1) People complain about the problems. Generally people don't come to an internet forum to say "man, X class is very well balanced and fun to play."
2) See #1. If the game is incredibly successful, you don't redesign 3 of the basic, core classes, because a vocal minority of your fan base has issues with them. For every thread you see bashing a class, there are people who deny the numbers, or who don't care about them and enjoy playing the class anyway.
Put me down on the side of Barbarian being hard to ruin. As long as you remember to rage, you're going to be OK in combat.
How about Witch? While there are some poor hexes, I think they're mostly pretty obvious. There aren't really any trap options that are tempting but suck. You can make a really ineffective Witch, but I think it's pretty obvious how not to, even for a beginner.
This is going to come off jerky, but I promise I'm being 100% serious.
Why would I hit FAQ regardless of opinion? If I don't think the question is worthy of developer attention, I would rather not encourage their attention on an issue when I'd rather they were paying attention to something else.
If you're not going to use undead, probably the next best revelation is Near Death. Not the most exciting, but really a lot of good defensive bonuses there.
There aren't a lot more to write home about. You should consider going with an archetype that gets you access to some more cool revelations, like dual-cursed or seer, or one that replaces revelations with other abilities, like seeker.
Human is very hard to beat for oracle, and you should switch out your bonus feat for the 3 bonus skill focus feats. Use one to pick up the prerequisite for whichever Eldritch Heritage you are going to take, the other for intimidate, and the third for whatever you want. Perception of course is a solid choice.
Alternately, check out the Samsaran Reincarnated Oracle. You lose some point buy with Charisma, probably can't afford to start with more than a 17, but you get to cherry pick any 3 (or 4, if you can afford an 18 charisma) divine spells you want off any divine list. Look at some of the cool swift action antipaladin spells. Plus the flavor fits with the Pharasma worship. You get a couple very solid revelations to replace your rather lackluster list as a bones oracle not interested in creating or controlling undead.
Yes. Why would a character who can battle a dragon with his sword fighting skills do well more often than he did poorly?
There is an excellent article here demonstrating that 5th level is about as high a level as anyone in real life has ever been. The amazing epic heroes from your favorite books, if they aren't D&D books, don't even get to 10th level. So someone who is better at fighting than anyone ever in real life and better than most FICTIONAL characters will screw up so horribly that they will injure or handicap themselves in some way? It's just terrible and stupid.
Or to put it another way, for every 20 bullets fired, a modern soldier would be overwhelming likely to shoot himself/a bystander/break his gun at least once.
Flurry of Blows would stack with spellstrike, as long as you cast the spell in the previous round and held the charge. Spellstrike is the ability to deliver touch spells through regular attacks.
However, I have to assume you're talking about spell combat, which is the ability that allows you to cast spells and make your attacks in the same round. And no, those wouldn't stack as mentioned above because they are both full-round actions.
Honestly, I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but it doesn't seem that you have an especially deep understanding of the system. Everything you've suggested so far is not allowed by the rules. Perhaps you should be playing a simpler character concept?
I don't think there is any ambiguity in any of this. None of these cases give any indication of getting the 2hd power attack benefit despite being wielded in one hand. Perhaps lance and thunder and fang could stand to have the same clarifying line as jotungrip, but just because it's not specifically called out, it doesn't mean the opposite is true.
Being a min-maxer is not exclusive to MMO's, and it happened just as much in the old days as now. Now with the advent of the internet, so many people have put their heads together that it's just easier to find the mechanically best choice.
Knowing what the best mechanical choice is doesn't force you to take it. It just makes you a good planner. If you choose to use a suboptimal weapon because you want it for flavor, that's great.
Ignorance is not bliss. Knowing things is better than not knowing things.
Also, picking the mechanically best item doesn't suddenly make you a bad role-player. How powerful your character is mechanically has no bearing whatsoever on how well you role play.
Well that faq addresses using magical items, and not creating them. I think it's reasonable to rule that if the same character scribes and uses the scroll, that the abilities would apply. After all, scribing a scroll is like casting the first 90% of the spell, and reading a scroll is like completing the last 10%. I don't this is supported in the rules, but I think it's a reasonable houserule that isn't explicitly contradicted in the rules either.
If a player scribes the scroll and another character reads it, or vice versa, then I'd say definitely no, per that faq.
Well obviously for HeroLab you don't have to buy all the additional books. There's a lot of customizability and you can just create some stuff if you need an adjustment that's in a book you don't have. Also with all the licenses possible your whole group can pitch in and get it together. I highly recommend it.
Using 20th level characters for examples of realism doesn't work. The common conception of the real world "master" of a subject as being 20th level was disproven here.
