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

Nicos's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter, 2015 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 9,643 posts (13,644 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 21 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,643 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Chess Pwn wrote:
Hey, if anyone is interested I started a thread to try and get some FAQs for this here. I personally would love for this spell to get some official attention and clarification, and since I am unaware of any threads to FAQ for this question, I created one.

It was already FAQed. The answer is :ask your GM.


I'm totally stealing everyone ideas for my homegames.


ryric wrote:


I'm not trying to dismiss your arguments with a handwave of munchkinism(note I didn't bring that up - I said stat dumping and rocket tag and any insult was unintended). I'm just trying to say that a lot of these arguments seem to stem from a "boards wisdom" style of play to me, and I don't find these particular arguments convincing. I'm willing to be convinced but so far it hasn't happened.

I personally don't see the importance of style of playing the disliking of CE.


Entryhazard wrote:
TOZ wrote:
My PCs aren't monsters.
Maybe it's about exploiting the reach of enemy monsters. To get in melee range you have to eat up an AoO, and unless they have Combat Reflexes you can now do a combat maneuver with impunity

Unless you get tripped.


Entryhazard wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
ITT: people begging for martials with 7 Int being capable of advanced techniques.

Define "advanced".

You know, like Grabbing them. Trying to knock them over. Or to hit them in the groin. Advanced techniques like those.

While simple techniques like style feats, those are easy. Just imitate a crane, tiger or whatever animal you want.

Someone tell the wolves they are too dump to trip people.
At least recognize the difference in pulling it off between biting at ankle height and doing it with the tip of a sword.

Apparently one need enough brain power to be able to cast fireball and the other do not.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I love making combat maneuver checks against creatures that either can't hit me, or don't do enough damage to make a difference.

My barbarian grappled a fey last night, and the AoO didn't even overcome his DR, meaning no penalty on his roll.

I have a lot of luck disarming archers that can't take AoOs with their bow.

My prefered method is using the monster reach to make the Maneuvers without the AoO.


Chess Pwn wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Entryhazard wrote:
ITT: people begging for martials with 7 Int being capable of advanced techniques.

Define "advanced".

You know, like Grabbing them. Trying to knock them over. Or to hit them in the groin. Advanced techniques like those.

While simple techniques like style feats, those are easy. Just imitate a crane, tiger or whatever animal you want.

Someone tell the wolves they are too dump to trip people.


ryric wrote:

This statement ignores the fact that you don't have to have the improved maneuver feat to do the maneuver - you only need it to avoid the AoO.

In what world that is not an importnat part?


graystone wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.
I have not that book, but does artful dodge actually have something to do with being smart? or it is having a high int just a prereq for the sake of having a prereq?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but Artful Dodge opens up a lot of options based on actually being smart. My wife's dwarf fighter (axe and board, weapon specialist archetype) would probably have been built with Dex 10 and Int 15 instead of Dex 14 and Int 12 had that feat been available when she made her character; the TWF shield feats alone would have justified it, especially since she took Breadth of Experience anyway.

I mean, for example, CE have nothing to do with being smart. It is just fighting defensively (wich should not require a high int, and 13 is a high int, it allow to cast spells such as invisibility) and then it does not interact with high int in any way.

Does artful dodge benefit from a high int? (I guess it does from your post), and does the fluff f having a high int match with the mechanic of the feat?

You can use Intelligence, rather than Dexterity, for feats with a minimum Dexterity prerequisite.

And that is it?


Shisumo wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.
I have not that book, but does artful dodge actually have something to do with being smart? or it is having a high int just a prereq for the sake of having a prereq?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but Artful Dodge opens up a lot of options based on actually being smart. My wife's dwarf fighter (axe and board, weapon specialist archetype) would probably have been built with Dex 10 and Int 15 instead of Dex 14 and Int 12 had that feat been available when she made her character; the TWF shield feats alone would have justified it, especially since she took Breadth of Experience anyway.

