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

Matthew Downie's page

2,607 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,607 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

karnos wrote:
If a wizard can use a rod the same way a sorcerer can, but without the increased time, that is broken. There is no point to play a sorcerer.

Being good at using metamagic rods is not the point of playing a sorcerer. When a wizard casts a spell, that's an option gone for the rest of the day. The sorcerer keeps all his options until the last slot is used up.

The rules of teleport are none too clear and leave room for GMs to allow or disallow things as suits their campaign. The spell says you must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the target.

1 Personally I'd say that a ship cabin is a familiar layout, but you'd have to have some idea of where the ship was for it to work. (I take a fairly restrictive view of teleportation - I don't think most adventurers should be able to go instantly wherever they want.)

2 I'd say that messing up the 'layout' requirement would be fairly easy. Just work out where the caster would want to wind up standing, and fill that area with objects that would get in their way.

3 By my interpretation that you must know both the location and the layout, an identical-looking place wouldn't make a difference, since the caster has to already know the target position well enough to be able to point it out on a map.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
For example, if you were in a dungeon, and needed to get out quickly, you could cast create pit and then cause a cave-in. By the rules you're advocating, create pit would then rise up to the surface.

Not a great form of teleportion.

You've got to create a pit, get in the pit, and then somehow create a cave-in that leaves no gaps between you and the outside world that could count as an alternative surface for the pit to form on.

Also, the cave-in must not be the sort that causes hundreds of medium sized rocks to fall into the pit you're standing in and crush you to death.

Then, if that works, you have to wait for the spell to end and you are then teleported to one specific place, vertically above you.

It wouldn't exactly make Dimension Door obsolete.

Natertot wrote:

Isn't this thread the same issue: with out the "interleaving" title?


Not quite.

The issue the previous thread was about:
GM: "I'll roll a d20 for all the vampires' initiatives. Natural 20. The vampire all go before you and hit you all with fireballs and you're dead."
Player: "Not fair! They should have all rolled initiative separately and if they wanted to act together they should have delayed until the lowest roll!"
GM: "That would be slow and fiddly. Although I guess in this case you have a point."

The issue this thread is about:
GM: "I move this rogue, then I move this rogue, then both rogues attack, so they both get flanking and sneak damage."
Player: "Not fair! I can't do that! I have to take my entire turn in one go!"
GM: "You could if you readied an action."

There is some overlap between the issues, so the subjects have got interleaved.

James Jacobs wrote:
Silent Saturn wrote:
4. Weapons no longer have critical multipliers, they now have critical damage dice. A rapier, for example, might be "18-20/+2d4" while a wakizashi is "18-20/+1d8" and a scythe is "20/+2d12". This would allow different weapons to have more visibly different stats and thus make more room for new weapons to be released in previous books. It would also mean your Strength bonus et al. aren't multiplied on a crit anymore, which would make crits much less of a novablast and make the crit range of a weapon less important than it currently is.
I really really really am intrigued by and like this idea.

It looks like it would make crits fairly irrelevant at high levels.

Player: "Natural 20, so that'll hit... I do 43 damage to the Froghemoth."
GM: "Aren't you going to roll to confirm the crit?"
Player: "Oh, yeah, that... Another natural 20. What a waste of a good roll... OK, so with the bonus that's 46 damage total."

Just a Guess wrote:
use the breath weapon with the guy in the maw (no ref save for him)

By RAW you always get a reflex save, so don't be surprised if the player complains about that.

You should be able to stop the bleed with an untrained heal check.

In terms of XP budgets, the 'two enemies are CR X+2' is intended to apply to CR 1 creatures. It doesn't apply to fractional CR creatures. What CR 1/3 means is that you need three of them to make a CR 1 encounter. Beyond that, the normal rule applies - two groups of three CR 1/3 creatures would be CR 3.

Although I'd actually make an exception for the orcs. Since they can keep on fighting at -11 hit points, and can take down a level 1 PC with a single attack, they're a lot more dangerous than a CR 1 Zoog and three of them would be a pretty deadly encounter at level 1.

It looks like they have a natural reach of zero and will have to provoke just to get an attack in... I'd say a team of four Zoogs would be enough to be interesting. But if you can, take the specific party into account. A cleric with selective channeling can easily counter bleed damage, a strength-focused barbarian could probably kill one per attack...