If you don't want to click on the link, it basically explains how everyone that's ever actually existed caps at 5th or 6th level. 20th level characters are a level of prowess that only exists in fiction, so applying real world logic to their scenarios doesn't work.
Somewhat of a different issue than 'marked in FAQ' phantom responses, but I guess I may as well repeat that while Jason Bulmahn made several messageboard posts clarifying the Vital Strike/Attack Action topic, that information or equivalent explanation is still missing from the FAQ. Since it was deemed worthwhile enough to explain via the messageboards, I don't know why it isn't valid for FAQ material... Any player who isn't aware of those messageboard posts which came out shortly after PRPG 1st printing, is simply left in the dark.
The simple answer to this is that a messageboard post requires a minimum of effort by one person, but an official FAQ takes what I'd imagine is a team effort, and has a bit higher stakes in that it is an official answer.
Came across this issue in our current campaign.
I was attempting to cast Plane Shift to return to the Prime Material from what was essentially a created demiplane. The focus for this is a forked piece of metal attuned to the plane of travel. While I understand the general idea that a material component or focus like this that doesn't have a stated value is assumed to be in your component pouch, how do you guys play it in a situation like this where until you were there, you didn't know the plane existed?
My thought was that you just have the forked piece of metal handy and the knowledge of the spell would allow you to know how to "attune" it. Any suggestions?
Yeah this guy just sounds like a jerk player. Also, I don't necessarily see the Kitsune as some lighthearted race. It's not a friggin Care Bear. You can play it as some goofy children's book character, but you can do that with a human or an elf, too.
I will say, though, that if you have this gritty, grim game planned, and one or more of your players doesn't want to play that type of game, well, it's not just you that has to have fun in the game. The PC's are not characters in your novel; it's a collaborative game.
His stupid antics are destructive in-game. But if it's just an issue of being lighthearted, and you don't want that, did you ever stop to think you might be ruining his fun at the same time he's ruining yours?
I don't see any reason why if there's a way (detect magic) to quantify the exact mechanical abilities that those who possess that ability wouldn't talk about it in prosaic, mechanical terms. If you're talking about cars, you don't say "This vehicle could travel the distance from here to the next town in the span of an hour," we say "It'll do 140." There is a set mechanical benefit to the items and there's nothing wrong with addressing it as such. If it doesn't fit your campaign world, don't do it, but I see too many people assume that doing this somehow makes your world limp and lame. It is what you make it. It's the rarity or power of the item that makes it impressive, not the cool way in which you describe it. You can just call a Ferrari a Ferrari, it doesn't make it any less amazing.
I don't know why you're worried about making it an exotic weapon when it's mechanically inferior as a martial weapon. What was the last min-max build you saw wearing a scizore? You're just flat out incorrect on this.
I think I've gotten a bit off my point by working with these hypotheticals. If there's a castle off the road that the PC's are following, and they just keep going, of course they shouldn't get xp for everything in the castle. But if they need to get something from the top level of the castle, depending on how much thought/work goes into getting to the top, I do think it should be possible to get as much xp for avoiding the combat on the way up as they can get for fighting everything. And I think if you put a goal in front of the PC's such as getting something from the top of the castle, you shouldn't be pissed at them for going right to the goal and "skipping your content." If you want them to enjoy everything you've put in, make it necessary for them to go through it. Obviously there is an unspoken agreement where they won't totally avoid what you're putting in front of them, but I prefer running and/or playing in a campaign where it's a little less railroady. Honestly, the idea of a "stage" bothers me, it makes me think I have to do everything you want me to in a specific order and that's not my style. But hey, if your players like your campaign, who cares what I say?
No, what I'm suggesting is give your pc's XP for whatever you want, and don't tell me I'm playing the game wrong because I don't do it the same way. Of course I wouldn't advocate giving xp for avoiding encounters that they didn't even know were there.
I think you're overblowing things a tad lamenting what the state of RPG's would be if xp was given out any certain way. The point of RPG's is to have fun; there's not some abstract "purity of the game" concept that's being infringed upon if you're giving out liberal xp.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it would be overpowered. But I don't think it is vague. The spell says you can shift into a large animal (for instance). You look at the list of large animals, and you pick one. As this is the rules question forum, I think the RAW are clear that you choose one from the bestiary. If this had been the general discussion forum, or the house rules forum, I'd be saying that absolutely you can be different sized animals (within reason).
I never said you have to kill everything. Never once did I say that. I simply stated that you have to actually be aware of and/or in an encounter to get XP for said encounter.
How aware do you think they have to be? Knowing where the enemies are and avoiding the location? Actually sneaking by them?
Where do you get that idea?
Andrew R wrote:
No, narcissism is thinking you are better than everyone else. In fact, one's narcissism could even be rooted in the fact that they think they are the best, smartest leader in the world in order to bring peace and prosperity to the inferior masses. Good, and narcissistic.
