Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Genie

Kain Darkwind's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 1,689 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,689 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:
Quote:
Now if you come up with something that actually compares to a gaming situation, and not being a jerk then I would tell you how I respond to game related situations.

But that's just my point, wraith - those situations I was talking about involve the DM being a jerk. Thus, it's completely irrelevant whether some Rule Zero line in the rulebook gives him whatever power he chooses.

As said before, there is a great many situations between the level-headed guy making a ruling on an unclear situation and letting you reverse an action since it was based on that ruling (or making it near the end of the session where the difference is trivial), and the other guy making up houserules on the spot and refusing to compromise at all because he doesn't know the actual rules of the game, and has the "right" to make them up as he sees fit.

And thus, I am arguing against the blanket statement that it makes a bad player to not always accept everything coming from a GM's mouth as gospel.

As far as 'blanket statements' go, you've now mischaracterized and misquoted mine.

I said that there is a time when you need to stop arguing with the GM and accept the ruling. You are welcome to look at any of my previous posts within which that very thing was stated, multiple times.

If you are referring to someone else's blanket statement, make that clear, since my name is the only one that has come up thus far with the terms "blanket statement" or "all in his head" applied.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ruthlessness. Integrity. Consistency. Imagination. Descriptive.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In movies, I think my favorite villain might be the Devil, from Devil's Advocate. Or from the Prophecy. Potentially also Gabriel from the Prophecy. Or from Legion. I seem to have a thing for fallen angels.

From video games, Rubicant is pretty up there...along with Golbez, Magus and Kefka...Square did real good villains back in the day.

In TV, there is none more horrific than Griffith of Berserk, in my mind. That one really hurt, especially since in my first watch through, I missed the first episode that might have let me know that was going to be the end result. Lionel Luthor of Smallville might also take a place.

Books, I'm going to go with Quar and Kaug, from Rose of the Prophet. They were this close to taking over the world. And they would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those darn djinn.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Eh...on this particular matter, I agree with darkheyr.

I DM weekly, and put in a minimum of ten hours of prep time on a low week. I've co-authored a d20 supplement that was very rules heavy. I am happy to discuss the game given even the smallest of pretexts. I've got about twenty years invested in the game at this point. I read through five to seven different d20 sourcebooks every week.

And yet when my players start trying to smash through a wall, I still have to go look up material hit points, and whether or not hardness is applied before half damage for energy. And I have to go look things up if they start busting out the hero points and rerolls and whatnot. Or have Coriat do it.

There is a gap between 'minimum rules knowledge required to play the game' and 'rules lawyer level grasp of the rules.' And a single read through of the CRB isn't going to get you across it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Nope, screaming is a free action, not allowed.

You obviously haven't seen all the motion that goes into it. "Speaking is a free action" does not cover this particular process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Never. Nauseated only allows move actions. You can use it to stagger away or you can use it to puke or you can use it to scream at your boyfriend who is patiently holding your hair out of your face. Nothing else.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Nobody is writing it, so no one has to organize it. I'm trying to draw out conversation on something that strikes me as interesting, but isn't immediately apparent to me.

For instance, I suspect the choices in the first MC were made based on popularity and likelihood of being immediately useful to the game. I would bet that more games need multiple different orc statblocks than treant ones.

But, for some games, multiple treant statblocks would be a boon. And I'm curious, for those who put treant on their top 20 list, what sort of treants are you expecting to see?

Now, for demons, the issue is different...we literally have more different demon types than we have orc statblocks in the Monster Codex. You could probably do a Demon Codex. So again, I'm curious how one envisions the demon entries, when you wouldn't even be able to put a single statblock for each demon in, let alone multiple.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:
Having taken over for a GM myself, and having handed over the GM post to someone else... nope. Fallacy. If no one else is willing to GM that might hold some sort of limited truth to it, but only then.

It becomes the new GM's game. Even if you are following notes that explain that Lavinia and Vanthus Vanderboren are really aspects of Demogorgon, you now have the responsibility for everything in the world. You may make calls that I wouldn't. You may make calls that I would. But no matter how closely it resembles my game, it is no longer mine. If you decide that the Aventi priestess is just using the party's wizard as a setup to an aquatic invasion, that's your call, no matter how far it might have been from where I was intending to take that thread. If I hand off a half woven blanket to you, the half you weave is 'yours', even if the blanket as a whole is 'ours'.

But even from that standpoint, the game was handed off BY THE GM, to his or her handpicked successor.

Quote:
And a GM has to find new players first, too - they do not magically appear in complete groups while that other complete group can't possibly hope to find replacement.

Completely irrelevant to the presence or lack of ownership.