I mean, for example, CE have nothing to do with being smart. It is just fighting defensively (wich should not require a high int, and 13 is a high int, it allow to cast spells such as invisibility) and then it does not interact with high int in any way.

Does artful dodge benefit from a high int? (I guess it does from your post), and does the fluff f having a high int match with the mechanic of the feat?


Shisumo wrote:
Melee Toolbox seems to have had as a design goal "give martials a reason to have good Int scores." Artful Dodge alone changes some of the MAD calculations for certain builds, particularly for classes that might be wasting a high Dex score due to armor anyway. In that context, CE doesn't come off so bad.

I don't have that book, but does artful dodge actually have something to do with being smart? or it is having a high int just a prereq for the sake of having a prereq?


Xexyz wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Cheapy wrote:


The hate given towards the feat seems a bit irrational, but it's just the flavor of the month at this point. I'm sure it'll be back to monks once Unleashed is released.
The feat itself is not problematic, but using the feat as prerequisite for so many unrelated thing is just an annoying and perplexing bad design.
No, it's still problematic in and of itself by requiring Int 13. Martials are already generally MAD as it is; the Int requirement is just an extra burden for them.

I know. But without it being a prereq you will look at it and say "meh" and ignore it just like with dozens of other feat in this game. But well, I suppose I should have said the feat is not that problematic.


Cheapy wrote:


The hate given towards the feat seems a bit irrational...

Not sure how, The feat itself is not problematic, but using the feat as prerequisite for so many unrelated thing is just an annoying and perplexing bad design.


The old rule seems like a good rule.


LazarX wrote:


The fact is the rules text of the Charm Person spell IS very clear. The only confusion is that some folks seem to think that "friendship" specified by the spell is supposed to allow for demands that no one in their right mind would expect a "friend" to ask, and another to grant. The real problem wasn't the rules text but the support for the munchkin response by the post of a punch-drunk developer who really should have known better.

I love how you said that you know better than the dev.


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Its not as horrible if you remove it from all prerequisite lists. Or give it free to all front-line warriors and remove the INT prerequisite.

You mean... allow trained fighters to TRY NOT TO GET HIT... without spending a feat on this esoteric technique?

MADNESS!
[/sarcasm]

I agree with Kthulhu. That way it would just another "meh" feat and not the horrible feat tax it is now.


And yes, CE is a horrible feat, the worst feat tax in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:

I will point out that the quoted text says "useful", not "good", and is accurate in saying so since it is chock-filled with use... as a prerequisite for other feats.

THey deliver a lot of feat with CE as a prerequisite to make sure that feat is useful...evil genius.


Saldiven wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

I dunno why people are saying "It is a level 1 spell, therefore it can't be better than a level 5 spell".

It's an issue of the level 5 spell being directly derivative of the level 1 spell.

Having Charm Person as powerful as Dominate Person would be analogous to having Fireball being just as powerful as Meteor Swarm.

That is not what he is saying. He is not saying that is good, he is saying that it is possible.


glass wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Well, an opinion can't be wrong

Wait, what? Of course an opinion can be wrong!

_
glass.

That is just your opinion man, and it is clearly wrong


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:


And yes there are many questionable rules from the now out of date part of the Bible that refers to ancient Jewish law. I don't seriously expect anyone to live by ancient Jewish customs... not even the Jews.

That part of the bible is no more nor less outdated than the rest. What part of the bible is important and what is going to be conveniently ignored is a personal choice. How are you suppose to tell what intolerance/fundamentalism/discrimination is fine and which is not?


Designing weak rogue talents was probably the design choice, which is weird.


D=


kevin_video wrote:


I allowed it to be used for a Mini-Mikazemas in March so hopefully someone will eventually ask for it (it's a free gift), and do a review on it. Given that other people have actually bought it, I was hoping that someone somewhere would've done a review.

I just want to say that someone asked for it but I'm having problem with the credit card (it is the first credit card of my own), I hope to deliver it soon and hopefully it will get a review.


Weapon training and minor/major magic are not really good rogue talents. THey are OK at best, and certainly don't match the good barbarian rage powers or alchemist discoveries.


