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. 16,490 posts (17,641 including aliases). 14 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 12 Pathfinder Society characters. 14 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 16,490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Having one or more low stats is not a problem for which you need "recourse". Their effects are already built into the game. Beyond that, everyone gets to roleplay to the degree to which they're comfortable. If you asked the question you proposed, were you planning to also ask the wizard, "Besides boring numerical bonuses, tell me what effects your high Intelligence places on your character's behavior?"

Because if your concern is really about people roleplaying their stats, then that question is just as important to you. If those questions aren't equal to you, then your motivations are something else entirely.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

The Paizo PRD has a handy page of monsters by CR, but it's limited to the first Bestiary. Is there another site somewhere that has multiple Bestiaries compiled into a single list that is (or can be) sorted by CR?

Thanks!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

skalapunk wrote:

Is it just me, or are these denominations simply negligible and irrelevant?

Even early on, the amount of treasure/wealth/money to give to a level 2 character, as an example, is in the hundreds of gold.

Why even bother with anything lower than gold coins?

I wish they had made copper and silver more used in the early stages of the game. But right now, even the simplist magic items cost hundreds of gold. As it stands, there is no reason or incentive to track how much copper and silver you have. If a piece of bread costs 1 silver in a tavern, is it really worth the trouble to track that your character spent 1 silver? That's only 1/10th of a gp!

This is related to the fact that PC gear is part of your power progression. Though I wasn't present for the decision-making process, they apparently decided that part of the advancement of PCs' power would be based on magic items. As with any source of PC power, it needs to be limited in some way so as to have the power come in at the right point in the game. The way they chose to do that for gear was by price; things get exponentially more expensive as power increases, so they only way to afford something is to be far enough along in the game to have those kind of resources.

The side effect is that, as you note, lots of mundane things rapidly become trivial.

If it bothers you, one option is to use houserules to reduce gear dependency. Give your players level-based scaling bonuses to saves/AC/attacks/etc to replace those they're assumed to get from magic items, then just treat all other magic items as ancient relics that you might find as loot but don't have market prices and can't be bought/sold/crafted. Now wealth stays at a believable level, riches that they do earn feel like actual wealth since it's no longer just access to the next bonus they need to keep up (called the "treadmill effect"), and tracking silvers doesn't feel as meaningless.

Or you could do like me and start writing your own d20 fantasy game from the ground up and dodge the existing pitfalls fundamentally instead of patching things. But that's a lot of work. ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Cranky Dog wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Where exactly is the conflict between that setting and the ability to pass harmlessly through a cloud of fire?

It's not going *through* that's the problem.

It's staying inside the cloud of fire round after round after round without damage that's pushing it.

The environmental damage rules for extreme heat and smoke satisfy my needs if the player so wishes to remain there.

Okay, so sitting in a burning cloud for round after round without getting harmed is the thing that conflicts with a setting in which you can teleport to heaven and back, raise the dead, and create your own plane of reality?

Well, then you might want to take a look at those Elemental Bloodline sorcerers, because if they picked fire, they can do the same thing without even making their saves!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

@Odraude - I think we're getting lost in examples here. The core issue is this:

As the game progresses, you face bigger and badder foes. As a result, this is inescapable: You need sufficient X to overcome the increasing challenges.

In theory, X could be anything: levels, magic, gear, whatever. But the reason you're able to defeat now what you couldn't defeat before is because you've now acquired enough X.

Now if this is going to be a game where you can choose how you approach (such as by choosing a class), then for the game to be as fun as it can be, the following also needs to be true: Every class needs access to X.

X could still be anything, just as long as it's the same X. If continuing to advance requires sufficient poodles, then every class needs access to poodles. Or from the other direction, if the only thing you want every class to have access to is rhubarbs, then rhubarbs had better be capable of letting you advance.

Whatever you pick for one, you need to pick the same for the other.

Currently, Pathfinder fails in this regard: the only thing that everyone has access to is levels, but the thing you have to have in order to advance is magic.

The fighter MUST acquire magic in some form in order to keep playing, no matter what else he has. The wizard (or other PC with magic) can keep playing with relatively little regard for what other (nonmagical) things he lacks.

This is a flaw in the system: there's a mismatch between what you need and what you can access.

For Pathfinder to improve, it needs to align the two: either change what lets you advance from "magic" to "levels" (letting everyone gain tools to keep playing the game, as a function of level, independent of other factors); or else take the thing that's required to advance (magic) and make it more evenly accessible.

Either path is fine, as long as where we end up is that what's required to keep playing the game is readily and evenly accessible to everyone.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Odraude wrote:
Because ghosts and spirits and incorporeality are inherently magic creatures.

So magic can only be engaged by more magic? This is good for a game in which a PC can choose to be nonmagical but will inevitably face magical foes?

Quote:
Creatures of the Ethereal realm that can only be damaged greatly by magic (and even then, by half) and channeling positive energy.