If there is a law or rule that a lawful person doesn't agree with, he/she would either try to change the law, or leave the land. A chaotic person would overthrow the authority. A neutral person just breaks the law.
Obviously these are the extreme examples and not every chaotic or lawful person has to handle every situation the same way every time.
Even following the code of a specific religion doesn't mean you're specifically lawful, or else there wouldn't be chaotic religions. The personal code of a devoted worshiper of Cayden Cailean is to live free, do good, be brave, and get drunk. Following the code doesn't make him lawful.
I find it hilarious that you're making all these 100% black and white pronouncements about all these other people find grey areas being totally and completely evil in your mind, but you think someone who's good, even chaotic good, can torture and kill people for their crimes. The death penalty is neutral at best, I'd say, but if a good society does it grudgingly, I'm not immediately calling that society non-good. Torture, however, has no place in a good person or society's moral code. I think you're tending toward neutral, yourself :)
Overall to the OP, I'd say your character is pretty much true neutral. He doesn't go out of his way to help people, but doesn't go out of his way to harm them in most situations, either. He doesn't lash out at people who don't share his beliefs, except for a couple corner cases. Narcissism and masochism don't have an appreciable effect on determining alignment.
Another note - adherence to a personal code does NOT equal lawful. Everyone besides some insane people have a personal code. Barring insanity that makes one completely unpredictable, it is 100% impossible for someone to not have a personal code. Even the conviction to do whatever you feel like at a given time is a code - in fact that's the textbook definition of Chaotic Neutral. Lawful/Chaotic is the extent to which you worry about following the codes of society.
Um, no, actually XP is given for whatever the DM feels is appropriate.
If the point of the Great Caverns of Orcish Obstacles (tm) is to put a dent in the Procreation Tribe, then you only give them XP for killing off all the orcs. If the point is to get to the Ancient Sword of Enemy Incision that's in the cave behind them, then if you do something especially clever or difficult to get to the Sword another way, there's absolutely no reason not to give xp for bypassing the caverns. Maybe not full XP, but they've overcome the encounter, so long as you hold that the reason for the encounter is to stop the PC's from getting to the Sword.
If you've made the quest to get the magic ring, then the players should be able to use whatever resources and strategies they want to get the magic ring.
I don't want to hijack the thread as Moox requested, but I actually think this is relevant. He's doing the right thing in trying to figure out a way to roll with it. If you've put in a ton of work in designing a railroad quest where you want the players to do A, B, and C to get to D, then you need to make A, B, and C make sense beyond "they're what I designed." If the steps don't make sense or aren't necessary, that's not their fault, that's your fault.
Pendin Fust wrote:
I think we can safely say you're not pulling punches, since your BBEG, who's likely to toss out a TPK as designed, is either casting 10th level spells or he's got a magic item that's by itself worth twice his expected wealth by level.
The only oracle that does not get a curse really is the 1 i mentioned above being Black-Blooded. Other than that 1 archetype i find the entire class suck s*** and refuse to even team with 1 when i game.
Out of curiosity, why such the negative view of oracle? Don't like the flavor? Oracles are very very powerful when built well.
You'll need to ideally cover the arcane and divine casting roles. Witch is a good idea, Ancient Lorekeeper oracle, Samsaran with Mystic Past Life as a reincarnated oracle or any caster, really, and cherry pick some necessary spells from the other classes. Eldritch Heritage: Arcane for some spells off the wizard list. Lots of UMD. Full caster is very necessary, a bard won't have the necessary spells per day to really play your role
That's a plausible interpretation but your statement that "there's nothing to suggest" otherwise is definitely incorrect, since other people have interpreted it differently based on the text. Obviously there is something to suggest it, even if that's not your reading.
However, that said, I agree with you.
While it may be a frequently asked question, so is "Why haven't I won the lottery," or "Can I have all the Paizo products sent to me for free?" It is implicit in the idea of a frequently asked question that it should also be a question that is frequently asked based on some ambiguity, not frequently asked because people don't like the obvious black and white answer.
A faq entry verifying that rules are, indeed, intentional? The fact that the rules are printed in the books should be, by extension, proof that they are intentional.
As near as I can tell, this is what you're saying:
"The people who are professional game designers think a certain way. I, a gamer, think another way. I insist that the game designers give me a justification as to why they disagree with me."
Can you not see how arrogant that comes off?
It's like walking into a burger joint and saying "I want to speak to the manager. Since filet mignon is beef and burgers are also beef, I feel that this burger joint should sell filet mignon. The manager must explain to me why they don't serve filet."
The answer is because the people in charge feel it should be that way. It wouldn't be crazy if they did feel that way, but it also doesn't mean that they are beholden to you to explain why they don't.