|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I don't understand what you're saying here.
This seems to be a pretty in-depth assumption. Is there somewhere in the rules that says your clothing is considered a part of you? Your belt example is obviously not going to come up often but as a DM I'd certainly rule otherwise.
But regarding the OP, yeah, I would think it'd be hard to find anyone who says it requires skin to ground contact.
You say that you find made up gods uninteresting, but you use these real-world gods in your world. Real world gods are made up, too, you know. And I say that (mostly) not as a snarky atheist, but from most religious people's point of view, every god except their own is made-up.
So what makes a real world made-up god more interesting than a made-up world made-up god?
It is RAW and RAI. Specific trumps general has nothing to do with it. This isn't an exception to the normal rule, it is the normal rule. A secondary attack is, by rule, treated as a primary attack if there aren't any other attacks for it to be secondary to.
Now granted, it would make sense to perhaps have a reference to this rule in the witch's section, but word count is precious.
I feel like there is either too much or too little information here. I don't see the usefulness of breaking down a class to a half page write up. The ideas of each class can be conveyed in a sentence or two, and then if the person is interested, they can just read the relevant text in the CRB or on the PRD.
Agree with the previous poster that noted that many of your rules are specific to your home game. Again it's a bit wordy - you can basically sum it all up in "Don't metagame, DM is the boss, be nice to the game host." Is anyone reading the thing about being clean and smelling nice and changing their hygiene habits?
Sorry, you clearly put some effort into this, but I'm not sure who your audience is. No one who's really brand spanking new to tabletop RPG's is going to get all the way through this thing. On the flip side, anyone who is somewhat experienced is going to be skimming around looking for anything that's useful to them.
I would say definitely not a move action. You're basically using the bookcase to attack the enemy. Why would it be less of an action to push a 100lb+ bookcase at a guy than it is to stab at someone with a knife?
Clearly this isn't going to be specifically called out in the rules. So as you said it's up to the GM. If I were you I'd have asked ahead of time what kind of action he'd put it at.
The DC is debatable, but I would have called it a strength check as well.
Personally, I don't find the game fun when my character doesn't kick ass. I don't have to be the perfectly optimized end-all be-all character, but if I'm rolling a Paladin, I'm damn sure going to be able to work over some evil dragons.
That said, the reason you see more talk about optimization than role-playing on the board is because it makes more sense to ask a question about objective things like mechanics rather than subjective things like backstory. Role-playing should come from within - I'm not going to go on a message board to have other people create my character's personality. But if I have an issue where I want to know what the mechanically best feat is, I'll ask for opinion. It doesn't mean I'll take the best feat every time, but I want to know the ramifications of what I can and can't do.
I think the Rules Questions forum should be split into two separate forums: One where people are really asking for answers to their question, and one where people are only looking for people who agree with them and will totally disregard the opinion, no matter how well sourced or researched, of those who don't agree. Would save some time, I feel like.
When I sit down at your table you can worry about telling me how to play my character. Until then, I'll just keep playing it by the rules. I really don't give two figs what JJ said, since he is self-admitted not a rules guy.
Not sure if this is in response to me, or others, or just a general statement. But if you don't want anyone's input on how to interpret a rule, starting a thread asking for input on the Rules Questions section of the website seems like an interesting move.
And while James is admittedly not a rules guy, like you say, the guy is a high-level designer at Paizo. While his opinion might not be an official ruling, I think it's safe to say that it carries more weight than Joe Schmoe Message Board Poster.
This has been asked several times and the opinions come up decidedly mixed. For my money, eldritch heritage gives you an effective sorcerer level, and the robes raise that level. Personally, I don't think there's much ambiguity, it's pretty straightforward.
There are many spells, for instance, that in their description say "when this spell is cast, the [wizard/cleric/whatever] creates a glowing ball of..." whatever. Are we to interpret that other classes that get the spell on their list don't get to benefit because it's restricted to one class by the description?
There's nothing about Bane to suggest it's precision-based damage. I can't see why it wouldn't be doubled, RAW.
