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

KrispyXIV's page

Goblin Squad Member. 1,342 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,342 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I'm honestly confused and am wondering if he's talking about Point Buy in general, or Point Buy in Pathfinder.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
good things about point buy

Point Buy is the devil.

Almost all of your points are Player based, not system based.

Point buy is great for allowing players to freely build the character's they want to play.

Yes, it's abusable. They key is to find players who won't abuse it.


A 1/2 BAB divine dedicated caster.

I had hopes for the Arcanist White Mage archetype, but it looks like it's just an arcanist with Cure spells.

Cure Spells don't make a caster 'divine'. They don't even really make you a healer (you need things like condition removal and Restoration for that imo).

It misses the mark by so far it hurts. Maybe it's got more than just spontaneous healing though...


Current proficiency, plus one weapon group of choice.

4 Skills per level, and 2 class skills of player choice.

Bravery applies to all Will Saves.

Bonus Feats are not limited to combat feats, and the Manual of War becomes a class feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grimmy wrote:
Rudy2 wrote:
No matter how many times I read this ruling, I can't get over that they let SLAs get you into these things early, thus making Aasimar automatically better for it than any other race.
Yeah, I don't like that either. I wouldn't mind if every race could just get in early though.

The lack of a rush of overpowered Theurges and Eldritch Knights says to me that the prerequisites are way too high by default, because the classes are still just ok even if you shortcut them.

In both cases, First level spells and reduced skill rank requirement would probably be fine.


Wheldrake wrote:

This said, a DM could rule that you need to at least posit a source for this devil's blood. It sounds far less routine than most other spell components.

I agree that keeping track of material components is annoying and fastidious, almost as much as keeping track of the weight of all your gear. But requiring devil's blood is too sweet a plot hook for this DM to pass up. <g>

Ugh, definitely disagree here. To me, it's no more reasonable than requiring the player to posit the source of all that bat guano.

At least someone can bargain with an imp for some blood... Or a less scrupulous wizard could use Planar Binding to Call one, knock it out, and drain it for the duration of the spell.

The key is, someone is out there mucking up bat-crap, and someone is out there bottling devil blood. Both seem equally out of the adventuring spectrum to me.

/opinion


ProfPotts wrote:

Again: I understand the opinions...

a) Because two options for components are listed, one which hasn't had a cost listed in Paizo books, it defaults to 'everything is in the pouch'.

b) Because two options for components are listed, one which has had a cost listed in Paizo books, it defaults to that cost.

... just claiming that any opinion not your own isn't valid doesn't help a great deal, to be honest

Try c) It doesn't default to either component, they are both equally valid, apply rules normally based on which is being used as determined by the character and situation.

I'm not saying opinions other than mine are wrong, I'm saying my interpretation is supported by the rules and I'd like to see rules support from the opposing viewpoint before I admit there may be something to their argument.

There is kindof a bizarre argument that if the cost isn't listed in the spell description it's free even if it has a cost elsewhere (see Transformation), but I think that definitely falls under not duplicating information.

It's also not relevant for Infernal Healing. No cost is listed anywhere for Devil Blood, therefore it's in your pouch. No ambiguity at all.


ProfPotts wrote:
Thanks, KrispyXIV, but I'm aware of the two basic opinions here (it's not a costly component / it is a costly component). What I'm asking is if anyone knows if this has been officially answered anywhere?

Eh, I'm in disagreement it needs to be. Find me anything to contradict my 'opinion' and I'll be impressed.

The spell lists two components on an either/or basis. One has a cost, the other does not.

Apply all rules as normal as nothing has told you otherwise; if you use Devil Blood, there is no associated cost. If you use Unholy Water, you must pay for it as its an expensive material component whose cost is not reprinted in the spell description (see Transformation example).

Here's a goalpost to set in stone for this; find me a spell in a Core Book that lists an expensive component which is also listed with a cost elsewhere (like unholy water or a potion) and duplicates a gold cost in the spell description. If you can do that, I'll agree it's unclear.

Otherwise it's my opinion this issue is clear as day. Apply rules as normal.


Blwargh, foul necromancer!

Devils blood is in your spell component pouch, unless your DM tells you otherwise. Unholy water serves as a potential alternative if for some reason you can't bring your pouch... A flask or skin of water may be easier to bring with you somewhere, for example.

A lot of people take components for granted, but they do matter a little, especially at low levels. My most recent character I had to spend a few minutes with going over her spell list to make sure I didn't need a component pouch, for fluff reasons.

