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

Midnight_Angel's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber. 1,964 posts (1,983 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I said it and I'll say it again, I have zero problems with the Sorcerer lagging a level behind the Wizard in spells.

What I do have a gripe with is the fact that, whenever the Sorcerer gets a new spell level, he will have one single spell to fill his new slots.

One. Single. Spell.

All the 6-level spontaneous progressions get two new spells known when them reach a new spell level. The Oracle gets three (one to choose, one from the Cure/Inflict series, and one from her mystery).

The Sorcerer, however, gets one spell now; his Bloodline spell coming up a level after.

Which not only leaves him with a single spell of his new level, but also leads to the effect that his Bloodline (which, according to fluff, is the very reason that he is wielding magic in the first place) comes in later.

I'd do nothing to 'fix' the spell level lag.

I would, however, grant Sorcerers their Bloodline spell of a certain spell level the very instant their spellcasting progression reaches said spell level, to reflect the importance of the Bloodline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Jayson MF Kip wrote:
3/day limit probably isn't balancing enough.

Ah, but there is no 3/day limit.

Spoiler:
Quote:
If a swashbuckler wearing the cloak of feinting performs the superior feint deed or uses this cape’s ability, the opponent is also dazed until the start of the swashbuckler’s next turn.

Or uses the cape's ability. As opposed to, and uses the cape's ability.

Now, let's see how long it takes for someone to pipe up 'No Problem. Wizards still are better at killing things, so there's no change required'...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Midnight_Angel wrote:
However, the spell duration might be a tad on the short side...
Well, Anthropomorphic Animal can be made permanent...

Now you've done it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Squeakmaan wrote:
Can I throw in a hand raised for archduke writeups

One hand raised by me, as well!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Dread Knight wrote:
The rule was so people didn't make small sized A and T's.

B... but small sized T's and A's are pretty common, even in Pathfinder! And there are guys who like the that way!

*ducks for cover*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Xedrek wrote:
I think the best bonus is the -1 CR. It allows the application of a +1 CR template without a level adjustment

*innocently* Young Advanced, anyone?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
bulbaquil wrote:
Yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of GMs houserule (possibly unknowingly, in a de facto sort of way) that native outsiders count as humanoids rather than outsiders for things like disguise self, enlarge person, etc., unless you really would rather your undine disguise himself as a balor rather than an elf.

Change the native outsiders in question to Humanoid (Planetouched)... and you rid yourself of a LOT of problems.

Just sayin'...

GM says: *rolls die* "The monster attacks you for... what was your AC again?"
GM means: "Well, you're gonna get hit anyway, I just need a target number to make up."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:

RAW says:

"Damage to your Dexterity score causes you to take penalties on Dexterity-based skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Reflex saving throws. The penalty also applies to your Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and to your Combat Maneuver Defense."

It doesn't say 'everything affected by the modifer'. So taking RAW literally, dex damage does not affect AoOs from Combat Reflexes.

Hmm... by that very same virtue, you'd argue that Dex damage does not affect your attacks when using Weapon Finesse...

Doesn't appear very convincing to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

8. If he voluntarily jumps off a cliff
9. If he is successfully pushed over the edge of said cliff
10. If he fails his save vs. a Grease spell in an appropriate situation
11. If he is successfully tripped

(I almost forgot)

12. If he drinks the GM's milk


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
LordOfThreshold wrote:
Honestly, I think this whole debate comes from New School players unable to play through an Old School scenario. People who are whining about a Goddess not treating them the way they think they should be treated are just the entitled types of adventurers she would not rely on and would pass for better bringers of her will and might.

^This^

Seems that some players will start to whine the very second they are confronted with the existence of someone who is higher up on the food chain than their precious precious characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

People will still complain that in the then-current set of rules, Wizards are OP and martials can't get nice things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Shiftybob wrote:

Dispel Magic.