Though for your character, as others have said, you do not have the greater bane ability yet, so you wouldn't get this benefit. Per James Jacobs, and the most straightforward reading of the rules. They're different class features. The fact that they are similar does not change that. Sorry to keep playing after you took your ball and went home.
Those I know in the gay community, both "influential" and rank and file LGBT folks, prefer "gay" to "homosexual." Homosexual is ok as an adjective, just not as a noun. Much like the difference between black as in "black people" and saying like "mostly blacks go to that club."
Of course, that could be regional, or even just those I'm exposed to who have an opinion.
By the way, Rynjin, you talk about people being offended "for" other people. I think one of the really dumb ideas that our society has is that you're not allowed to be offended unless you're a member of the group in question. I think every bigot (to be clear, I'm not including you in this category) weakens and cheapens the value of life and society as a whole.
The thread ASKED if it was offensive. General consensus seems to be that it isn't. What is wrong with that? Someone else making sure they aren't offending people in some way infringes on your life?
By the way, calling someone "a homosexual" is generally considered offensive these days. Bear in mind that if you don't have a lot of gay friends, no one expects you to know this ahead of time, and I'm not calling you out or anything, just an FYI.
Double standards are only bad if you conflate "equal" with "equitable." Equal means you treat everyone the same. Equitable means you give everyone the same level of consideration. Giving a proper amount of consideration to everyone doesn't necessarily mean that you treat them all the same. Black people aren't being hurtful and insensitive when using the n-word. Other groups are. (These are generalizations, of course, and there are white people who could use the word to good effect in, say, a scholarly piece*, or a stand-up comedy act, and there are black people who don't buy in to the idea that there's ever a good time to use the word.)
*See The Student As N****r, written by Jerry Farber, who I was lucky enough to study under in school.
It's not about worrying that everything you do might be offensive. That is PC taken too far. It's about changing your behavior (or not) when you know for a fact that it's offensive.
This thread could get ugly, so I want this to be as non-inflammatory as possible. But the 1st amendment gives freedom of speech; it doesn't say that anyone has to sit there and hear your speech and not respond if it offends them.
As a straight white male, I'm the quintessential "playing life on easy mode" guy. I try to be as supportive as I can be to the LGBT community and my wife is black, if that gives you an idea as to my position on racial prejudice. But like anyone, I'm occasionally going to say something that comes off as insensitive. For instance, I was speaking with someone a few years ago who is a pre-op trans male, and I used a term that he found insensitive (I can't remember, I think it was "tranny"). I was told it's not the preferred term, and I stopped. That was the end of it. He knew I wasn't trying to be offensive, and he didn't jump all over me about it, and I tried to delete it from my vocabulary.
I do think that if someone tells you something offends them, you should endeavor to stop. That's not political correctness, it's common courtesy. Unless you think for some reason you should still use the term, at which point it has nothing to do with political correctness; you're just a jerk. (not you, but the generic you.)
I would strongly disagree, the greensting slayer gains the sneak attack ability and always has it. That's like saying that since a rogue isn't flanking he can use any ability or feat based off having sneak attack. I'd check with your dm, not a message board...
But he doesn't always have it -- he's got it only if he spends an arcane pool point.
Agree with Zahmahkibo this doesn't fly.
I have nothing to contribute to the mechanical side of this debate. Instead, I'd like the be the pedantic jerk who corrects everyone's grammar online.
That's not what "begging the question" is. Begging the question is an informal logical fallacy that means you're using your statement itself as proof for your statement. Like saying "that guy can't play basketball because he has no game."
What a dumb, offensive thing to say.
First: who cares? A good amount of artistic expression throughout history has come with the aid of mind-altering substances. What do I care where the idea comes from, if I like it? Unless you're talking about hardcore drug addiction, which isn't a joking matter.
I understand you're just being tongue-in-cheek, but this crap isn't funny.
That's like complaining about books not being released at a pace you like and making a post saying "What's with the delays? Are the Paizo writers dealing with terminal cancer?"
Inquisitor would be my first suggestion. But if she doesn't like the inquisitor, maybe the alchemist? I think there is an archetype that replaces the bomb with sneak attack.