Giving more classes access to HP restoration isn't a bug, it's a feature. It makes the game more fun and doesn't effect combat in this case, while reducing downtime and record keeping. It doesn't need a price tag.


I had a lot of success not balancing Wrath of the Righteous. After a certain point (you're pretty much there), the PC's were effectively demigods.

But that was ok, because it was that sort of campaign and everyone had fun with it.

It got crazy towards the end... We ended up narrating pretty much the entire last book because the PC's were literrally unstoppable... But it was a memorable campaign I think everyone in my group loved.

If there must be a challenge for your group though... I think limiting and toning back the PC's will have a much more meaningful effect in the long run.

Even if you do things like maximize and double the hp of badguys or things like that, they'll still get rolled by Mythic PC's.


master arminas wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Calth wrote:

Assume you hadnt read the sohei class before, and someone handed you a sohei 1/ weapon master 3 character sheet. Is there anything on it that would indicate you flurry with your weapon training group?

If so where would it be?

This sort of argument apparently doesn't work for Malachi, regardless of how correct it is.

He continues to ignore the fact that you don't benefit from rules text of abilities you don't have yet, and you don't reference other classes rules unless you have a class feature that explicitly tells you to (like at Sohei 6, when it instructs you to reference another class... but not before then).

This has become pointless :(

Become pointless? KrispyXIV, it has long BEEN pointless! :)

MA

Was there ever a point?

I mean, its an argument on the Internet. Serious Business it is not.

Ah well.


Calth wrote:

Assume you hadnt read the sohei class before, and someone handed you a sohei 1/ weapon master 3 character sheet. Is there anything on it that would indicate you flurry with your weapon training group?

If so where would it be?

This sort of argument apparently doesn't work for Malachi, regardless of how correct it is.

He continues to ignore the fact that you don't benefit from rules text of abilities you don't have yet, and you don't reference other classes rules unless you have a class feature that explicitly tells you to (like at Sohei 6, when it instructs you to reference another class... but not before then).

This has become pointless :(


MagusJanus wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Anguish wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
If the enemy is intelligent...

That's just it. If an enemy is intelligent - and not all monsters are - they should realize they're getting nowhere attacking X and should move on to try to take out Y and Z.

The OP's GM isn't necessarily "ignoring him"... he may just be playing the bad guys intelligently. I can't tell. But as a GM I am very, very careful to vary the tactics I use based on a} intelligence and b} knowledge.

The big reason why the game doesn't have an aggro system is because that denies a creature its intelligence, coupled with what's-good-for-the-goose meaning that such a thing would be used against PCs as well.

What, you've never gone after an NPC first just because you didn't like him, or he was a jerk, or because he insulted your characters mother?

What's good for the players is fair for the NPC's in this case, IMO.

Yeah, it's pretty standard at my table for PCs and NPCs to taunt each other. And sometimes attack each other because of the taunts.

Great way to reward a knowledge check.

Want to know how to upset that cleric? Imply he does something extra taboo per Knowledge (religion) .

Knowledge Local or Nobility might tell you a local celebrities sore spot or delicate secret.

True or not, the Noble Playboy might not take it kindly that you've just let everyone know how unsatisfactory the ladies find his performance...


Anguish wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
If the enemy is intelligent...

That's just it. If an enemy is intelligent - and not all monsters are - they should realize they're getting nowhere attacking X and should move on to try to take out Y and Z.

The OP's GM isn't necessarily "ignoring him"... he may just be playing the bad guys intelligently. I can't tell. But as a GM I am very, very careful to vary the tactics I use based on a} intelligence and b} knowledge.

The big reason why the game doesn't have an aggro system is because that denies a creature its intelligence, coupled with what's-good-for-the-goose meaning that such a thing would be used against PCs as well.

What, you've never gone after an NPC first just because you didn't like him, or he was a jerk, or because he insulted your characters mother?

What's good for the players is fair for the NPC's in this case, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still say this is as simple as 'you don't gain benefits from abilities you haven't gained yet'. Malachi has consistently ignored this problem. The text under the 6th level Sohei class ability never gets looked at or referenced until you are Sohei 6.

Until that point, if you have an ability called Weapon Training it works exactly as the source of that ability says. You never ever get to look ahead.

Anything at all to contradict the above has yet to be provided.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Tried roleplaying?

