|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
To go into ''but that's what I want to do!'' fine, but don't call yourself a team player and don't be surprised if someone get's mad at you. It's a bit of an immature attitude honestly because you are part of a team all working to be better together.
Getting mad because the wizard prefered to cast fireball instead of haste is the actual true immature behaviour.
Combat Expertise, until recently, yes. Much maligned, often houseruled out. But now you could take Dirty Fighting from Dirty Tactics Toolbox, which incidentally covers pre-requisites like unarmed strike, combat expertise, int 13, dex 13. That feat is bananas and PFS legal. A real game changer.
Not very convincing in a thread about "optional" feats.
The Move action/move action thing is quite ambiguous to use in a feat, but, well, it is an answer to the question.
"to create a dimensional crack that she can step through to reach another location" If this isn't moving, then what is it?
It is the effect of the ability, and you need a move action to activate it,as the feat say, a move action.
Me? By RAW you cannot do this. There is some visual component. Swirling energies, glowing runes, and such that appear in addition to the components of the spell.
Seems according to you the rule is written, I'm sure you can quote exactly the text that say that.
Can you say what feat was that?
That Some other classes are more broken doesn't justify the brokenness of the summoner. I personally prefer to deal with the least amount possible of disruptive stuffs.
That seems to be a bad call. The action you describe is a disarm maneuver, and you most definitely can try the maneuver with a whip. You could not have grabbed it in the same action though.
Lawrence DuBois wrote:
The problem is when you could not even try that kind of stuff withut the relevant feat.
In the end "I don't care If I'm inferior (perhaps massively inferior) to the other guy who choosed a better class" is fine, but it is somewhat weird to expect that other people like that too.
Because the bunch of feats and the simple and straight numerical bonuses.
The feats allow customization in combat styles that not even the slayer have (the slayer is stronger clearly, but it is not the same) and the always on numerical bonus allow me to not bother by action pool. The lack of spells also help.
Well, it doesn't actually say that, right?
EDIT:I mean, I might be wrong, but I think that is not written in the book in any form. We know how the good works, how paizo use it and that is the actual answer given in the this thread and it is the correct one, but lets not pretend it is there written clearly for everyone to see.
It depends about what you mean by Op.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
I have a couple of problems with that. First you have to counter a spell with another spell. Second it make things more convoluted that they should be. Third the whole planning that kind of stuff is annoying, it doesn't show how smart the GM is, it doesn't show how much the Gm know the system, it is just a burden to have to do this kind of things. And that is just a cantrip. But well, I suppose my rant is more about magic in PF in general.
All weapon specific feats now works for the entire weapon group or even the whole weapon class.
Example a: Weapon focus (longsword) becomes weapon focus (heavy blades)
Example b: Slashing grace work with all the weapons that qualify for the feat (and the rapier because duh)
That's probably a very standard idea. You should not have problems with it.
You basically have two paths, str and dex. Str based is the easiest way, take the standard feats (power attack, furious focus) you have a lot of freedom for the rest, mixing some archery feats is quite popular too.
If you want to go Dex based then consider 3 levels of unchained rogue, that will give you 1.5 times dex to damage with the elven curved blade, then go slayer for power attack without prerequisites.
That is a skewed narrative. Not only a big portion of philosophy didn't contribute at all, but another part was basically against it and the actual contributions can be understood as an opposition to most of the philosophy's methods.
Is like the democracy example of above, you have philosophy shooting at everything and when it hits a valid target it is like "Aha, I'm so great at this".
That philosophy, as a discipline, is the main reasons of the scientific method is just a myth.
You don't need any philosopher to teach or understand science. You don't need philosophers to justify science. Science doesn't need philosophy to advance. A lot of science have been done despite philosophers, etc.
THere is shield ray for that. Though, again in PF, pointless prerequisites are the bane for martials.
If you speak upon the merits of science, you do so from one of two approaches. Either you defend it from a place of faith, or from a place of reason. Faith lacks understanding, while the understanding of reason comes from philosophy.
There is a degree of faith in here of course, philosophically speaking. I lost interest in learning contemporary philosophy but I doubt somebody have proved the contrary. Hume's shadow remains.
The last part of the paragraph is just grammatics not based on facts. Fact is that the history of Philosophy is mainly plagued with misunderstandings, confusions, empty words and failed efforts.
But this alternative exists only because someone sat down and thought it up.
Everything men have made is because somebody thought about it. "thinking about something" is a very poor definition of philosophy basically because it is too broad and that makes it useless.
Forgetting for a moment that democracy is not the result of a bunch of guys winning an intellectual argument, there is also the point that you had a philosopher for any kind of government.
It is like betting money at all the possibilities, and when one is chosen you say "I knew it all the time".
But the last threads about philosophy didn't ended well, nobody will change their mind here.
Ok, In classical mechanic and in General relativity you can work with a system of reference in the center of mass of the solar system (basically but not exactly the sun, minor point) or in the earth. Using the first is way way simplier.
The difference is that in classical mechanics both systems are qualitatively different because the laws of mechanics makes the distinction between inertial systems and the others, the first have prevalence. In that way you can argue that the heliocentric point of view is the most correct one.
While in GR the opinion is that distinction does not exist At All, and that is basically a foundational point of GR, without it there is no GR.
"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance." - Sir Fred Hoyle in Astronomy and Cosmology - A Modern Course,
"That is the sense in which, in GR, it is equally true to say that the Sun moves around the Earth as vice-versa."
Yes, but I'm not talking about the numbers but the qualitative statements of heliocentrism, which on the light of GR, seems to be not so simple to judge.
I'm talking about general relativity.
You are aware that GR make the issue not so simple, right?
Chengar Qordath wrote:
That's the kind of things that decreases my enjoyment of pathfinder.
In fact Einstein were claiming the opposite of what you say. Because gravity and relativity are very related.
I don't really have a solid opinion on the issue because there are unexpected subtleties about the equivalence between gravity and geometry, but the issue seems to be dismissed to quickly mostly because (and I'm not saying is the case here) people have no clue about relativity.
I see a lot of stuffs like "from the point of view of the empty space the earth orbits around the sun" which is nonsense.
Several people in general relativity consider the two point of view basically as equivalent.
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." - Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld-
Hurtful and cornugon smash are actually great martial feats, but if every fighter needs them it defeats the whole point of the whole class.
And still, far away from what EVERY full caster can do for just being a full caster.
For me, the thing that I will like the most are reasons for the PCs to interact with the NPcs presented.
I mean, there are some players that will be interested in the history of the guards just because, but I think most of them will not if they are just there to guard the place.
The DM could fill the gap, of course, but the best DM resources have that kind of things to save the DM time and to inspire him.
Then I say go ranger if you want magic and/or an animal companion or go slayer if you don't want spells, being an skill monkey will be much easier and there are multiple ways to have trapfinding.
by playing an slayer.
...If you for some reason are adamant for playing fighters, then have int as high as you can without gimping your dex, put your favorite class bonus into skills and take that trait that give you trapfinding comes to my mind.
Indeed, that so weird.
Ok, "No clue about fantasy biology, but I guess you could argue that centaurs belong to the kingdom Animalia and are therefore animals."
If on the other hand Animal refers to the animal monster type then by strict raw centaurs can't sue them.
Now, I get the cooperative spirit. The idea is that the wizard cast the spell on the rogue so the rogue can go and do amazing stuffs to win the fight, the problem is what while flying the rogue is still a rogue without nothing impressive to do most of the times.