|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The basic pattern is supposed to be @50% increase in damage for each size increase.
If it was a 50% increase for one size step, it would be a 125% increase for two, due to compound interest. If it's supposed to be 100% for two size steps, then it's a 41% increase for one size increase. (i.e. multiply the damage by the square root of 2.)
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Any permanent death of a ruler would require deliberate murder and access to high level magic.
...or a law against raising the dead or the ruler's successor wants his predecessor to stay dead so he can take over or the ruler is poor or there aren't any high level divine casters in the kingdom or the high level divine casters didn't like the ruler or the ruler's soul doesn't want to return or Pharasma doesn't want the ruler to return... I find it's best to assume that most souls are claimed by the gods and are unable to return, and that heroes (and sometimes villains) are the exception.
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Any misdeed could be scryed upon
Wouldn't you have to scry upon everyone all the time? Seems like it would be a lot harder to do that in Golarion than in our society with cheap video cameras.
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
The separation between poor and rich would be that much greater.
I don't see how this harms immersion.
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
And I ache every time I see the excuse "Well people fear magic, because it's different". If that's so true, then we wouldn't have people going to magic shows, or taking advice from "psychics".
That's a cultural value. It's not inherent to humanity. In other times, anyone suspected of witchcraft was burned at the stake.
If players using these abilities "ruins" the story.The story was wrong in the first place.
Easy teleportion (backed up by scrying) can ruin an awful lot of stories. Race against time? Teleport. Need to escape from dangerous foe? Teleport. Mountain to climb? Teleport. Trapped in arena and forced to fight? Teleport. Rescue the prisoner / free the slaves? Teleport in, grab target(s), teleport out. Great journey across hostile lands and seas? Teleport. Enemy needs to be killed? Teleport in when they're sleeping, kill them, teleport out. Steal legendary artifact? Teleport in, grab item, teleport out.Enter a dungeon and kill everything and steal their stuff? Yes, teleportation doesn't completely ruin that! That's clearly a 'better' story.
Either that or you can place unbreakable anti-teleportation wards everywhere.
SLAs require no components, nothing verbal, nothing somatic, so casting an SLA like this is merely an act of will with no visible clue that you're the one doing it.
It is generally understood that even if there are no components, casting spells and SLAs is still noticeable.
If we assume that the Wasting Ray itself is visible, it can't be used for secret assassinations. So you're attacking someone openly, hoping that (a) they don't have any provisions, and are a couple of miles away from anything edible (b) they won't kill and eat you. This is not a reliable method for killing people.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
Delay Poison? Really?
Delay Poison is surprisingly good. It's only level 2 and it makes your target effectively immune to poison for hours. Unlike Neutralize Poison, you can cast it before going into danger with no action economy issues. Unlike Neutralize Poison, it doesn't fail completely if you roll low on a d20. You still suffer the poison effects when the spell wears off, but it's a lot better to pass out from Strength loss when you're back in your camp than it is when you're fighting a Purple Worm.
It's a trait, not a feat, so you don't need to use a feat for it if you're in a game that allows traits. Though you can also use a feat to gain proficiency in one weapon.
Before you enter a debate like this it's useful to realize that different people define their 'self' very differently.
For some people the 'self' is their brain / body. If you put them through a Star Trek transporter that dismantled their body and recreated it perfectly from new molecules somewhere else, they'd see that as murder. (I had a friend who saw things this way.)
For some people the 'self' is the persistence of memory, the continuity of their experiences. They'd have no problem with being dismantled and reassembled, but they'd be horrified if you tried to use one of those memory erasers from Men in Black on them. "The me that exists now is going to be killed. Why should I be comforted by the fact that the me that used to exist is going to be brought back?" (This is my instinctive viewpoint. The friend I mentioned and had this discussion with responded, "I've had blackouts after drinking heavily. Lost memories are no big deal.")
And for some people the 'self' is their beliefs, their free will. If you took that away, they'd think you were destroying them. These people will be offended by the Helmet of Opposite Alignment. Those who don't think free will is even a real thing find this attitude hard to understand.