Lots of people and things aren't appreciative of creative criticisms of their progenitors. As well, the devout probably won't take well to their divine patrons being slandered. Arrogant fighters and Kung Fu guys might not like you comparing their skills and to children or the elderly. Wizards are known to be overconfident and arrogant.

Knowledge skills should help with the above. More than anything, talk to your dm about it!


I like persistent greater command myself. Whole Lotta minions doing nothing, and persistent means that even a boss might find himself doing nothing but presenting himself for execution.


This is not FAQ worthy. The answer is obvious.

Until Malachi or anyone can provide an example of benefitting from a class feature before you get it (which isn't explicitly allowed elsewhere in the rules, like spell trigger for Rangers), there is no rules ground for him to stand on.

You don't gain benefits from class features you don't have yet.


Kudaku wrote:

I've been playtesting the Arcanist through levels 1 to 6 for the past five months and frankly it plays the way I want all primary casters to play - you can skip the extensive homework required by vancian spellcasting and you're not shooting yourself in the foot if you pick the wrong spells for your fixed spell list. It's a fun and flexible class. While it is in my opinion better designed and much more gameplay-friendly than the wizard and the sorcerer, I don't find it to be dramatically more powerful.

That said, I think the class could benefit from more emphasis on Charisma, since at the moment you lose very little by dumping cha through the floor.

^The above is based on the Revised play test version of the class.

This is kindof what I was wondering about, and it kindof supports my musing about the class being 'arcane caster 2.0'

It may not be a bad thing if it replaces wizard and sorcerer if it's more fun than both.

I've yet to be convinced if it's Increase in power is an issue, since it's a drop in the bucket against the lead full casters already have and has the sorcerer reduction in spell progression built in.


I think the question may be worth asking...

If we were starting from scratch, would we need two classes to cover the "full progression arcane caster" niche?

Or would that role be better filled by one class with a plethora of options that allowed it to fulfill a variety of Character concepts, including those currently done by sorcerer and wizard?

In short, if Arcanist is Wizard/Sorcerer 2.0 (and any ground it makes over the current power standouts is not honestly terribly relevant, with how far ahead they are), are we sure that's a bad thing?

Maybe we don't need 2 classes where one will suffice.


Ironlemon wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

The fire is invisible, but the light is not, basically.

So the light is increased by however many steps a torch increases it (meaning you can likely tell the epicenter of the light source unless the whole area is well lit).

The person is still invisible, though, with all the benefits that brings.

Why would the fire be invisible? For example throwing bag of flour against invisible enemy does outline him (UE). Why would fire be any different.

I'm imagining the Invisible Man in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen getting hit with that flamethrower.


Malachi, the answer to your final question is obvious; you'd put it under Flurry of Blows (and also ki strike).


Unless I'm missing something, any old person with a scroll of command undead (2nd level) or three could make their day go very poorly.

Especially if they have friends to distract your party while they are subverting their best zombies...

The best part is, as this is a low level spell, it's not unthinkable a caster would pick a couple up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone else in the group suffer from this sort of harassment? These sorts of rulings... On the spot changes to the way the game works by default that come specifically at you... Don't bode well.

If you like the GM, I'd talk it out and find out if there's some underlying issue.

If they're no one to you, I'd bail. It sounds like they're messing with you in a very bad way.


Imbicatus wrote:

Let me ask you this: The Rules state you have to have concealment in order to make a steal check.

I have total concealment against people that are not in the room I am in, does that let me make a stealth check and have it apply to someone in the room?

If you have some other form of Concealment relevant to those people, and if they are not observing you, yes.

If they are observing you and you don't have some form of Concealment from them, then no.

If you make a Bluff check and can gain Concealment against them (say, against any potential ranged attacks they make with improvised thrown weapons), yes. Why not? Running in circles around the room faster than they can keep track of is kindof the most absurd use of this feat, but hey... A few crates or barrels or a smokestick would allow the same thing with no feat investment.


Lucio wrote:
It's one of the areas where you can either use the simple rule, Stealth require's concealment, or the GM can chose to interpret the intent of the rule and decide if a situation which grants concealment is actually sufficient.

'interpret'is the key word there as far as intent goes. As I noted above, the infiltrator relying on speed to slip by sentries and guards unnoticed ("What was that?!" "It must have been the wind.") is a VERY common trope.

As such, to me this seems a very appropriate use of this feat...


Diego Rossi wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

It doesn't. Just like blur doesn't.