A party without at least a couple of dispels prepared is just a sacrificial offering to the dice gods.

Do we actually have to have that spell prepared?

After all, it's one of my sorceress's known spells...

*ducks for cover*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Indeed.

Quote:

Mythic Vital Strike:

Whenever you use Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, or Greater Vital Strike, multiply the Strength bonus, magic bonus, and other bonuses that would normally be multiplied on a critical hit by the number of weapon damage dice you roll for that feat.

should be worded as

Quote:

Mythic Vital Strike:

Whenever you use Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, or Greater Vital Strike, multiply the Strength bonus, magic bonus, and other bonuses that would normally be multiplied on a critical hit by the number of times you roll your weapon damage dice for that feat.

to have the static bonuses be affected by the multipliers Vital Strike and its cousins provide.

As written, the static bonus for a large creature that employs Mythic Vital Strike just goes into overkill (Wildshaped Mythic Druid with Strong Jaw, anyone?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Snorter wrote:
A proposal I made in the Beta testing, was that the bloodline spell of each spell level should be gained earlier. Therefore, the level 2 spell would be gained at caster level 4, when their other second-level spells were learned.

Seconded, thirded and fourthed.

I can live with the Sorcerer getting his spells a level late. However, the variety of spells when reaching a new level leaves much to be desired.

Every single six-level progression class gets two new spells known when they reach a new spell level.

The Oracle gets access to three new spells known (one from her spell progression, one from her mystery, plus a cure or Inflict spell).

The Sorcerer is the only class that gets one.

Granting these Bloodline spells a level early (or two levels early, in case of the first level spell), at the very moment the Sorcerer comes into the power level to actually cast them would both be thematically appropriate (these spells are a cornerstone of his arcane definition, after all) and remove the 'single spell to spam' effect the Sorcerer is suffering from at the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Detect Magic wrote:
I thought bastard swords were pretty simple. What's the confusion? It's a two-handed weapon that you can wield in one hand if you have the feat. What am I missing?

In a nutshell, Malachi claims that a bastard sword of any size, not just your own, is considered a martial weapon when wielded two-handed.

Others (including myself) are of the opinion that the "One Handed = Exotic / Two Handed = Martial" equation is valid for Bastard Swords designed for your own size, and is subject to the same scaling rules as the usual handedness of weapons.

Oh, and the Bastard Sword is not a 'two-handed weapon that you can wield in one hand with EWP'. For all design purposes regarding cost, hardness, and the like it is a one handed weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Actually, it has come up before... and answered in the FAQ.

FAQ wrote:
As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
Hopefuly someone will make a "What makes you so special that you get to run your snowscape anyway?" thread.

What about 'because people asked me to GM for them, and my snowscape appears to be to their liking'?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
That seems to be the other sides central argument.

In fact, it is.

I have been burned by at least one too many snowflake who sabotaged the party, the story or both claiming to 'just being playing my character' that I have come to the point of simply refusing to GM a group containing concepts that will not work together.

Likewise, if I offer to GM a certain setting (let's just take the courtiers-in-Kyonin as an example), I will treat a player's idea of "Oh, I will be playing an Ugh-me-tough half-orc neanderthal barbarian, then" as just another way of saying "Not interested in your crap."

Yes, I do have a plot in mind when I offer to GM something. Just tossing your characters out into a world-sized sandbox with the PCs as the only driving force is not what I offer; if you require that kind of play, please find yourself another GM.

I can, and I will help players integrate the occasional oddball into the scenario, as long as things do not get odd enough to break my own suspension of disbelief.

However, I require the player in question to play with me in these cases. Give me a reason why this character is on this setting. Give me a reason why this character would want to travel with the group, and why the group would want to have him. If you bring a snow elf winter witch (from a violently xenophobic tribe, to boot) into a desert campaign, simply stating "Well, she's diffetent" when asked about your reason to be there is not gonna cut it.