Quote:
Plus, as to his game not going on: A campaign can be salvaged right from the point where you left off. It might lead elsewhere as the original GM intended, but that's not a problem by itself.

Not a problem, simply not the same game.

Quote:
Completely new players on the other hand mean you basically need to start a new campaign. You can't just 'drop them in' where the other guys left off.

Yeah you can. Done it for years now. To paraphrase Tim Curry's Cardinal Richelieu, "Players come and players go, but one thing remains the same. And that, is me."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was running a game in Oerth, but really liked Golarion. But I also longed for the RP of my old Army days, back at the dawn of 3.0, in the Scarred Lands and Freeport.

So I sort of smushed them all together.

There were a few issues. At the outset, I didn't realize from the Amedio Jungle maps we were using, that there was actually a huge mass of land between a theoretical port in Varisia that send the PCs across the ocean to Sasserine. And although I kept the two moons of Oerth, I didn't want to keep the geosystem rather than solar system, so that used Golarion.

Elves have a bad rep. Orcs and goblinoids get to live in Freeport. I mean Sasserine. They aren't well liked, but they aren't murdered on sight.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:

The rules can declare the Gamemaster to be the supreme god of the universe for all I care. That still does not make it his game at the table, but our game. The GM is on the same team. There is no player versus gamemaster. He is as much responsible for the fun at the table as everyone else, and his role as a gamemaster does not give him any leeway in behaviour.

We're not talking rules here, we are talking social interaction - and that can't be regulated in a rulebook.

Quote:
And once that comes, you're done. You have the choice to prolong the inevitable by arguing, accept it and move on, or accept it and quit.
You seem to be quite hung up that the only choice is for the player to move on or quit - as opposed to the GM getting his act together before the party decides they need a new GM. Or, of course, the GM walks away because he can't cope with whatever it is his players are doing.

Because that's the DM's choice. We're discussing rules lawyers, despite the derail. The DM's choices don't really matter for that. The DM can decide to give in. He can decide he is right, and that is the way the game is going to go until he decides differently. He can decide to kick the offending player out of the game. He can decide to ignore the argument and start running the game, pretending the arguer is not actually there.

The DM actually has a lot more choices in the scenario, because despite statements otherwise, it is the DM's game. Without him the game does not go on. Any single player cannot make that statement, only as a whole, and even then, if replaced with other players, the DM's game goes on, while they have to find another one. It's an imperfect analogy, but consider Paizo, and their customer base. If some customers leave Paizo, Paizo's products continue. If enough of Paizo's customers leave, they shut down, but then no one gets Paizo products. As long as enough remain that Paizo continues to want to produce their products, those who remain will be able to get them.

I'm not saying that the DM can't abuse their greater amount of social capital. I'm simply pointing out that they possess such. You seem to be under the impression that they are equal, and that to point it out is to undermine some principle of fairness.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've done precisely the opposite of put blame on the player for the DM's actions. I've spelled out multiple times that the DM is bad, that I don't agree with their actions, etc.

But, and this is where you seem to refuse to move on past, the DM is the final arbiter of the rules. In fact, right there in the PRD, under 'getting started'

"Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."

You seem to be hung up on the shared experience and all the players, etc. And I'm saying that final arbitrator means just that. Once they've contributed their thoughts when the rules were in doubt, we turn back to final arbitration.

And once that comes, you're done. You have the choice to prolong the inevitable by arguing, accept it and move on, or accept it and quit.

I don't see why anyone would think that prolonging it was the ideal choice.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wannabe Demon Lord wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Why are your requests always so mechanically specific, Dragon? For instance, why does it matter (to you) if a dragonewt is related to a dragon or not in the game? When you have a mimic, why do you need another monster that takes the form of a monster and is of the creature type aberration? Or monstrous humanoid, as odd as that seems?
Because the little details are some of the most fun aspects to design of a monster, essentially.

Nope, that isn't what I was asking. Compare Dragon's first set of requests to his response to me.

"More monsters that take the form or resemble objects and are of the creature types of aberration, magical beast, vermin, ooze, or monstrous humanoid."

That's very mechanically specific, but it doesn't really tell us much about any such creature that would grow from such a request. It seems bizarre to really want a vermin that changes shape over say a creature that changes shape. Now, compare that to:

"Poisonous vermin that were breed to look like coins would be fun ether as a single creature or a swarm."

That isn't even the best idea he listed there, but it is still tons more evocative than the original statement, which implies that the important facet for this creature is that it is a vermin rather than an outsider or such. The distinction between humanoid and monstrous humanoid has never been the defining characteristic of a creature.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Aboleth are arguably the strongest candidates of the 'odd' monsters for such treatment. I could see multiple different versions, maybe putting the veiled master in as their 'affiliated monster'

But for instance, what sort of treant statblocks would you expect to see? Would you think the treant section to fill up the same page count as fire giants or drow?