The concealment doesn't change the effective lighting you are standing in.

Lighting matters not at all for Stealth. It's completely irrelevant.

Stealth requires Concealment or cover (conditional or not, wind stance grants Concealment) and that you are not being observed.

If you satisfy those conditions, you can attempt Stealth.

No one on the battlefield with a ranged weapon. No concealment .... :-P

No, you don't have concealment for all purposes. You have concealment only for the specific purpose of avoiding ranged attacks.

Having Concealment against X satisfies the requirements for having Concealment.

Stealth does not require you to 'have Concealment from all theoretical observers', does it? Otherwise, the potential of blindsight or lifesense would prevent you from ever attempting it.

Now, the key here is that wind stance isn't going to help with the 'being observed' requirement like more general Concealment like foliage or fog or darkness would.

But moving around quickly enough to be stealthy is a very common trope...

Edit: plus, anyone with access to a held object or a handful of dirt is a potential ranged attacker, for what that is worth.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

It doesn't. Just like blur doesn't.

The concealment doesn't change the effective lighting you are standing in.

Lighting matters not at all for Stealth. It's completely irrelevant.

Stealth requires Concealment or cover (conditional or not, wind stance grants Concealment) and that you are not being observed.

If you satisfy those conditions, you can attempt Stealth.


Hey now, Simulacrums of demons. They are harmless. If you're squeamish about the profane gift, you can always use sending or a wondrous item that uses sending or talk a bank rep (who does have a gift, and can call in for you) to make a withdrawal/purchase


Since you've got a great sword for up close, a ranger can easily skip out on feats like precise shot. They have plenty of feats to do both.


Caimbuel wrote:
Problem I have with a "vault" is once I get my item from it can't I legend Loretta item to tell me where the vault is or other shenanigans. Bout the best I have done was a mercantile church running a currency only bank with transactional papers and the holder of said papers was owner of said money.

Hallow plus dim anchor locks out most such attempts if your Vault is suitably remote (like a hundred miles underground).

This is, for the record, how I assume most Magic shops in games I run are assumed to function as well... No physical goods to steal on site, 2 day delivery guaranteed on items under 4k gold, and everything is run by one immortal wizard with a name that probably rhymes with 'Amazon'.

I had an idea to write something up about this whole system at one point, but eh.


A bag of holding, secret chest, or portable hole is the most reliable way for the party to do this.

Alternatively, if I were a high level wizard in a high Magic setting, an 'on demand' bank is easy to run. Dig an underground Vault somewhere, and make some succubus Simulacrums 'tellers' and a portable hole. Charge a subscription fee to 'link' someone to a teller via profane gift, and you can allow people to request access to their account in minutes from anywhere. Their Deposit goes into a Hole, which a teller can deliver anywhere on the plane instantly


You've described the basic Switch Hitter Ranger here.

Take basic Ranger, add Power Attack and use Combat Style to get all the good ranged feats without prerequisites.

And like that, all the essential bases are covered. Season to taste.

You'll be surprised how easy this is to accomplish.


Artanthos wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
A that level a single Storm of Vengance spell would destroy an army of thousands.

Why kill thousands when you can take out the leadership with a minimum in collateral damage? Unless you happen to enjoy mass slaughter!

I cast Detect Evil

Hey, they may need their leaders to rebuild later. Taking them head on until they break due to heavy losses and impotence may be better for them in the long run. At that level, a fighter with two manuals of war could nonlethaly drop everyone in reach every round and likely never be in any real danger.


At level 18, there is nothing a typical 'army' will be able to do to them of any note. Even if they hit on 20's, a wand or a couple scrolls of stoneskin will make them immune to incidental damage. There are single spells (especially conjurations, like greater Planar X or gate or creeping doom) that could win that for them.

I say let the players narrate it and move on to the real fights.


Depending on level, this may or may not be a challenge.

Ran a mythic campaign recently that featured a couple armies of demons the players had to defend against, and it took about 2 minutes for me to realise the demons were utterly boned. As in the majority of them were baleful polymorphic or dead instantly, and the rest were up against the untouchable fighter who flew out to meet them.

It was pretty awesome. We just narrated it at that point and everyone had a lot of fun.

A fight versus a small army at level 5,though is a different beast.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've run multiple AP's with core Fighters, monks and rogue's in them as players. They tend to be as effective as anyone in the narrative sense, and I've yet to see any of them not have fun because of the limitations of their class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You do not gain the benefits of class features before you have them. Period. This needs to be dealt with, and cannot just be ignored.