Yeah Vivisectionist/Chirurgeon alchemist is the best rogue/healer in the game. Inquisitor is a divine/rogue hybrid in many ways, but not much of a healer, overall.
I agree that the rules as written is 100% clear, but I think that the rules forum can be about RAI vs RAW as well.
It certainly is circumstantial, and quite flimsy. But I think that not many rage powers fit an archetype as closely as moment of clarity fits this one. Notice that even the next rage power in the same line as moment of clarity (perfect clarity) is one of the recommended rage powers. Moment of clarity would be a huge oversight.
I don't have my answer - I have someone completely ignoring my question. I'd think that reading my post would indicate that the obvious reading of the skill was one I had considered. It wouldn't be the first time an archetype was poorly written. My contention (or at least suggestion; I'm not sure I'm 100% behind it) is that the archetype as intended should read that you can use mental skills and abilities.
Given that I'd already outlined that I understood that reading of the ability, quoting it back to me isn't particularly helpful. I appreciate your time, but would you care to actually comment on either of my points?
the FAQ version of this question: Does an Urban Barbarian under the effects of a controlled rage have the ability to cast spells?
I believe that the most straightforward reading of the archetype is that you cannot cast while raging. However, I think there are two points in favor of it:
1) Without it, it's a very small benefit. Now this certainly isn't proof - many archetypes have abilities that do nothing or next to nothing, either because their intent isn't achieved (looking at you, Titan Mauler), or the idea just isn't mechanically great. But I don't think anyone would argue that the ability to make sense motive checks and knowledge checks to identify enemies is worth losing +2 (or more) to will saves and +4 (or more) to a battle stat. Especially for a class that's generally not going to be good at those skills, anyway.
2) Moment of clarity is not among the recommended rage powers to pair with that archetype. Now this is certainly circumstantial -- but I find it hard to believe that this archetype, which fits that rage power so perfectly, doesn't have that power listed. The only reason I can see is that the archetype makes the rage power obsolete.
Look, I'm not going to sit here and extol the benefits of playing a Duergar Paladin because (something about how WoW sucks).
Play any way you want. Dislike Half-Orc. But saying it's unplayable is just really tough to support. A glance at the optimization guides for EVERY class shows Half-Orc as a green choice the majority of the time, with about an equal mix of blue and orange.
So basically you think that a race that the general consensus is that's it's pretty good. So either you're right and everyone else is wrong, or your definition of unplayable is "good instead of great."
I want to say this as nicely as possible, but seriously, this makes you sound like the horrible modern RPG player that everyone complains about.
One less skill point per level, one less feat. Unplayable. You are slightly worse at skill checks from one skill, and you're UNPLAYABLE. One less feat, and you're UNPLAYABLE. YOU CANNOT PLAY. So any character that spends one feat on pure flavor - or, how about spending a feat on weapon proficiency with Falchion - a great weapon.
You cannot play a character with one missing feat and one missing skill point per level, who gets darkvision and good weapon use instead. Yeah, you're officially that guy.
Absolutely disagree that metal is better melee. It should be, but a lot of the abilities fall short.Lead blades is a good spell and Keen edge is early entry, which is cool, but check out the revelations:
Armor mastery sucks unless you have high dex, which you won't.
Dance of the blades is great, but one of the cool features, the 20% miss chance option, is a move action, so it's better for when you're casting or something. You're not going to lose your full attack to use it.
Iron constitution is meh
Iron Skin is good, but very restricted use and only high level
Iron weapon is not going to keep pace with what you really need to be a primary melee, so basically it'll be for emergencies only
Riddle of steel is useless, even if you want to craft it's not overwhelming
Rusting grasp is lame and situational
Skill at arms is ok but I'd rather dip fighter
Steel scarf is useless. Taking a standard action to do something you're almost guaranteed to be not very good at.
Vision in Steel is useless in combat.
So you've got 2 good melee revelations, 3 after 11th level, 1 good and 1 ok melee spells.
Compare that with wood.