No, you're right, they're pretty weak for their CR. To be any kind of challenge, they'd have to be fighting you while you're trying to climb a tree, inflicting bleed damage and retreating, and using up your healing resources.

Glitterdust is a good early conjuration spell for sorcerers - it can blind an opponent who fails the DC or reveal an invisible enemy (since sorcerers have so few spells known, it's good to have spells that do more than one thing). Later there are various poison gas cloud spells.

But Spell focus: Conjuration is also a prerequisite for Augment Summoning, which is probably the motivation here.

So if I put a solid board across the top of the pit so I can walk across it, it doesn't work, because the pit then becomes part of the board?
Does it have to cover the entire pit to do that, or would blocking half of it have the same issue?
What if you put something that isn't flat on top of it? Does that create the desired trap?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joesi wrote:
A druid's animal companion hippopotamus has only 11 strength while a freaking dog has 13.

While that is a bit silly, even for a baby hippo, I think the hippo will still have a higher weight capacity due to being a larger size class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure when they say 'before you know the result' what they mean is 'before the GM has had to give away the target DC'.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Isn't obscurity exactly what the Vigilante wants?

I was thinking of making Sleep cause characters to drop held items, fall prone, and then wake up because it hurts when you fall over (unless they're already seated, prone, standing on a pile of pillows...)

Pretty sure it's not RAI, but it is (a) following the rules of how things normally work in the real world, and (b) quite balanced for what a level 1 spell should be able to do. You can make them prone and disarm them, but can't then coup de grace them. A good houserule for annoying Slumber Hex witches...

Gauss wrote:
Where do you see that Aid Another cannot be used for ability checks?

Nowhere, but I can't see anywhere that says they can be.

"Aid Another
You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort..."

TWF attacking with THW and armor spikes was RAW legal. The FAQ made it illegal by saying that attacking with anything uses a metaphorical-hand's worth of effort.

TWF attacking with one hand and armor spikes while using a shield is RAW legal. It is possible that this, too, is against RAI. If they do another FAQ to say that a shield uses a metaphorical-hand as well as a literal hand, that will be the new rule. Until then it remains legal.

Ravingdork wrote:

A player absolutely should be entitled to take 10 in certain circumstances, as outlined by the rules.


What they describe isn't GM adjudication. It's the GM saying you can't do something even though the rules clearly say you can. It absolutely will lead to a lot of upset.

Doesn't the actual RAW support the "you can't take 10 while climbing a cliff because you're in danger of falling to your death" interpretation? The "it only applies to dangers other than the danger from the thing you're trying to do" is mostly based on unofficial developer commentary.

kestral287 wrote:
Barring a Ring of Sustenence (or Mythic, which cheats that rule anyway), you can't cast spells less than eight hours before preparing, so... kind of a moot point.

Rest is not required to be one uninterrupted eight-hour block of sleep immediately followed by spell preparation.

Given the slow responses to some of the FAQs, I'd have thought they'd be taking 20.

But I guess hostile community responses constitute distraction/danger/consequences for failure.

There are a lot of situations in RPGs where there's a conflict between the intellect, imagination, social skills and knowledge of the player versus those of the character.

Sometimes in RPGs I've had the satisfaction of doing something clever. I worked out who the traitor was, where the trap/ambush would be, the right thing to say to the suspicious guards, the optimum creature to summon to win the battle... All these were occasions where I used my own brain instead of the brain of my PC. If I'd done these things by rolling a dice, they probably wouldn't have been half as satisfying.

Haydon Mehmet wrote:
because I don't know the answer to a question he doesn't know, which I kinda think defeats the purpose of role playing.

What purpose is that?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Triune wrote:
(Just as a quick aside, only Wizards without eschew materials or backup spell pouches are vulnerable to having their spell pouches sundered. This is a super specialized tactic that people seem to think is way more widely applicable than it is.)

Cautious players won't be vulnerable to that, but I suspect quite a lot of enemy wizards in Paizo materials would be.

Triune wrote:
So if we take a character who intentionally provokes AOO's for no benefit

Except for the benefit of getting to do a combat maneuver without provoking and allowing allies to move safely through the enemy's reach radius.

Triune wrote:
forget that the non weapon based maneuvers don't get the bonuses from weapons

Or remember that, and don't use them against strong opponents.