Why do we have to keep the idea that they can only be damaged by magic? Why is that part of the definition of being incorporeal?

Quote:
It feels like something that to me, shouldn't be overcome with skill alone.

Then why do we still have classes that rely on skill alone if skill alone isn't enough to overcome what they face?

Quote:
I stand corrected, those are good points. Though for SR, I honestly just assumed that the creature was just immune.

A creature immune to magic is still affected by non-SR spells. "Immune to magic", in Pathfinder, means "immune to spells that allow SR".

Quote:
As for that 2,000, a fighter isn't buying a magic weapon just to deal with incorporeals. He's buying a magic weapon to fight things better. A fighter will always be buying that +1 magic weapon. The fact that it helps with incorporeal creatures is a bonus to it. And there are other methods to dealing with ghosts and undead beyond magic weapons. Such as holy water.

He's still depending on magic to do more than 2d4 points of damage even at 20th level. Also, see my last post.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.

A 20th-level fighter and a 20th-level wizard/sorcerer/whatever each wake up naked on the beaches of separate islands. The fighter encounters a CR 3 incorporeal creature, while the wizard encounters a CR 3 creature that's immune to magic.

The caster flies into the air and decides, at his leisure, whether he'd rather teleport home, summon a creature to fight for him while he takes a nap, cast transform and win in hand-to-hand combat, blast it with conjured acid/stones/whatever, or even just pick up a club and win the fight based purely on his 20th-level BAB/HP/etc.

The fighter hopes he can outrun the CR 3 creature long enough to find some spare magic lying around so he won't die.

This is a problem.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
I honestly would not mind if the fighter couldn't cut a ghost or shadow, to balance things the GM should introduce monsters that are immune to magic.

Because it's a false equivalence. A fighter can, with magical items, defeat a shadow. Even with doing half damage, a fighter can still put the hurting on an incorporeal creature. So even though it's an immunity, it's one that can be over come without a wizard, since you can buy the magic item yourself or make it yourself with Master Craftsman.

How would you have a mage overcome something that is immune to magic?

Maybe in the gazillion ways they already do? Non-SR spells, summons, just teleport to another continent and not deal with it...

EDIT: And I'd point out that the spellcaster doesn't need to spend 2,000+ gp (or 50gp and the first round of combat to get ready) to do any of this like a fighter does to deal with incorporeals.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Odraude wrote:
every explaination I can think of that allows him to cut through ghost is magical in nature. Whether it's praying spirits to aid him or even just being really good at cutting ghosts.

What makes "just being really good at cutting ghosts" inherently magical in nature? That description doesn't sound magical at all to me. Sounds like a description of skill. Where's the requirement for magic coming from?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Odraude wrote:
A fighter being able to cut ghosts is in itself a magical ability

Why?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Spell Combat wrote:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty).

It says he gets to make "all of his attacks with his melee weapon" (referring to the light or one-handed weapon mentioned in the previous sentence).

He gets to make all of the attacks that he gets with that weapon, not necessarily every attack he could otherwise potentially make.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Curaigh wrote:
Hmmm... is there a thread testing mechanically viable ways to limit 'cheese' in Organized Play?

That can come right after the thread that discusses viable ways to define 'cheese' in organized play.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I cast disintegrate pet! It functions like disintegrate except it can only target animals, vermin, or outsiders. And it's 1st-level.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Answer for #1.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:

I don't know. One staple I like from fantasy media is the use of magic items by mundane people to take down creatures. It is something I'd like to keep in Pathfinder. It rewards preparation. Kinda like how Batman can still roll with the Justice League for high powered threats and still use gadgets and cunning to fight them.

Course, fighters need the boost in cunning and manuevers. Not disagreeing with that. I'm just not really keen on adding magic to the fighter.

Usually, as the trope goes, the relationship between the wielder of the legendary magic item and the monster he uses it to defeat is not comparable the relationship between a 20th-level fighter and a CR3 monster.

Also, though I admit I'm not a comic afficionado, it's my understanding that Batman's "gadget budget" is waaaaaay more than that of the supers he's competing with. That's WHY it's a valid edge. But in Pathfinder, everyone has the same budget; it's the equivalent of if everyone in the Justice League got to have all of Batman's toys in addition to their innate superpowers. If you want that comparison to be valid, start having fighters and wizards get vastly different WBL in your games.

Finally, I wasn't aware that anyone was talking about "adding magic to the fighter". I know I certainly wasn't.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DrDeth wrote:
in games with 6+ players, some rule no companions

Are you aware that you're in the Society section of the boards?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I said the pathfinder pouch carries the same volume as a backpack. You appear to be comparing either PP vs HH, or HH vs backpack.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Taldanrebel, it's fine if you don't like the gameplay experience that results from the skill rules and choose to do differently in your games. It's less fine to say that others "should" be doing it that way or that those who don't are "lazy".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 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

6 people 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

2 people 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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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

37 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?

1 to 50 of 16,490 << 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.