Shillelagh is great at low levels, barkskin is awesome at any level,
Wood gets better utility spells and revelations, too. Wood is better at everything except crafting (and metal isn't even that good of a crafter).
Well, he's not 'house ruling' it. He referred me to the Magus page for an official FAQ from Paizo and seemingly has not taken my suggestion to post his ruling on this board. Not trying to grief him, I know DM is a hard position to play (doing it myself too) just frustrating when it won't even be admitted that I'm right on this matter and the other characters in the campaign are very powerful half beings, powerful magic users or a combination of that. Not supposed to turn into a venting session. But I wanted you all to know I really appreciate the input.
Unfortunately you'll have to tell him that this question is not likely to get answered by FAQ. You can refer him to this quote from how the FAQ system works:
Sorry, I'm a bit confused. This is exactly how I proposed it would work.
Though I am interested in also eliminating the ring of protection/cloak of resistance the same way, I'd like to keep this thread restricted to ability scores.
Would you care to elaborate as to what needs tweaking and how your method addresses those issues? I don't see what the difference would be, overall. Your method makes it less gradual and less customizable. Also, I'm giving them 20 stat points, you're giving them 36, although still no more than 10 to a single stat.
Proposed house rule: you get a stat increase each level. The stat increase belts and headbands are removed from the game. The WBL is reduced somewhat to compensate, and you cannot add more than 8 total points to the same stat. Cannot add to the same stat in back to back levels.
Intended effects - eliminate the homogeneity of everyone always working toward the next tier of stat boosting item. Make the stat boosting spells (Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, etc) actually useful spells to have. Also give more weight to the occasional other item that increase a stat. Lessen (somewhat) the need for ye olde Magic Shoppe (though I don't hate it as much as some).
Unintended effects - that's where you guys come in. Anything I'm not considering that I should tweak or reasons this isn't a good idea?
For #1, my group plays that you can't recover naturally without getting out of the cold, but magic heals you as per normal. In a world where the gods can basically effect any change on the natural world that you desire, seems a little crazy that they can't overcome some mild frostbite.
I can't imagine the Heal spell should read:
Heal enables you to channel positive energy into a creature to wipe away injury and afflictions. It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, poisoned, sickened, and stunned. It also cures 10 hit points of damage per level of the caster, to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level. Except if you're cold.
Well, Pathfinder is not Golarion, but officially, Golarion is Pathfinder. You can adapt Golarion to other rule sets, but it's written for Pathfinder. And it doesn't "happen to" use the Pathfinder rules. It's written by the same company and in some cases the same people, or at least by people who operate under similar principles and ideas of design.
You make it sound like any similarity between the two is a coincidence.
Be a Beast Rider Cavalier and you can basically have the same flavor as (and similar crunch to) a paladin.
Ditto a animal domain cleric - but the crunch is even further off.
Your question about will the animal be survivable with 1 CL behind for the AC? Definitely. Also see how your DM rules on robes of Arcane Heritage - some feel they increase your level for eldritch heritage, some don't.
Personally I find that my DM's hardly ever target your mount unless you're not on them. YMMV, of course, but that's my experience. I have a 14th level mounted character (actually a nature oracle) and I can count the mounted combat ride checks I've had to roll to avoid attacks on both hands.
Alternately, take a look at the Half-Orc feat Beast Rider. Gives you some alternate choices and +2 effective druid levels for an AC. Needs character level 7, but I'd think you can convince your DM to use that feat (or use it as a baseline for a similar feat for other races) to apply to lion. Lions certainly aren't as powerful as some of those creatures allowed.
Corbin Dallas wrote:
Don't be a jerk. It's obviously not "case closed" since there's heavy debate on it. Just make your point and move on.
Anyway, I do feel it can go either way. Obviously in normal circumstances half-orcs don't have a tail, but the argument would be that a half-orc with racial heritage (kobold) would have a tail because of his kobold heritage.
Personally I don't think racial heritage is normally meant to create such a drastic physical change, but I certainly don't think adding a 1d4 tail slap is going to be unbalancing.
Well he never said he was a decent psychologist.