I play this game because I want to have fun. As soon as you force me to do things that are un-fun for me, two things happen:
1) The very reason I GM has just disappeared. If I continue, out of shatever sende of duty...
2) My GM'ing suffers. This will lead to less fun on your side.

TL;DR: I offer a certain campaign, in a certain setting, within certain parameters.
If you want to play under these circumstances, fine.
If you'd like to stretch some of these parameters, we can talk, within limits.
If you don't find my offer acceptable, don't play. No one is holding a gun to your head.
Should I find enough players this way, great. If I don't... well, I'll be doing something else, then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

So all 4 players agreed to the campaign and yet all 4 showed up with concepts that didn't fit?

Seems to me they only "agreed" to humor the GM, probably because he wouldn't shut up about how cool his new campaign was and shot down any other ideas.

Seems to me that if you have 4 players who are "snowflakes" (which isn't even a fitting term here because that implies they're unique in their oddity) the campaign needs to change, not them. He's outnumbered 4 to 1 on this.

Frankly, if I were in the the GM's shoes in that situation, I'd advise the players to change the GM, as well.

Supply and demand. I offer a campaign, which may or may not place certain limits on what may be a viable concept.
You choose whether you want to play or not.
If this leaves me with too few players, well, seems that the group didn't want to play what I offer. Which means, no deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Arikiel wrote:
I don't know. The way I run it demons are pure evil and chaos given physical form. It's not just a person that's been lead astray and needs to be shown the error of his ways. Outsiders are the embodiment of concepts and not whole beings like mortals. That's what makes mortals so special. To even begin to change a demon's fundamental nature would require something of cosmic significance imo. They wouldn't so easy question their ways just because you shows weakness (mercy).

Umm... Arikiel... you are aware that this very AP sports a redeemed demon in a prominent role, aren't you?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Hey! What about all those sheild weilding theif dieties, along with their eidilons, edilons and elidons?

*ducks for cover*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Marthkus wrote:
Summons aren't NPCs, and you can't summon NPCs. So what's the point of the argument again?

Frankly, unless you're prepared to be told "I don't have authoritative info on that type of daemon / qlippoth / herald of Groetus you're trying to call via planar binding or planar ally", I'd recommend you bring the stats for any creatures you call as well.

Same goes for your character polymorphing himself, an NPC, or another PC.

You add a resource to the game, or change an existing one, you are the one who is forced to be able to state its abilities, from a legal source.

Can't be that hard... or can it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
what, I don't care anymore. You obviously don't intend to listen to anything anybody else tells you, so whatever.

Actually, this being the internet... did you expect anything else?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Chevalier83 wrote:
Conclusion: Spell like abilities obviously grant a caster level of some kind. If it works for (general) item creation, it works for PrCs as well.

Granting a caster Level says exactly ZERO about counting as the ability to cast spells of a certain spell level. Last time I checked, the PrC entry prerequisite was 'able to cast ($flavor) spells of Level X', rather than 'caster level Y'.

I am aware that SLAs count as being of a certain spell level regarding concentration checks or penetrating various defenses... yet still, they are something different from actual spells of the associated level. Unless my memory fails me, it is repeatedly writen that 'SLAs are not spells'.

If you come across a PrC, or Feat that requires 'able to cast Daylight', go ahead with your Aasimar. You are fulfilling that prerequisite. Likewise, your friendly neighborhood Succubus will easily qualify for any Feat of PrC that requires 'Caster Level X' (if X < 13).

However, if the requirement is 'able to cast arcane (or divine) spells, your SLAs just won't do the trick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
karossii wrote:
Possibly from the linked info; http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow
Quote:

Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?

Yes.
For example, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 06/06/13 Back to Top

I am aware of that one (I think I actually stated that very example).

However, while being able to cast Dimension Door (whether as a spell, a SLA) obviously qualifies as being able to cast Dimension Door (duh!), the connection to 'thus is able to cast 4th level arcane spells' (or even 'cast arcane spells' at all) is the very link I am missing.