It isn't sad, funny, or true. What the guide says is "don’t expect to be able to skip past the significant long overland journey sections with spells like teleport, wind walk, or shadow walk." It's not saying 'please don't cast teleport', it's saying that won't help. (MINOR JADE REGENT SPOILERS:)
You're transporting an artifact that is magically protected against teleportation to another continent. (It makes sense that such an important item would be warded against teleport since otherwise it would make stealing it far too easy.) Although they forgot to say anything about Wind Walk in the item so the GM should probably house rule that in. Or allow the players to skip several chapters and then die because they're too low level for the finale.
Spells I'd realistically focus on are ones with no save, magic missile, stone call, etc that just can't be avoided by my typically low int save.
Those can be useful, but it might be better to focus on Personal spells that aid your melee performance. Shield and Mirror Image for surviving with d6 hit dice and no armor, and the various spells that transmute you into monstrous creatures with strength bonuses.Your spells per day will be a little lower than normal, so wands will be your friends.
Your damage isn't going to be as good as a regular melee attacker, but with a Wizard's flexibility out of combat you're unlikely to be a useless member of the party.
Why would I do that? I don't even feel the need to read this thread. If I have a clever sounding point, like, "What if they were only evil in the first place because someone used a Helm of Opposite Alignment on them?" I don't want to be told that someone had the same thought before. I'm here to seek attention, not to find out what other people have to say!
Minor error here: hitting on a 5 or better = 80% hit chance. Thac20's average DPR = 21.6 was correct.
The correct thing for a paladin to do is to kill their evil enemy, who will then go to hell, where they will be tortured for all eternity / turn into a demon. Changing their enemy's personality for the better is far more immoral and inhumane.
Seriously, there is no established moral standard on the ethics of magical brainwashing, since there really isn't anything in the real world that is equivalent, so as a society we never needed to come to any firm conclusion on the subject. There is nothing in the Pathfinder rules declaring it to be evil, or Dominate spells would surely have the Evil descriptor. However, many GMs will instinctively feel that it is evil, and you probably won't be able to talk them out of it.
FAQ Request: Can I use a standard action to perform actions that are faster then normal standard actions (like Swift and immediate actions)?.
Only 1 swift action per round is an intentional balance of power on classes that have access to and use many swift actions such as magus and inquisitor. Allowing trading of standard actions to swift allows for better action economy overall and would result in higher actual levels of power for classes that use swift action buffing.
I'm not convinced there are any real balance issues created by allowing someone to use a standard action as a swift action. Sure, as an Inquisitor, I could activate Bane and Judgement in the same round. But giving up a standard action is a high price to pay. It means I can't cast a spell, can't double move, can't charge, can't make a full round archery attack. Where's the advantage? I'm not getting any benefit from the bane in the first round, so I might as well have left it until the second round.
The Magus is similar - their swift actions are mostly only useful because you can attack at the same time. How often would you realistically want to use Spell Recall and enhance your weapon in one turn, but not cast a spell or attack?
As a paladin, I could heal myself twice a round with LoH - but then I can't do anything else. There may be cases where that's useful, but it's rarely going to be the best choice. A 4th level paladin can already LoH on himself and channel positive energy for healing in the same round, which would heal them as fast as doing it twice, and heal allies as well.
There seem to be two different gaming philosophies in conflict here.
For one group, if you were summarizing the game mechanics, you'd say you roll a D20 and it tells you how well you did. 1 is bad, 20 is good.
For the other group, the game is about playing a character who is good at some things and bad at others. They will do well at the things that their character is good at, and badly at the things their character is bad at.
A lot of the time, the game mechanics support both ideas. In edge cases, only one of those is true. For example, if you're break down a door with a DC15 strength check, luck is likely to play a much bigger role than a few points of strength. The Strength 8 Wizard might succeed where the Strength 20 Fighter failed.
For the average Int dumping fighter, that's not going to lead to a very impressive knowledge skill. "I put all my skill ranks into it, and now I have a 50-50 chance of being able to tell a dwarf from an elf."
Most people focus on class skills when making characters. That means there's a good chance that no-one in the group will have any ranks of Knowledge: Local.