If someone can find an example of the above being untrue (class features with benefits prior to gaining them) , then we can meaningfully have a discussion here.

Otherwise, the text in the Sohei feature is meaningless until you are Sohei 6.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
the ability works as it says, and does not require any special interpretation. The current writing is not in any way ambiguous.

I agree: the ability works as it says, does not require interpretation, and is in no way ambiguous:-

'A sohei may use flurry of blows and ki strike with any weapon in which he has weapon training.'

Quote:
Plus, No ability in the game gives you benefits before you have it.
Agreed. The ability is Weapon Training. I have it.

If I told you my character was an Evangelist, can you tell whether or not I have bardic performance?

Just because they have the same name doesn't make them the same ability. You do not have the ability to flurry granted by the Sohei ability until you have that specific variant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're only doing it wrong if you aren't having fun or are preventing others from having fun. Period.

As far as character building processes go, my personal preference is to find a piece of artwork or a model, and try and work out how to build the character that comes to mind for me. Generally, at that point I'll do what I can to make the resulting character as effective as I can, but thats secondary to bringing the inspiration I found to fruition.

Looking at starting a campaign. Here soon, and my plan involves having a total of four classes involved to make it work.


Malachi, your last post ignores the much more likely possibility that the ability works as it says, and does not require any special interpretation. The current writing is not in any way ambiguous.

Plus, No ability in the game gives you benefits before you have it.

Anyone mention the martial artists Exploit Weakness yet? The ability to simply ignore any DR or hardness is pretty amazing, and fun. Who needs a key when you can just put your hand through a steel door like it was tissue paper?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Kwauss wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
None of which is relevant, because that text does not exist for all intents and purposes until you are Sohei 6.

It doesn't exist until you have Weapon Training.

The Weapon Training ability itself is identical to, and stacks with, Weapon Training gained from fighter levels. It's just that Sohei with weapon training can use those weapons to flurry. Any Weapon Trainng.

Please quote the text of the ability you have at level 3 of weaponmaster that allows flurrying with Weapon Training.

The ability to flurry with weapons in which you have Weapon Training is not an ability of Weaponmasters, it's an ability of Sohei. It kicks in when they get Weapon Training. It doesn't care where they get Weapon Training from.

Please quote where it says that this ability only applies to Sohei of level 6.

We dont have to. That text doesn't exist until Sohei 6. Fighter weapon training is a different ability with the same name (which allows it to work for any Sohei with their variant of the ability), but it does not have the exactly same effect.

As was said earlier in the thread, for this to work the way you want, the Sohei's Flurry of Blows ability would have to say they could Flurry with any weapon they have weapon training with.

...On topic, monks are fantastic, and very adaptable to whatever you want them to do. I've had several in games I've run, and the person playing them has always enjoyed it.


Nazerith wrote:
plaidwandering wrote:

Are you guys thinking the flurry text isn't part of the class feature because it's on page 61, and the class feature starts on page 60?

There's no new section heading, it's all one class feature.

No, you misunderstand. No one argues the text is located in the level 6 ability. The contention is that the only ability you gain at level six is Weapon Training. It is just descriptive text regarding how Weapon Training works for Sohei, placed in its most natural position and not a specific ability gained at level 6. Since Sohei does not have a section dedicated to Flurry, it could not have been located there.

None of which is relevant, because that text does not exist for all intents and purposes until you are Sohei 6.

Can you point to an example elsewhere of an example of a class feature that grants you any benefit at all before you have it?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Maybe I missed it (it's a long thread), but if most of us are agreed on RAI and this debate is simply to clear up RAW, why can the cleric not change other character's prepared spells into cure spells (since the ability says "any prepared spell")?

That instance is completely without precedent, and I think everyone agrees its ridiculous. You are, however, technically correct in that you can take actions while dead.

Wait, or that other thing :)

However, gaining the ability to convert your own spells is something which is available from multiple sources, and we know exactly how its intended to work for single classed Cleric's and Druids. See also Preferred Spell.

(For the record, I agree we've probably reached the limits of this discussion... i'm still of the opinion this clearly works by RAW, and isn't a balance issue and would probably enhance the fun of any game it came up in, so it could stay the same or go, I dont care... I'd just like it resolved.)


James Risner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
move goal posts much?

Insulting much? I'm tired of this "move goal post crap" when you can't refute what I say you you want to say I'm changing the objectives?