The fact that a Dimension Door SLA counts as being arcane does not make it an arcane spell.

The fact that I can create magical items that require Dimension Door, supplying my SLA in lieu of the spell does not make my SLA an actual arcane spell

So; a Feat, a PRC, or whatever that needed the ability to cast Dimension Door would easily accessible by having the SLA.
A Feat or PRC requiring being able to cast arcane spells would not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Sorry to rain on your collective parade, but...

Where exactly did you come to the conclusion that an SLA meets the prerequisite 'must be able to cast X - level arcane spells' for a prestige class?

I see a 'yes' to item creation, I see a comment that most SLAs count as arcane (nota bene: not as arcane spells), and I seem to remember that having a particular SLA (e.g. Dimension Door) qualifies for the prerequisite 'Capable of casting Dimension Door.

However; that's about it. So, I am unable to follow the leap of logic along the lines of 'SLAs are arcane, so they must be arcane spells, so they are a qualifying ticket into PrCs'.

I'm sorry to say, but this whole attempt to loophole a shortcut into EK, MT or whatever PrC still appears illegal to me, on top of actually pinning the cheese-o-meter.

Question: For all it's worth, why did no one of you plainly ask the question 'Can I meet a PrC's requirement of can cast arcane spells of Level X or higher' by possessing a SLA of appropriate level?'


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Frankly, I'd think that a petition to 'adjust Yellowdingo's level of medication' would get more votes than all of his petitions combined.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
Since it doesn't specify swapping a Bonus Fighter Feat or a Bonus Combat Feat, it seems logical that, in the absence of a specific restriction as exists in other classes (ie. Magus, Summoner) and by the precedent of multi-class meshing being permissible (ie. Orc bloodline benefiting non-sorc spells), it stands to reason that, so long as you earned the feat by a Bonus Feats class ability, you can trade it out.

Well, let's see what happens if I apply your logic on something else in the Core Rulebook (something that was brought up by Ravingdork, IIRC)

CRB wrote:

A sorcerer casts arcane spells drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list presented in Spell Lists.

Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level.

Note that nothing in the second paragraph indicates that I have to swap out my old spell for a spell from the Sorcerer list. Heck, even the initial paragraph only claims that I draw my spells primarily from the Sor/Wiz list, thus making it obviously clear, that by logic, I am fully within my rights to swap out an old spell for any kind of spell, doesn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

If you have to ask, you don't need to know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

292. ... brains...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

265: Stupid party! I'm only adventuring with them because I felt like it, n-not because I l-like the elf, or something like that. S-so don't get the wrong idea, got it?!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Mechanics aside, I must say I have to agree with the OP, flavor-wise.

Last time I checked, a Sorcerer was able to wield magic due to some ancient or eldritch powers singing in his blood.

Like the magic of Dragons.
The Magic of Fey.
The Magic of Celestial, or Fiendish Outsiders.
Maybe Fate itself.
Or the Magic of Orcs. Yeah. Right.

Coming soon to a supplement near you: The Commoner Bloodline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
rangerjeff wrote:
Also to note, before reading this thread, I had no idea that Tieflings couldn't be the target of X Person spells. It really is so far beyond logic that I never would have guessed, and must have glossed over reading those parts of the ARG or something.

You won't find it spelled out in the ARG. The whole 'immune to Person spells' thing is simple and logical application of the rules of 'xxx Person works only on Humanoid type targets'.

Actually, this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Sprinkle holy water on an evil human sorcerer, he'll get wet. Sprinkle the same holy water on an evil Oread sorcerer, ooh, look at the effect of holy water having on evil outsiders.

Tieflings (and Aasimar, Sylphs, etc.) are utterly unaffected by an Antilife Shell.