Sometimes the PCs are rushing - "We won the battle and still have active buffs, let's hurry to the next room and see if we can use them in a second encounter."It's reasonable for a GM to say at any time, "Are you moving quickly or are you moving slowly and carefully?" And if they say they're going slowly, they may have to deal with enemies having time to prepare for them, or similar penalties.
"Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as an immediate action if the wearer desires."
The point I'm making is this: by it's very nature, the heavily exception based classes (i.e. the casters, who choose when to obey the game's model of physics, realistic or not) are ALWAYS going to be better than the less exception based classes (i.e. the martials or the skill monkeys, who have far less choice in the matter). Doesn't matter what the base model is.
I disagree with this. There's no inherent reason casters need to be 'better'.Let's suppose we're making a new system, and we want to rebalance the Cleric and the Fighter. Now, what are the Fighter's advantages? The Cleric has devoted his life to prayer and so forth, so obviously the Fighter (who has devoted himself to the physical) should have more skill points, better initiative, better saving throws, be faster at moving around the map and so forth. And why should the Cleric be able to cast powerful spells in a single round? Why not have all spells take a couple of rounds to work? And why give them powerful spells at level 3 that could be moved up to level 9? And why should a Cleric get more spells per day at higher level? Isn't it enough that the spells get more powerful?
It would not be hard to make a system where Fighter is obviously the better option, if that was your idea of a good time.
But if you might need emergency funds in the event of a plague to pay the level 5 cleric to visit your tiny village, or to hire adventurers to rescue your daughter from the goblins, or whatever, a sensible villager will be setting aside money every week, rather than blowing it all on riotous living - or even average living.
Anyway, the economics rules aren't really sophisticated enough to include with things like sudden crop failures that would realistically cause poverty. I wouldn't expect them to be.
I think that was intended to mean 'penetrating damage reduction' rather than referring to Piercing weapons.
Also, note that here, +3 weapons means an actual +3 enhancement bonus, unlike the '+6 equivalent weapon penetrating DR/epic' rule. So a +1 flaming frosty holy shocking burst weapon can penetrate DR/epic but not DR/cold iron (unless the weapon is made of cold iron).
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
they might learn that PCvPC is a really bad idea that has consequences
Did you read the whole thread? The OP initiated PCvPC by trapping most of the party with a cave-in and leaving them to die. Murdering as many PCs as possible before they kick you out of the game is not a mature way to handle it.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
It looks to me like it's still possible to be poor under Pathfinder rules.For example, let's say you have no ranks in any profession or craft skills (assumption: people do not choose what they get skill ranks in - these are chosen by GMs/players/gods/luck - any more than a peasant can choose to be an Alchemist instead of a Commoner).
You have a family - children, elderly parents, etc. - who depend upon your income to survive.
And at some point in the past, you had to borrow money - to buy your house, or pay someone to cast Remove Disease on your dying son, or to support yourself after you broke your leg - and now have interest payments to keep up with.
Pretty sure the 'average lifestyle' is no longer available to you.
And that's if you're not paying taxes, contributing protection money to the mob, trying to put money aside for emergencies...
If you cut off your allies' escape route, you are (whether it's in character or not, whether it's evil or not, whether they were almost certainly doomed or not) initiating PvP. Don't be surprised if it comes back to bite you.
It is usually a good idea to come to a pre-game agreement with the rest of the players about the acceptable level of PC conflict.
Why can't the PC move into same space as the other PC, take move action to open the door and be shunted back?
Because in order to take a move action to open the door, they would have to end their move in an illegal position.
Let's say you were standing in a 5 foot corridor, and there were six orcs in the corridor ahead of you, and you intend to fight them one at a time. And then let's say the GM decided that each orc could move forward into the same space as the front orc, attack you, and then be shunted back to a legal position. Wouldn't you think that was wrong?
If I was designing the Fighter class for Pathfinder 2.0 here are the things I would include:
No magic-like abilities. Keep them as 'realistic' as possible.
No limited uses per day features. Keep it simple.
These are the things that make a fighter a Fighter as distinct from the other martial classes. They are simple to learn for new players, and they can be used to make down to earth character concepts.