Etc.

Basically, I wasn't saying "you shouldn't have X in the Monster Codex II", I was asking how you would implement it, because it doesn't seem as intuitive as say, hobgoblins and orcs.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Moore's Bond was LG. The Adam West Batman of Bonds.

Dalton's seemed pretty CG. He wasn't operating in any fashion other than revenge for his friend and wife, but he didn't put innocents in danger and went out of his way to save those he could.

Craig's is on that corner between N/NE and CN. While ruthless, he doesn't peg me as trying to harm for harm's sake, simply not holding much above his own goals. I'd go with NE.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:

While just about everyone here agreed that most cases don't need immediate rules discussion or are easily resolved now or later... At some point things stop being that simple. If a GM choses to ignore a clear-cut rule to the detriment of the player, it will piss that player off - and the resulting argument simply cannot be laid squarely on the player's shoulder.

He is not a 'bad player' because he doesn't just shrug and accept the DM being an idiot - and you implying this is the direct cause of the argument.

Including me, yes.

But like Coriat (may I introduce my group's rules lawyer?) has said, filibustering the game is the worst option. No one, least of all me, thinks that the DM is behaving in a proper manner, making the wrong call, and then changing things on the fly so that he is right, you are wrong, especially at the cost of your character. I would not play with that DM further.

But you might. And the guys at your table who aren't losing the character tonight might. So I can't say walking out is the only option. But refusing to let anyone else play until you get your way isn't a good option by any definition. No matter how wrong the DM is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vycamros Chandler wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?
It's not a fair assessment because you're assuming the GM is never going to change his mind or see your side. This concept Kain put forward is kind of a big appeal to probability, as I understand it. Sure, it's possible that a disagreement between two parties could result in them coming to a deadlock and nothing ever happens from that point on, but it's highly unlikely. If I cite a rule and I'm wrong, I will apologize once I'm proven wrong. If the GM has been proven wrong, I would expect the same from them. If the GM or the Player, is still insisting on his side, you have much bigger problems than what's going on in game. Yes, there's a point where arguing with a GM, or with anybody for that matter, becomes useless. But if you've actually reached that point there are issues going on outside the game. I think that is a fair assessment.

That has not been my experience at all. I am the DM in my group now, but I have seen bickering and arguing consume the entire night in other games that I have played. To me, that's not fun at all, and so I do not return to those games. But also, in my own games, there is a point at which I say, "this is the temp ruling, we'll figure it out after the game". And at that point, I expect all arguments to stop for the remainder of the session. We have limited time to play, and I'd rather take the group through the gold strewn floors of Opar than bicker over whether or not you can use a swift action while nauseated.

Moreover, I did not "put the concept forward". It was in specific response to the disagreement that was offered against what I thought to be a fairly inoffensive statement (which I didn't make, someone else did), that you make your case, and when the DM rules, you stop.

None of that is 'just in my head'. It is present here in this thread and present in the actual gaming community, which I know encompasses more than my personal experience. But also more than yours or any other single member of the community's.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Out of curiosity, those of you asking for demons (and other similar fiends), how do you imagine them fitting into a Monster Codex format?

The Monster Codex took one creature, and provided a bunch of different statblocks with that creature and class levels, providing a longer range of challenges than just the base creature, because those creatures can be encountered in a variety of different ways.

When you have 'demon', you have a minimum of twenty creatures, from CR 1-20. Devils are almost as close. Same goes for fey, and whatnot. What would the 'devil' entry in a Monster Codex look like to you?

For other creatures, like 'treants' or 'aboleth'. These creatures are often solitary, few campaigns involve an entire village or tribe of treants, for instance. What would the treant entry look like to you? I personally would want to wait for Occult Adventures to come out before providing a bunch of aboleth with class levels, but that's just me.

So tell me. How does it look?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Paul McGann was in Disney-teers and Doctor Who.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I could easily go for a Giant Codex, with ogres to rune giants, so just assume they are all on there. So...

1. Giants

After that though,

2-5. Genies (all)
6. Minotaur
7. Centaur
8. Doppleganger
9. Dark Folk
10. Medusa
11. Merfolk
12. Lamia
13. Azer
14. Morlock
15. Nephilim
16. Jann (because I forgot about them)
17. Tiefling
18. Aasimar
19. Dhampir
20. Elemental-touched (Ifrit and company)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

20 statblocks for 11 classes = 220 blocks
10 statblocks for 5 NPC classes = 50 blocks
4 statblocks for 10 PrCs = 40 blocks
Total = 310 blocks

APG/UM/UC

20 statblocks for 10 classes = 200 blocks
4 statblocks for 8 PrCs = 32 blocks

~80 blocks to play with.