Because 'Humor doesn't translate well', any Aasimar is less likely to be affected by a Hideous Laughter spell cast by a human. Your friendly Succubus Bard, on the other hand, is quite adept at finding the perfect punchline for her fellow outsider.

A Tiefling cannot ever use a Hat of Disguise to appear human (as you cannot appear as another creature type). Disguising himself as a fire elemental, though, is no problem at all.

While Shadows and normal Vampires still can easily kill your average Tiefling, they cannot change him into one of their own (the Shadow's spawn ability working only on humanoids, the vampire's only on creatures of their own type)

Should I continue?

Yes, some of these effects are counter-intuitive. Some are illogical. Yet, it is the developer's explicit intent that the planetouched races are Native Outsiders, period. So, I wouldn't count on that changing anytime soon.

Frankly, my group has found the whole shebang to be more hassle than it's worth, and we have shifted the 0HD Native Outsider races to Humanoids with the (planetouched) subtype, and I recommend this house rule to whatever group I am playing with... but this is, and will remain, a house rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
RumpinRufus wrote:


1) you can't hear it

2) you can't see it

3) you can't smell it

4) you can't taste it

5) you can't feel it

So how exactly are you noticing it?

Spidey-sense tingling?

*ducks for cover*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

All skills that are class skills for any class you have levels in are considered class skills for your character, and as such receive the trained bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
If I ever hand out treasure that's above or under WBL, I self-mutilate myself during the night.

Pictures, or it didn't happen!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...Brains?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Frankly, I think instating the policy of 'No rules questions, folks' as a response to that ominous 'get your house in order' thread was... kind of an overreaction.

There are many forumites (myself included) who liked to get an opinion on how the creative director was seeing the rules without intending to use the 'JJ said this, so your differing opinion must be ZOMGBADWRONG!!1!11' hammer.

Might I kindly ask you to return to giving out your personal opinion about how you think some things should be resolved?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I just checked in for voting, and feel the urgent need for adding a possibility to declare 'None of these items should advance'.

Out of the first 10 items I saw, precisely zero adhered to the template. I am not talking a wrongly placed semicolon, but all caps instead of bold text, the ubiquious 'wonderous item' and the like.
Most of the entried have other flaws that make them appear unsuitable to me, including but not limited to, pricing higher than half a million, a hefty increase in bookkeeping, DC values above anything even remotely in line with price and caster level, a set of abilities that is almost a carbon copy of an existing item in a Paizo publication (in a massively different flavor, though), and the like.

Is it just me? Am I too harsh, or elitist? Did I get off with a bad start?
Or is the average quality of the entries actually that low?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I must admit, the so-called 'Most important rule: Did you warn him?' is the one I disagree with.

Granted; in most cases, the Paladin (or rather, his player) should be be given the chance to see he is straying from the path; however, there are exceptions.

A Paladin that takes offense on the (admittedly outrageous) prices a shopkeeper asks, leaves the shop and tries to set fire to the building the following night will fall without warning in my game.

A Paladin who follows a code that states 'My word is my honor' who formally enters parley with an enemy emissary, only to strike him down (with a resounding 'SMITE EVIL') once negotiations have begun with no treachery on the enemy's part will fall. No, I will not accept excuses along the lines of 'Hey, he was evil, so I was doing a good thing.'

A Paladin who gains an audience with the Crown Princess, and runs her through before she can finish the sentence of 'Welcome, hero of *urgh*' because, well, the player felt that 'this b#?ch was going to betray us anyway' will fall so hard he reaches terminal velocity before impacting on the floor.

As for the 'no win situation': I agree that it is bad form for a GM to make a habit out of crafting a situation that only have 'You fall' solutions for a Paladin. Truth be told, I don't design my adventures that way.

However, even if I don't design the adventure in such ways, some antagonist NPC's who have a personal gripe with the PCs will attempt to strike them where it hurts. Their reputations. Their loved ones. Their possessions. Their faith.