Triune wrote:
focus on combat vs medium sized humanoids without reach weapons

'Focus' implies he has in some way restricted his abilities to fight other enemies. He hasn't.

Triune wrote:
give him a ridiculous boatload of buffs from outside characters

That's what my Barbarian ally in my current campaign tends to have. If this hypothetical character was willing to make CMB attempts with a less than 95% success rates, he could get by with fewer buffs.

Triune wrote:
start him with a 20 strength so the rest of his stats are super gimped

A lot of melee types do. Again, if you were willing to accept a lower success rate you could lower it a notch.

Triune wrote:
and forget the existence of the fighter, monk, ranger, swashbuckler, paladin, inquisitor, and various other martial classes that would not get a barbarian's bonuses, which are not even impressive without outside help...

No, they aren't. This hypothetical barbarian is only getting +3 or so to his CMB attempts from his class. A fighter would be getting Weapon Training bonuses. A Ranger could be getting favored enemy bonuses. A Paladin could be getting smite bonuses. A Magus could use True Strike.

Triune wrote:
Yeah sure, I see your point. Investment in maneuver feats is stupid and combat maneuvers should be limited to a select few classes vs a select few opponents, and otherwise ignored.

No, my point is that maneuvers aren't necessarily very difficult to pull off. If you're willing to use feats, raging strength surges, etcetera, they become easier and more effective and you don't need to rely so much on buffs, weapon bonuses and maxed out strength.

Triune wrote:
Please note that his basic numbers give him a CMB of 20 while raging on non weapon based maneuvers, needing a 12 against the average, equal CR opponent. That's less than 50%, and it only gets worse as you level. Much worse. And he provokes for every single one. But I'm sure you'll be able to trip that flying/multi-legged monster, or disarm that natural attacker, so it's not really a concern, right? Those don't exist, they're certainly not common, especially amongst higher CR's.

Yes, there are situations where some (or all) combat maneuvers aren't a good idea. That's why you make a character who can also defeat enemies by killing them.

Triune wrote:
I'm well aware the numbers for weapon based maneuvers are much better. There's a reason one of the proposed solutions is making all maneuvers capable of getting weapon bonuses.

Fair enough.

If focusing on wildshaping and natural attacks, I'd recommend sticking with Druid until you get enough levels of wildshape to do what you want, and then taking nothing but Ranger (so your BAB doesn't fall behind). If you want to do two-weapon fighting, you might want to take a couple of levels of Ranger so you're a competent two-weapon fighter, and then go full Druid. (Opinions are divided over whether you can use weapons when you wildshape into elemental form.)

I'd recommend focusing on one or the other in the long term - you only need to be good at one - and favoring physical stats over mental stats (or you might wind up as a mediocre caster who is also mediocre in melee).

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Zero Investment Combat Maneuver Barbarian
Initial Strength: 20
No CMB-specific feats
Has allies with buff spells
At level 10:
BAB 10. Raging with Bull's Strength or Belt +4: Strength 30
Weapon Focus in a +2 Furious Reach weapon.
Raging CMB with weapon-based maneuver: +25, rising to around +30 with some combination of Haste, Bardic Performance, Prayer, Heroism, charge, flanking...
Average CR10 Monster CMD: 32. Chance of success while buffed: 95%.
Average CR10 NPC CMD: 25. Chance of success while buffed: 130%, capped at 95%.
Against armed humanoids without reach he can trip or disarm them easily from an unthreatened square. Against casters, he sunders their component pouches or (if they have no melee attack) grapples them. Against monsters with reach, he intentionally provokes an AoO during movement so he can make CMB rolls without provoking.
Against monsters that are resistant to maneuvers in general, he just makes regular attacks, since he has not compromised his combat effectiveness in any way.
Of course, if he was willing to use a rage power to make himself more effective at maneuvers, he'd have a higher success rate and be less reliant upon his allies, but I wouldn't want to have to make a massive investment...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That wouldn't have been obvious to people reading your posts. People see you write something like that and assume you're trying to convince us that's how it works. That's probably why this thread is still going.