If they were set on filling them out, I'd suggest maybe 5-8 blocks for each Core class using a different archetype, preferably one that gets them some of the cooler abilities of the tradeoff.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They had cansin (chaotic) and anaxim (lawful) back in the 2-3e day. Wouldn't be horrified if they showed up in some form or another.

Dragon78, isn't outsider (elemental) exactly what the mythical salamander was? A spirit of fire, akin to the gnomes (earth), sylph (air), and undine (water).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:
Quote:

Darkheyr, you haven't answered my question. Let's say I'm the dick DM. Your character dies because I rule that you failed your save. You bring up the rule. I say no. Where do you go from that point?

I'm not saying that it is right. In fact, I said it was unfair. But explain to me how you get your way in this scenario, in a manner that doesn't cost the other players their game?

Let me turn that question around: The DM rules that another player's character dies despite it clearly being a misinterpretation of the rule, and further denies the possibility of spending 5-10 minutes to make certain, or at least making the judgement call initially in the players favour.

I don't know, would you really be annoyed at the player insisting on making sure? Because quite honestly, I'd probably stand up myself and tell the DM to damn well look it up, despite it not being my character involved.

How you can even pretend that the arguing player is the one costing the others the game and not the DM is beyond me, really.

Except, very clearly in this scenario, the player has already gotten his say, and the DM has already made a call.

We're clearly talking past one another.

You are saying that for life or death issues, more time should be given to a potential rule mistake, to avoid needlessly killing a PC.

I'm saying that once you've spent that time, however much you get, making your case, and the DM has ruled, it's time to move on. Whether that means to a new character, a new game or a new hobby is going to vary from person to person.

VC wrote:
It's important to remember that if you consistently piss off your players you can easily alienate your player base too. Then you have no players and the game you own isn't going anywhere either. Part of speaking up is making the whole group aware there is a problem. Furthermore, in normal healthy social interactions if I misuse a word or pronounce it incorrectly or have my facts wrong about a topic; I'd rather have the people I'm comfortable around correct me so I know for future reference then have them let me go on looking like an idiot. And if I then insist on continuing to be an idiot I expect to be made aware of that too.

Yes, yes, every nerd ever is just so desiring of honest criticism online. In real life, of course, it all changes. Being put on the spot when you are supposed to be the one making the calls can easily fluster someone, or put them on the defensive, or make them double down on whatever they decided previously. And if these boards show anything, it's that nerds can argue ad infinitum on topics, regardless of the logic or reason in the opposing side's position.

But that's all actually irrelevant both to my point about DMs and the topic at hand. We're not talking about a bad DM. You can be a bad DM. If you lack social skills, even more likely. And bad DMs lose players. Terrible DMs probably lose all of their players and can't run their game anymore. I certainly wouldn't play with someone who was so rules weak and also unwilling to check and confirm a potential mistake.

None of that changes the responsibility of the players. Rules lawyers or no. "Don't prolong an argument that disrupts the game unless the DM is an idiot and then it's ok" is not a rule to live by.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:

I think I see where our disagreement lies; I don't see being a good player as a requirement of being a good rules lawyer.

I think it is completely seperate discussion about how to read the table and decide if dropping your topic is apropos (good player) and persuing a rules discussion that has a serious impact on game regularity (good rules lawyer).

If you are separating that out, I suppose, but I've never thought of 'good' rules lawyering simply being competent with the ruleset, as that is rather inherent with the term.

Since the term assumes someone who is competent with the rules who will bring them up when they aren't followed, I consider the 'good' and 'bad' to depend on how they bring those rules up.

Darkheyr, you haven't answered my question. Let's say I'm the dick DM. Your character dies because I rule that you failed your save. You bring up the rule. I say no. Where do you go from that point?

I'm not saying that it is right. In fact, I said it was unfair. But explain to me how you get your way in this scenario, in a manner that doesn't cost the other players their game?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:

'Common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided' is obviously something people can disagree on.

There is a rulebook. If I play Pathfinder, I expect those rules to be followed. If those rules are changed, I expect the GM to tell me. And I expect him to tell me before I bring myself into a situation entirely based on the expectation that rules work a certain way. Preferably even before I start playing in that game if it's a significant change.

Besides, I tend to play with friends, not strangers. So what I expect to gain from not shutting up is making it clear to said friend who happens to be the GM right now that he is acting like an idiot.

Luckily, those situations rarely happen among even minimally reasonable friends.

'Rule Zero' does not give a GM free reign to be an idiot.

Yeah, almost none of this applies to the situation other than as a nice roast red herring.