And if a scheming devil, or an experienced succubus sees a possibility to maneuver the Pally into a situation where he seems to have the choice between falling and failing... trust me, it will do its very best.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Actually, my question is the other way round:
Why keep the designation 'Monster Feat' at all?
Anyone who meets the prerequisities can take them anyway, and most of them have prerequisites that can be fulfilled by a PC without any problem, so why bother keeping yet another category?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Gabdalf?

I'd say Sorcerer, Dyslexian Bloodline.

*scnr*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

I really think it depends on your view of the game.

Some people think the game is finding ways to manipulate the ruleset to maximize power.

Some people put the verisimilitude of the setting as the highest priority.

Neither is "wrong", but often they are incompatible at the same table.

I am aware of this effect.

Being a GM for a group of friends I play with, I have the luxury of my use of Rule Zero not being an issue. I have the trust of my players that I won't attempt to trick them with something they'd perceive as a cheesy rule hole exploit, and I can rely on them not trying to do a letter-of-the-RAW-approach, either.

In fact, if one of my players tried to do something the rest of the group perceived as a munchkin idea, the group as a whole would probably try to shoot that thing down before I have to interfere.

In my opinion (and I know that I risk being yelled at for this), problems start when things start to get competitive rather than cooperative. If you cultivate a GM-vs-player approach, if you start to consider the game as a competition you have to win, it is only logical to use the allowed possibilities to the maximum legal extent (and maybe some more, if you don't get caught).

Unfortunately, the people who propose that rule zero should be burned and its ashes scattered, that players have a RAW-given right to do whatever is not explicitly forbidden by the rules, period... these people appear to be a pretty vocal fraction on these boards.

Organized play complicates things as well: When I wrote about the 'holy cow of zero table variance', I meant exactly that. Zero variance means that you cannot have 'gentlemen agreements' between players and GM, since these will differ from table to table.

Unless my memory fails me, James not only states that he loves additional options, more stories, more world... he also states that he would love to give some more control back to the GM.

Which pretty much flies in the face of both 'zero table variance' and 'RAW is LAW'.

</rant>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that most of the issues are over people who can't apply common sense to the rules and overread everything they see.

In fact, I am starting to doubt so-called common sense is truly common in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Shinigaze wrote:
I simply pointed out that by RAW, the bastard sword's description points out that you can use it two handed with martial weapon proficiency and by literal reading of the RAW it means you can wield any size of bastard sword.

Negative on that, Houston.

By Malachi's reading of the rules, you would be proficient in the two handed use of the bastard sword of any size.

However, the weapon size rules remain untouched, shifting a huge (or larger) Bastard Sword out of wieldable range.

So, while you are proficient with a colossal bastard sword in theory, you are physically incapable of wielding it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

*sigh* After trying to claim Bane, why stop there?

Hey, I got a holy weapon... shouldn't I get the added bonus by treating my opponent as if it were an evil outsider?
Oh, look, I got Pally levels, as well... sure I can smite that enemy I treat as an 'Evil Outsider', can't I?
Hey, I got a disrupting weapon... shouldn't I get the chance of insta-disrupting my enemy, whom I treat as Undead?
And if I treat that Dragon, or ooze, as being a human via Instant enemy, I sure as hell should be able to target it with my scroll of Hold Person, right?

May I call to your attention that the developers themselves stated that, at times, common sense should be applied instead of reading just the letter of the RAW?

And now, back to your regularly sceduled discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Hmm... there's always the Separatist Cleric Archetype, as a last resort.
(If you still go with the rogue/cleric variant)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Both are correct, there is no contradiction.

Being an Outsider, the Eidolon enjoys 6+Int modifier skill points per level.
Your basic Eidolon comes with an Int of 7, which equals a -2 modifier.
So, 6-2 = 4 skill points per level.

If the Summoner increases his Eidolon's Int, the Eidolon will retroactively gain skill points, just as a character does.

1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 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.