Anyway, it's now established that you're supposed to forget about grid squares for the purposes of the skill check and say, "At what exact point do you start the jump?" A Large creature trying to jump over a ten foot pit moves forwards until his center of gravity is at the edge of the pit, then jumps ten feet (DC 10 if he had enough of a run up) to get his center of gravity to the opposite edge of the pit, then moves forwards until he gets to a point where he can stop. Is this now clear to everyone?

Humanoids constitute twelve types of enemy from the rangers' favored enemy list, not two or three.

Cheapy wrote:

Assuming a modest Str progression (starting at 17 with racial bonus included), here are the chances of success at the different levels of play (low level, mid level, high level)

1-6: 64.1%
7-12: 46.6%
13-20: 19.3%

I went through the NPC Codex and worked out average CMDs for a selection of levels:

CR 5: Average CMD 17.1 (Bestiary average, 21.8)
CR 10: Average CMD 24.9 (Bestiary average, 32.2)
CR 15: Average CMD 29.7 (Bestiary average, 43.5)
Which means the chances of success are 23.5% higher, 36.5% higher and 69% higher at those levels. Treating your averages as correct for those levels, that gives us:
Level 5: 87.6% success
Level 10: 83.1% success
Level 15: 88.3% success

Combat maneuvers are very reliable against appropriate opponents: humanoids.

Nefreet wrote:

You were arguing that the DC equaled the obstacle to be crossed. I totally get that. We weren't arguing that the DC was "Obstacle +X". We were arguing that the DC equaled the distance traveled.

That's it.

That doesn't clarify the competing philosophies as much as you think. To me it always meant 'DC = distance travelled during the jump' where 'jump' meant 'the part of the move during which you were over the thing you were trying to jump over'. So that left me trying to understand how your interpretation differed.

I gave my players a false choice of routes across the Crown and made them fight the same battles I wanted them to fight anyway...

I suspect the sense of loss of agency is something that comes up whenever you start looking for it. I don't think there were really many ways to get off the railroad in Curse of the Crimson Throne, Carrion Crown, etc. Most pre-written adventures come down to "here are a bunch of encounters, you could find a clever way to avoid them but if you do you won't get the experience and loot, and we don't offer any major alternative routes because that would mean writing twice as much content and half of it wouldn't be used".

Jade Regent seems to offer as much opportunity for choice as anything else I've seen - romance Shalelu, recruit NPCs you take a liking to, persuade Koya to follow you into the dungeon, murder Ameiko and seize the throne...

Kudaku wrote:
For most classes that qualify, Divine Protection represents a +2 bonus or so - clerics, warpriests, inquisitors and druids don't normally invest heavily in charisma.

Presumably this changes for high wealth/high level campaigns? A cleric who starts with 14 Charisma could wind up getting +7 or so to all saves from the feat with the right equipment / wishes.

NobodysHome wrote:
Thugs who explode when you try to question them?

Don't they die coughing up blood because of the magical blood oath they took? I don't think that's ridiculous.

NobodysHome wrote:
A ninja fortress in viking lands?

In a world where you can walk or teleport from ninja-land to Viking land? Why not? The main theme of the campaign is east-west culture clash.

NobodysHome wrote:
A BBEG who figures out who you are and slowly ratchets up the attacks instead of just going all-out and killing you?

So he let the BBEG figure out who and where the party were and put himself in a position where he could freely be attacked and his complaint was that he was given a chance to survive?

Anyway, book 2 aside, I'd advise making whatever changes you think necessary to give the players a sense of agency. Let them cross the north pole without a guide. Leave the NPCs behind, or kill them off.

Book 5 is pretty good for agency, but book 4 may need some work (at least if you're going to put them through the long dungeon crawl).

If the jumper can end the turn in mid-air, the enemy can jump after him as a move action, then hit him in mid-air as a standard action, then complete his own jump next round.
I'm sure no-one will disagree with me on this.

NobodysHome wrote:
the group just felt bitter at getting bailed out yet again

Does that happen regularly? Is it the presence of NPCs or the idea that the NPC is the one who saves the day that's the problem? For me the NPCs were more often people who got into trouble and needed rescuing. And more often than that, they were off doing something else while the PCs operated alone, since my players also didn't really want or need help.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
what you wrote reads like "A player of mine is a bit shy. That is unacceptable. I shall ambush them with surprise mandatory improv RP and repeatedly target their weak social skills by putting them on the spot until they stop being introverted caterpillars and start being a big, colorful, extroverted social butterfly like I absolutely demand that they should be".