I expect the GM to know the rules too, and to inform people of changed rules (or at least change them in a consistent manner). But that's irrelevant.

What was said is that a good rules lawyer speaks up, then drops the matter after the GM made their ruling. And you agreed with the poster who said (paraphrased) hell no, GMs have to play by the rules too.

So you are supporting the idea that a good rules lawyer continues to argue after the GM has made up their mind.

And you and Dtbone are both wrong about that. That's not a good rules lawyer.

Again, being a good rules lawyer has nothing to do with whether or not you are playing with a good GM.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, you have the right to be wrong. The very definition of the GM includes rule 0, which none of the player entitlement crowd seems to remember. But even apart from any of that comes the common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided, and it has little to do with the GM owning the game (which they do, utterly, since without them their game disappears)

We're not talking about 'speaking up'. This is specifically in regards to having spoken up, having the GM make a decision, and then refusing to allow that decision to stand because 'it's not in the rules'.

What do you truly expect to gain from such a scenario? Unless you simply possess the social capital to browbeat the DM into submission, once the DM has made the call, that's the ruling. Arguing over a character death for an hour of game time simply robs the other players of what is their session time too. So even if the DM was completely wrong (say, he said that you have to beat the DC to make your save instead of match or beat it.), once you've spoken up, demonstrated the rule, and were told no, what do you want? Is it fair? No. The DM is making the wrong call. But once you've said/shown that and been denied, what more do you expect? You think that bickering and complaining will succeed where logic and reason failed?

Either you continue to play under the unfair call and its consequences, or you find a different way to spend your free time.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Using a headband of alluring charisma...
** spoiler omitted **
So beyond the bad illustration, and also garnering enough of peoples opinions concerning the removal of equipment and possible loss of attributes, I think it's time to close the thread. Thanks for all the input.

I liked your example. I thought it was quite amusing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
But it couldn't be used to make everyone have to stop and recalculate their stats because one of their items got suppressed.

As a player whose GM just asked us to prepare a list of all magical items worn and how our will save will deterioriate as they're turned off in order, God bless you.

Disjunction is a !"#!"ยค% nightmare.

Took half an hour in my game when it got dropped on the party, and they only failed the DC on a 1.

Honestly, most of the spells I hate the most are ones that slow things down like that. Detect magic being at will costs me more game time than any simulacrum or planar binding ever did.

Also, prestidigitation, since it seemed not to get carried over to this thread from the bathtub, doesn't clean creatures, only objects. Sorry nerds, you'll have to shower. Or stink.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vycamros Chandler wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The good rules lawyer speaks up once, then shuts up when the GM makes his decision.
No. No, absolutely not. The GM is subject to the rules too. If he's changing something that you inherently expect then you have players with mismatched preconceived notions. I can forgive it if the GM is upfront about what will be different during their game, but the GM is subject to the rules like any other player. Throwing a player a curve ball when there's existing rules for something is just going to start a fight. I know this concept of the GM as the final decision maker on the rules has been well-established in this hobby but it's a silly concept. I don't afford a GM any special treatment just because they're the GM. At a table all the players need to be on the same page about what they can and can't do. And if you're arbitrarily making decisions on rules as opposed to figuring out how they really work you're doing everyone and yourself a disservice.

^ There we go. That's a bad rules lawyer. Particularly when that attitude and approach is holding up the game.

Sometimes, at a certain point, even if it kills your character, even if the GM is wrong, you need to shut up and accept what has been ruled. Or leave the game.

There is such thing as a bad GM. That doesn't actually have any relevance on whether or not you are being a bad player.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ah, see, all those shifter ideas sound much cooler than the bag of mechanical specifics you tossed out before, even the ones I don't care as much for. (And I didn't mean the second monster in that sentence, that was a typo. I did mean object...hence my mimic example)

The monstrous humanoid/magic beast idea doesn't strike me as fitting that well. I'm trying to make the logical leap that goes from centaur and hags to 'turns into a magical sword'. The ooze and aberration types seem like they work better, although with the mimic and cloaker, all you need to do is adjust the size and you have your aberration. Perhaps baby mimics go around as lady's handbags.

As for the dragonewt, I don't see what that brings to the game over a 'variant half-dragon or wannabe draconian'. At this point, if my game called for such a thing, I'd fire subtype a lizardfolk, slap a breath weapon on him and call it a day. It just doesn't seem like the game is begging for something like that. Or even casually asking for it. But maybe firenewts are really cool and I'm just not seeing it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why are your requests always so mechanically specific, Dragon? For instance, why does it matter (to you) if a dragonewt is related to a dragon or not in the game? When you have a mimic, why do you need another monster that takes the form of a monster and is of the creature type aberration? Or monstrous humanoid, as odd as that seems?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am a DM and I have a rules lawyer. To me, he is an invaluable resource. If players have rules questions during the game, I frequently have him make interpretations so that I can keep focused on running the story. It helps that he has similar priorities for the game. Playing the game > Talking about the game > Reading rules about the game > Arguing about the game > No game. And he's quite agreeable to table things until after the session, which is my biggest thing.