Within these restrictions, they should be as balanced as possible with the other classes. This may mean they have better saving throws than everyone else, lots of skill points, d12 hit dice, etc. They should be good at moving around the map, and should have easy access to feats like Precise Shot that allow you to ignore annoying game mechanics.
There should also be martial classes with cool abilities along the lines of Sorcerer bloodlines that allow them to sunder spells or fly, but these are not Fighters.
I am talking about the small differences in XP between party members not encounter balance.
Hang on, when you're talking about XP versus No XP, are you also suggesting giving different amount of XP to different PCs? Because the standard Pathfinder system is to use XP and share it equally among the party.
You know I have been searching for an analogy for the no XP style and I think I have it. It is like putting training wheels on a bicycle. It KEEPS you perfectly balanced regardless of the skill of the rider.
No XP style leads to perfectly balanced games? That sounds great! Can you teach me how? Because I've played in APs where we level up by milestone instead of by XP, and it really doesn't seem to affect the balance at all.
There is a massive difference between 'GM decides that the players are definitely going to win' and 'GM tries to make fair and balanced encounters'.
There are also precedents for Dex-to-damage, like the Agile weapon property and Dervish Dance.
Let's consider some possible different approaches - all valid, though not necessarily suitable for all groups:
1: The GM wants a playful game where the player's job is to express the personality of the character they've created, and to participate in shared storytelling. The GM goes out of his/her way to make sure that no-one dies unless they want to die heroically for the sake of a good story. This allows players to have fun in a non-competitive environment without worrying that if they play non-optimally it will get everyone killed. The odds of success are pretty much 100%.
2: The GM is running an adventure path as written. Having made this decision, the odds of the group surviving depend on (a) whether the adventure path is well balanced, (b) the groups' system mastery and focus on their own survival, and (c) the luck of the dice. Occasionally the GM will be forced to make a decision that will impact the survival of the PCs (should the monster coup de grace the helpless character or try to escape?) but where possible decides such things randomly or by following pre-written tactics, to ensure that the success of the group is down to chance and to their own efforts, and not to GM whim.
3: The GM waits to see what kind of PCs the players have come up with, and then creates challenges for them based around what those characters ought to be able to handle. Survival chance is high if the characters use good tactics, low if they get careless.
4: The GM creates a sandbox world with safe and dangerous areas, lets the PCs know which the dangerous areas are, and creates random encounters within these areas. The players get to set their own difficulty level.
Where was I going with this? I forget. Possible conclusions:
In my (limited) experience, it's people who do not know they smell bad because no-one has told them and because they are not sensitive to their own smell. Telling them requires you to be direct (they will probably not make a connection between novelty soap and them smelling bad, because they do not know they smell bad) but also tactful (they will be upset to learn they smell bad, so try to be nice and not make it too big a deal).
They may well also be depressed, anxious, lonely, etc. If you can get them to wash regularly with soap and use deodorant, that may make them less lonely and depressed in the long run.
It absolutely would make the fighter the 'best' fighter in terms of DPR. Of course, he'd need a support team to make sure he could actually launch full attacks, but if the support casters were there, he'd be outdamaging the barbarian effortlessly. At level 15, the Barbarian is attacking with a base of +15/+10/+5. The double-BAB fighter would be attacking with a base of +30/+25/+20/+15/+10/+5.
It wouldn't make the fighter a balanced class, but it would make them ridiculously deadly archers and (conditions permitting) melee-full-attackers. He'd be wiping out whole encounters in one round.
I do not recommend giving fighters double BAB.
In appropriately sized weapons read it with logic in mind it may not be what they intended but it is in the RAW -2 for each size category and it does not say you can't wield a two handed weapon as one handed if you are willing to take the penalty.
"A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder.""The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all."
I really don't see where you're getting -6 from. (Though it would be a reasonable house-rule.)
As I understand it the Core Rules don't ever specifically say anyone has to sleep for any other reason than to get back spells. It provides no mechanical penalty for not sleeping.
Note: this may have been true in 2012, but the FAQ now says that if you miss a night of sleep you are fatigued.