If someone did that to me (minus the hyperbole), and it actually worked, I would be very grateful to them. Shyness is a crippling social ailment, not an alternative lifestyle that people choose.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elbedor wrote:
This means the second part of text is wrong. A result of 15 does not reflect how far I have 'traveled' as it suggests. According to the FAQ a result of 15 reflects how far I have 'cleared'. I have 'traveled' 17 feet (from jumping to landing with feet first and the rest of body following) and have 'cleared' 15 feet (of open pit). So this second part of text needs to be rewritten, removed, or just flat out ignored.

A Pathfinder Jump starts at a specific point, which can be right at the very edge of a pit. It can end at the far edge of the pit. During such a Jump you Travel the length of the pit. Additional travel immediately before or after this movement is not part of the Jump.

TheRavyn wrote:
5E DCs are fixed, rather than increasing over time as in PF. So a hard lock with a DC15 to pick is going to be DC15 whether your character is 1st level or 10th. What this means is you don't really need skill points if you want to get better at picking locks, just add 2 to your Dex next time around.

Picking locks isn't supposed to get harder in Pathfinder either. An 'average' lock is always DC 25. Though it's up to the GM whether you find harder locks at higher levels.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most GMs want the players to contribute to making the game fun by providing entertainment value to the group as a whole. If you're an great improviser, then you can make social scenes fun. Any attempt to abstract these social scenes is unlikely to create the same entertainment.

I'm not particularly brilliant at that aspect of the game. I try to make up for it in other ways - by preparing as well as I can, knowing what all my spells do, and so on.

Skill Focus: Profession: Trust Fund Kid.

I think the answer is no. Invisibility spells can't make light sources invisible, so the sparkling of the particles remain visible.

Komoda wrote:
It is just as legitimate to go by the first rule: "DC = distance crossed" as it is to go by the second rule: "Result = distanced traveled." And while the author probably thought those two rules mean the same thing, most of us here realize they do not.

I don't see any meaningful difference. I move up to the edge of the ten foot pit. I jump. I travel ten feet during my jump. I have crossed ten feet during my jump. (There is also another five feet of non-jumping movement involved.)

Unless you want to go with the silly 'you travel as far as you rolled, even if you wanted to travel 10 feet and rolled a 25' interpretation.

Your readied action allows you to effectively take your standard action later. It is in addition to AoOs.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Would it help with the SAD/MAD discrepancy if the Point Buy didn't allow a PC to go above, say, 16? Or perhaps if, even after Racial Bonuses, you weren't allowed to go above a total of 16 in any one stat?

SADsters would still be at an advantage, I'm sure, but certainly not as much of one.

In my experience, yes. Pre-racial bonus limit of 15 in any one stat or similar makes it a lot harder to one-shot enemies - though other types of disparity still remain.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm OK with rolling for stats.
I despise rolling for hit points.

Chess Pwn wrote:
So to start you see what will it take to move into the next square, 5ft of jumping.

If you move up to the edge of your square and jump six inches, you have jumped to the next square.

(Rolls 3d6 for each stat in order):
Str 8
Dex 10
Con 12
Int 8
Wis 10
Cha 16
(Rolls for class): Please be a sorcerer, please be a sorcerer...

Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:
So you are saying 'bound' =/= 'bound', even when used in similar context.

One guy writes the description of 'helpless' and uses the word bound to indicate that someone tightly tied up is helpless. Another guy writes the description of 'pinned' and uses the word 'bound' as an ill-chosen bit of flavor text. That seems the most likely explanation for the inconsistency.

It was already clarified in the link on page 1. "If you know on average you can jump 10 feet, and you find a chasm that's 5-9 feet across, then you know you can jump across".
You can jump across a 9 foot gap buy jumping 10 feet. You don't have to jump 15 feet.

wraithstrike wrote:
So if I roll a 7 and put that into charisma that would be min-maxing?

Min-maxing implies using a mixture of very low and very high stats. And doing it on purpose, I guess.

For it to be min-maxing, it has to be low in absolute terms, not relative terms. So if you're making a wizard and you roll stats and your highest is a 15 and your lowest is an 11, putting the 15 in Int and the 11 in Cha isn't really min-maxing.

1 to 50 of 2,607 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.