We don't always agree, but mutual respect and communication keeps things on track more often than not. I'm really happy he joined the group.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:
yeah, I HAVE houseruled differently. Though Bobx3's completely right - boxing and Greco-Roman wrestling are radically different combat techniques.

So is fighting with a rapier and fighting with a gladius, but those seem to fit in a nice group. Proficiency-wise, flails, greataxes, warhammers and bec-de-corbins are likely radically different to handle (though definitely less complicated than fighting with a shepherd's crook), but they all fall under the umbrella of martial weapons.

Throwing a dagger and melee knife fighting are quite different from each other, but the same feat affects them both.

It never ceases to amaze me at how specific/real world the game breaks down martial fighting into specific feats, of which even a 20th level character only gets between 10 and 20, yet magic, which has insanely low prereqs for spells (Stat 10+spell level), and even a 10th level sorcerer has 24 to choose from, continues to be broad and widely applicable.

You have to specialize in three combat maneuvers if you want to be able to push someone, pull them, and move them side to side, and a fourth if you want to grab onto them. Meanwhile, telekinesis and mage hand are laughing at you. That seems like a discrepancy to me, but I suppose this isn't really the thread for that discussion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkheyr wrote:

And actually, a Grapple is NOT an unarmed strike - Weapon Training (Close) does not apply apparently :(

Same with other unarmed strike specific boni.

So...trip adds your sword's bonus, weapon focus, weapon training, enchantment to the attempt. Disarm adds your spear's. But grappling is a no go for unarmed strike?

Seems a bummer.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:

@ Kain - Eh, the dwarf fighter's perfectly valid for this exercise - Spellshatter is a thing that he can do because he is both a dwarf AND a fighter.

(Technically, other dwarves with classes that are allowed to poach fighter feats (like magus) can also do it, but oh well.)

The aasimar fighter is iffier, but an aasimar with a lot of bonus feats is more likely to actually have the racial feats (or least, the ones other than the bare minimum to get wings) than an aasimar without, since it's probably not actually hurting his build to get them.

Also, if your argument can be boiled down to "prestidigitation can clean dead bodies but not living people" you might be taking it to the point of silliness. =P

Not my argument. Simply the rules themselves. I didn't write them, but creatures and objects are different things in the game, and very specifically so. Back in 3.0, they had a different cantrip for cleaning off your body. Might have been 3pp though, perhaps in Relics and Rituals?

But seriously, if your argument begins "I clean the dirt particles themselves so that I don't have to take a bath", you're already starting with logic that even my 4 year old nephew knows better than to try. He at least just makes a break for it. You don't have to boil that down into reductio ad absurdum at all, it begins logically fallacious.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
Wrath wrote:
At level 20, casters aren't bathing. They have spells for that :)
Prestidigitation. Casters don't bathe from level 1.

Sorry, rules as written, it can only clean items, not creatures.

I know RAW only applies to non-spellcasters though, so probably a moot point.

Dirt and grime is an object.

Even by the most pedantic definitions, fully expected in the defense of spellcaster supremacy, you do not clean the dirt, you clean the object that is dirty.

Nice try though. And while it was a while ago, I really liked your wooly mammoth comment.

Zhangar, the problem with the dwarf and the aasimar is not really that they couldn't do it, but that they are using racial abilities instead of class abilities to deal with the scenario, which, while valid, defeats the point of the thought exercise.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ok, I don't play the card game, and frankly, I'm wondering if my bookshelf will give out before my budget does.

But...the art for these previews has been really sweet, and I don't think I've seen all of it in the many books I get. I've been wondering about this for sometime...is there anyway to maybe do a pdf version of things like the bestiary pawns or these class cards? I would love having the art handy for NPCs in my game, and even if it wasn't a free thing like the old WotC art galleries (or the incredibly awesome old Dungeon supplement downloads), I'd be glad to push the budget just a tiny bit further for the chance to get a nice copy of this artwork.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Poe tells us you won't be able to. But I'm not sure it even goes far enough. I don't think you should allow dwarves to put their high stat in Charisma. They need to all have low Charisma, and they all need to be ugly.

