainty how this all fits together; probably best to hope for a FAQ, and in the meantime avoid making characters that absolutely depend on it working a particular way.
I'll just stick with my monoclassed arcane-bloodline bloodrager. :)
He doesn't have any 5th-level spell slots.
Human Fighter wrote:
Whirlwind attack looks like it could be cool, but it's situational and involves combat expertise, int 13, spring attack, mobility, and dodge.. that's a real bad time.
If memory serves, a 1-level dip into Brawler (from the ACG) will give let you qualify for combat feats as though you had 13 INT. (Plus you get other goodies like save boosts, IUS, etc.)If you then go into Lore Warden (fighter archetype), you can get Combat Expertise for free on top of your normal bonus feats. (Plus, you'll later get substantial bonuses to combat maneuvers.)
Thus, between the two of them, you could have Whirlwind Attack at 5th, with 3 other open feats. (Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec?)
If you did this, you get another bonus in that Martial Versatility combos really well with the Lore Warden's bonuses to combat maneuvers. You'll already be taking Power Attack, you'll get Combat Expertise for free, and you'll get IUS for free as well. That means you'll have the prereqs for every single Improved Maneuver feat in the game. You can decide to suddenly be a grappler, tripper, sunderer, or whatever on the fly. And be GOOD at it.
Something to consider.
Personally, I think a starting 20 in STR has crossed the line of diminishing returns. The difference in cost between a (pre-racial) 16 and 18 is nearly half your build points, all for a measley +1 to attack and damage. Taking it down a notch gets you +2HP/level. How would you like to play your last several sessions with an extra 20HP? Doesn't that sound better than +1 to hit? You'd even have points left to either un-dump INT/CHA a little or even get a little WIS to shore up your Will save a tad.
That's an awful lot to lose just for +1 to hit.
If I'm not mistaken, the suggestions I made above only leave you with light armor proficiency. However, if you take the Armor Expert trait, you can still wear the armor you're planning on without penalty.
Magic items aren't that rare in Pathfinder but they should still be something special. :)
I find this to be the crux of the issue. There's a (sometimes uncomfortable) tension there.
By the book, even a 1st-level adept might have a magic scroll. A random 5th-level NPC cleric is wearing either +1 armor or a cloak of resistance or some such.
It's not so much "magic items aren't that rare" and more "everyone but the pig farmers has magic items, and anyone who's even remotely important is dripping with them". That's Pathfinder's base assumption.
On the other hand, the kinds of classic fantasy stories that folks are often trying to tell in a game of Pathfinder includes things where the hero finds the legendary magic item (Excalibur, Master Sword, Ring of Power, etc) and there's some awe and wonder to it. You can't produce that level of awe when a PC finds a level-appropriate item, especially given that (unless you find it at the very end of the campaign) it's actually going to end up outclassed and replaced.
Threads like this one seem to usually center around finding ways to reconcile these two things: a system built around "magic is common" and using that system to tell "magic is rare and awe-inspiring" types of stories.
Luckily, we've got some creative folks around who have shared several viable options: convert the role of gear into inherent level-based bonuses, let people find whatever they need and work it into the story, have a single mysterious shop that constantly changes location, etc.
I dislike the comments that 'magic items are required by the system'. A GM should be able to adjust encounters so that they are workable no matter what level of equipment is available.
Of course, and the speakers of those comments would agree with you. All that's meant to be pointed out by the statement "X is required by the system" is, in fact, that removing X requires the GM to (as you put it) adjust encounters so that they are workable no matter what level of X is available.
Your observation is in fact the point. See, if you're GMing a homebrew game, then you're making the encounters from scratch anyway, so it doesn't matter what's going on with the PCs - whatever they have, that's what you'll design around.
But lots of GMs use things like Adventure Paths because they don't have the time/creativity/interest for making up their own encounters. And if they have to "adjust encounters so that they are workable no matter what level of X is available", as you put it, then what was the point of buying the adventure in the first place? I sure know my Mummy's Mask GM wouldn't be interested in doing anything that forced him to adjust all the encounters.
That's what people mean when they talk about X being "required by the system". They mean "in order to play the game without having to make up all my own stuff, I need to use X". They're just saying that in order to run the game in a non-homebrew fashion, they have to give the PCs that which the adventure they're running assumes they have.
Did that make sense?
The whole "magic item shop" thing wouldn't be an issue if gear wasn't a built-in part of PCs' power progression. If your power level was purely a function of your character level, then you could chuck the whole Magic Items chapter out the window and include as many or as few magic items as you like, enabling the inclusion of things like Excalibur, The One Ring, the Master Sword, the Elder Wand, etc without them either showing up too late to be relevant or else getting surpassed by other gear later on.