James, he did refute your point by referring to the Sorcerer FAQ. It contradicts you.

You moved the goalposts by arbitrarily dismissing the example provided by the bard ability based on something which cannot be proved or supported, namely 'page count'.


SAMAS wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

I had 'fun' in a rifts campaign once trying to play a power armor character.

Things like attempting to camouflage myself with extensive Resources expended and being told hiding in an iron man scale armor was impossible, being unable to maneuver indoors in the same, etc were one type of bad.

To be fair, you are wearing motorized full plate. If your armor wasn't the kind designed for stealth, you usually shouldn't bother. But this and the other depends on your model of armor. If you're packing one of my namesakes, for example, you got a very large thruster pack and great big wings hanging off your back.

Quote:
Being told I could not wear my armor 'in town' because it was unreasonable was the real kicker. In any other setting, sure. In this one, half the people on the street could vaporize me with a thought because most of them were some sort of monster, cyborg or mage. Power armor was my equivalent of a tazer, but I ended up being the only one in the party required to walk around helpless most of the time (because everyone else was one of the aforementioned monsters).

Well, they're half right here. Most towns and cities don't let people walk around with Mega-Damage weapons and armor within their walls. This is explicitly stated in the books. One book even shows why, with a story of a psychotic SAMAS pilot who slaughtered an entire village with just two missiles, a railgun, and his bare hands.

Now the question is: Did he apply that to everybody? Even cyborgs have to have their onboard weaponry deactivated if not removed, and a lot of predominantly Human settlements wouldn't even let monstrous Mega-Damage beings in, at least not without keeping an eye on them. Of course, if that all only applied to you...

Quote:
The character retired after his first badass attempt at an ambush ended with him being given no chance at Stealth against enemies who used Magic (which normally does not function this way) which simply ignored his armor (in this
...

I passed on the SAMAS for reasons of subtlety. I went with the Flying Titan, which most of the artwork depicted as being effectively human sized.

The town we were based out of had a large population of both MDC creatures and casters and such capable of both MDC offense and defense with no gear at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
walter mcwilliams wrote:
Reading these posts is crazy! How do GM's who perpetrate this type of insanity keep players in their groups! So thankful for the great GM's I have in my circle of gamers!!

They don't, I assume. I dropped from a Kingmaker game after session one when it was ruled that one character could not make Survival checks to provide food for the party-we each had to 'take a turn' making those checks because of a lack of 'opportunities' that check 'represented'. Suddenly my low wisdom bard, who I had rolled knowing we had a ridiculous survival specialist in the party, was a gigantic liability who was starving the whole party.

Especially since I was not allowed to opt out and just provide food from gp either...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Removing and modifying are completely different things, by definition. Removing spells is modifying the class.

Yep, but removing is subsumed into modifying.

Its relative. Removing a class feature modifies the class, yes.

It has not modified that class feature; its text and function remain identical, you simply no longer have access to it.

Example with cookies: You have a cookie. If I take your cookie, the cookie is unchanged but is now mine; I have modified the ownership, but not the cookie itself. If instead I add frosting, I have modified your cookie.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I had 'fun' in a rifts campaign once trying to play a power armor character.

Things like attempting to camouflage myself with extensive Resources expended and being told hiding in an iron man scale armor was impossible, being unable to maneuver indoors in the same, etc were one type of bad.

Being told I could not wear my armor 'in town' because it was unreasonable was the real kicker. In any other setting, sure. In this one, half the people on the street could vaporize me with a thought because most of them were some sort of monster, cyborg or mage. Power armor was my equivalent of a tazer, but I ended up being the only one in the party required to walk around helpless most of the time (because everyone else was one of the aforementioned monsters).

The character retired after his first badass attempt at an ambush ended with him being given no chance at Stealth against enemies who used Magic (which normally does not function this way) which simply ignored his armor (in this system, it's your Hp) and one rounded him.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Cure Critical Wounds is not an advantage over Greater Invisibility, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Extended Greater Magic Weapon, Enervation, and about 10 others.

Except the wizard would still have access to all those spells and any cure spell at a moment's notice.

Or he could just Limited Wish (after level 13). As I've tried to stress before, its cheap by the time you get it and can duplicate REAL healing spells, like Heal or Restoration.

Wizards are already stepping on toes, in far more significant ways than the generally agreed to be subpar Cure series of hp recovery spells.

1 to 50 of 1,342 << 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.