Just like mind flayers are incredibly attractive to everyone. They are all drawn to the seductive tentacles on their face.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like to enforce the idea that if you play a dwarf, you are ugly. To help players properly roleplay this, I make sure the entire world considers dwarf-like features (beard, stocky build, hard work ethic) ugly.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kaouse wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
Wrath wrote:
At level 20, casters aren't bathing. They have spells for that :)
Prestidigitation. Casters don't bathe from level 1.

Sorry, rules as written, it can only clean items, not creatures.

I know RAW only applies to non-spellcasters though, so probably a moot point.

Eh, Create Water would do fine. Or hell, maybe even Mage Hand depending on how fine you're allowed to control it. Or you could cast Resist Energy on yourself and then take fire baths with repeated uses of Spark (or a single use of Burning Hands). Doubt many germs will survive that.

Create Water is fine. I have a more potent, technological based form of that spell called 'turning on the shower'. I still have to bathe in said water. Creating water is for priests though, and not wizards.

The resist energy idea is cool, but requires 3rd level and your high level spell slot, so I think casters will be bathing well past level 1. Although given the outrage that my fighter's player expressed over prestidigitation not being able to clean him off, I suspect your original solution applies in most games as an unsaid houserule.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kaouse wrote:
Wrath wrote:
At level 20, casters aren't bathing. They have spells for that :)
Prestidigitation. Casters don't bathe from level 1.

Sorry, rules as written, it can only clean items, not creatures.

I know RAW only applies to non-spellcasters though, so probably a moot point.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You sound perturbed. Perhaps it is you who should read over the discussion, and note that the topic under discussion currently (feats and flavor) was brought up only due to a wizard being assumed to follow Torag, and the horror that followed questioning that assumption.

You'll not get me to argue against the fighter typically dying. But the parameters that are set against the fighter (no gear, no expectation of assassination attempt) are not the ones set against the wizard (no gear, complete and utter foreknowledge of assassination attempt and full spell slots to do with as he will).

Like I said, restrictions and rules, rules, rules, until the poor wizard is under attack. Then we want to make assumptions based on ignoring the fluff.

The fighter's elf-arrow trick won't save him. But no one would assume a given fighter has it regardless. The wizard though? He has every assumption in the world. No doubt he has numerology and arithmancy as well, because what self-respecting wizard wouldn't?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Yes, the Dwarf Cleave Feats bother me too. Anything that can be achieved by training should not be race restricted. At worst, it should be like some of the newer ones (this race and anyone who associates WITH this race).
If the training is kept secret, sure it can. It can be even further restricted such as the secret moves of the Red Mantis Assassins.

I'm hard pressed to think of any logical reason why every other civilization on Golarion is too dumb to think "DURR I COULD STAB IT WITH DA POINTY THING, RIGHT" or "Woah, if I MOVE after hitting someone I can hit SOMEONE ELSE. MIND BLOWN!".

The Red Mantis stuff at least has the justification of "They probably kill anyone who learns it and tries to pass it on" but even that's flimsy.

There is absolutely no reason why someone who spends most of their time fighting can't figure out a fighting style of their own.

It's always rules, rules, rules, when discussing magic's supremacy over a fighter. But suggest that the rules (elf only, worshipper of Torag, whathaveyou) apply when it comes to getting in the way of a wizard's spell selection, or feat selection, or gear selection...then all of a sudden we're on to 'logically' and 'fluff'.

Where were these rules when it came to letting the poor fighter in the bath be an archetype or long term gear usage that might let him survive?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Aaaand you're being willfully obtuse here, and that's all I'm going to say.

Hah! Pot, meet kettle!

But I'm being totally serious. Please, someone... Anyone... Do point out a rule that says that anything is limited to Golarion games just because it's designed for it (sickles are designed for harvesting rice, but that doesn't stop them from being used as weapons). And the definition of "core spells". And the rule that says non-core spells are rarer.

You're free to arbitrarily decide which spells are more common in your games using what books in which they were first published as an excuse... But that's not a game rule, as far as I know.

Nice straw man you've got there. Be a shame if someone were to set it on fire.

The point advanced was that you cannot assume non-core material, and you cannot assume houserules like 'fluff requirements don't exist'.

In my experience, there were tons of 3.0/.5 DMs who banned you from using Eberron or FR material unless you were playing in that setting. When 3.5 opened up the archmage and red wizard to core, it was a big thing. And your experience might differ...but the assumption when you sit down at a table is not 'show me in the rules where I can't use this setting material'.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That's an interesting interpretation, but utterly in conflict with what the actual rules say.

The rules are where physical beauty/appearance/attractiveness is mentioned.

The rules are also where we find exactly how much a character with low charisma is penalized. If we take three 5th level characters, one with a low Charisma (9), one with moderate (11) and one with high (13), we can see that the one with low charisma will be 1 point behind the moderate charisma, in all diplomatic actions, assuming similar effort. Conversely, the high Charisma character is 1 point ahead.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ugh. Any other GMs tired of being told "it isn't your game"? It sure as hell is my game. If one of my players is too sick to play, the session moves on without them. When I'm too sick to play, the session is canceled. If I say there are no drow, no minotaurs, no simulacrums, there are none. If my players say that, I can literally have one walk in the door to make them wrong. If one of my players died tomorrow, we'd all be really upset, and the game would continue. If I died tomorrow, the game dies with me, and the players need to find a new GM. Just because someone knows how to share a world/game and make a functional collaborative experience doesn't mean that they don't have ownership.

I haven't run into players that Sissyl describes. If I had, I'd throw them out of my game, because I don't have time to work out the perfect balance of charisma dump to appearance that might make them try to be less toxic to the table.

Generally, most of my players don't just want to be a combat monster, but have an impact on the game world itself. I don't see too many dumped Charismas.

I do however, enforce the idea that they all find the mind flayers sexy and attractive. Fair's fair, after all.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Aquatic Terrain wrote:
A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects.
Spellcasters ruin everything once again! :p
Except the part in the CRB about total cover breaking the line of effect... and there's not a lot of things spell-wise that can ignore line of effect. The spellcaster's best bet is to summon a shark. :)
Except for the part in the CRB about water's total cover not affecting magical effects.
They can't say you get Total Cover and then make that cover ineffective. Improved Cover gets you +4 to Ref save; what does this Inferior Water-based Total Cover get you?

They literally did that very thing. Everyone knows that terrain hazards are for mundanes. Paizo is just cutting to the chase a bit quicker here.

Not only does water not block line of effect, but jumping into the water does not provide a +4 Reflex save against magical attacks.

Don't worry, I'm sure if there was a spell that gave you magical water cover, it would work just fine.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Aquatic Terrain wrote:
A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects.
Spellcasters ruin everything once again! :p
Except the part in the CRB about total cover breaking the line of effect... and there's not a lot of things spell-wise that can ignore line of effect. The spellcaster's best bet is to summon a shark. :)

Except for the part in the CRB about water's total cover not affecting magical effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Parties usually just are. They bring what they have. If someone wanted to play a rogue, they bring that. If they wanted to play a wild shaping druid (far more common on these boards than in my games, lamentably, given my love for running wilderness campaigns), they bring that instead.

I think the real point here is that if the naked fighter doesn't have a good chance of getting two daggers away from a rogue and killing him on the first round, there's no appreciable chance of him getting a greataxe away from a barbarian, or the mouth away from a dinosaur druid.

Also, regarding the sunder thing...did they errata the rule that says that only a weapon of equal or greater enhancement can harm another? Because if that's still the case, a +1 bow is immune to the fighter's fists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

Full disclosure on the Titan A.E. movie:

Someone I trust told me a moment ago that making that movie did put the studio which produced it out of business, so maybe it isn't as good as I remember. Still, I said "best 2D/3D blend" and that leaves me a little wiggle room. And I liked it regardless.

sheepish grin

I loved Titan A.E. the first time around. The second time, probably over ten years later, I still liked it...but it was not as good as I remembered. And one of its worst features was actually the attempt to blend the animation styles.

That said, I'd watch Titan A.E. a hundred times in a row before I watched Dragonlance again once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Coriat wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
It's one thing to say the Fighter is not necessarily going to have optimal choices. It's quite another to say the Fighter does have IUS or Lunge or Catch Off-Guard, and is not a two-weapon field, and did not invest in Improved Disarm, is not an archetype that grants unarmed options, has no SLAs gained from unusual feat choices, ... I'm actually wondering how many 20th level fighters found in the wild does not have at least ONE characteristic along these lines.

Just to provide some data points, d20pfsrd lists two Paizo-published 20th level fighters on its list of NPCs, and neither of them has even one of the things you mention.

Infernal Champion

Dwarven Weapon Master

A fighter certainly could have one of your options, but I don't think you can bear out your claim that any given 20th level fighter is all but certain to have at least one.

We can also look at the slightly lower level fighters in the NPC Codex, who only have 1-4 feats to catch up with those suggested options. The 18th level fighter has IUS (and is built around it), and the 17th level fighter has lunge. We have to get down to the 14th level fighter to find one with even a single rank in Use magic Device. There are only two fighters in the Codex who have Improved Disarm. Only one who has IUS. Two with Lunge. Etc.

Now, the lower level fighters aren't perfect data points, because it only takes 1 feat that they get at 20th level to get IUS or Lunge or any of the other one feat options. But it seems fair to say looking at the builds, that few of them have those as an 'expectation'.

1 to 50 of 1,689 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.