Aranna wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.

All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.

That is not the purpose of the law, someone already explained the history of the law, stop trying to be trollish.

And since you asked I face sexism all the time, and occasionally attacks on my religion as well. If you want to factionalize the country into protected groups fine but don't complain when religion gets protected as well.

So, people have refused to sell you food in a restaurant because your gender and/or religion?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How exactly he get shot in the eye?

Anyways

A) There is no body part damage in standard PF, so He just get the damage and his eyes are just fine.

B) You use the called shot optional rule for it.


I don't see how it cad be read differently. What is the opposed Cha check supposed to do then?


Imbicatus wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What is a really good rogue talent?
Offensive Defense is good. (I don't think the nerf FAQ is technically official yet - though it'd still be pretty decent.)
Weapon Snatcher is great, and I just realized that it's one that is Rogue and Bard only, Slayers and Investigators don't get it.

I agree with weapon snatcher, perhaps is not the most strong option, but it give the rogue an option to do something with their skill that nobody* else can do.

* with the exception of the other classes that get rogue talents, but you get the point.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What is a really good rogue talent?
Offensive Defense is good. (I don't think the nerf FAQ is technically official yet - though it'd still be pretty decent.)

How could there be a nerf FAQ for that talent?


Kthulhu wrote:


People will tell you that your opinion is wrong.
.
.
.
People will tell you your opinion is based in ignorance.

I don't see any bad thing in the first and the second could be equally ok.

Opinions can be wrong, if the argument focus on the opinions and not the persons then there is nothing bad about it. Many times a wrong opinion/statement of mine have been corrected in this forum, many times my opinion about a issue have changed due to argument that other people have made, there is nothing toxic about it.


they seems hostile.


Inlaa wrote:

One thing I've been tempted to do for my home games is to allow Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec and similar feats apply to whole weapon groups rather than just one weapon.

I can testify that this is a good houserule.


James Jacobs wrote:
Nicos wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Nicos wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
Would the Four Horsemen release Rovagug from its prison if they had the opportunity and means to do so?
No.
WHy not? (sorry if I missed an earlier answer)
Because they're not Rovagug's ally, and he'd likely crush them to atoms. Probably accidentally.
Any other evil outsider race would release Rovagug?

Unlikely. MAYBE the qlippoth, but even then unlikely.

If one DID want to try... there would have been attempts already, and those attempts would have been mentioned by us already. Rovagug being locked up is a good thing for pretty much everyone. Except Rovagug.

Returning to this, What about Asuras? they want to destroy everything in the creation.

And now that we are talking about asuras, how important are them in golarion?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Ninja ninja ninja, ninja ninja. ...Bard bardbard bard bard BARD bard bard bard bard. Investigator investigator investigator, ranger ranger ranger, slayer slayer.

Dude, don't be rude...alchemist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saving Cap'n Crunch wrote:


Edit: Ninja'd! Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Because ninjas are better.


VRMH wrote:


You could try raising the previous owner (possibly as an undead) and ask/force them to order the Golem to obey you.

Uhm, rising him as undead seems the cheapest option.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.

America is not a democracy precisely for that reason. "Tyranny of the majority" was accounted for at our founding.
Not sure If I'm understanding correctly what you are saying.
He's saying that individuals have rights that the majority can't simply take away by a 51% majority (at least in theory)

That is a good thing. I still maintain that what is written in a law and how things actually are can be very different, and more importantly, that national values are just a collective imaginary at best.


Is there a way to become them master of other people's golems (Specially if the original master is now dead)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

Charm Person does NOT dominate anyone. It just makes them like you more. As a friend, your opinion matters more than it used to. They might listen to your opinion and maybe even do some thing things you suggest.

Except the part when you can give them orders and if they fail the opposed check they obey. That's the actual problematic part that should not be in the game IMHO.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.

America is not a democracy precisely for that reason. "Tyranny of the majority" was accounted for at our founding.

Not sure If I'm understanding correctly what you are saying.


thejeff wrote:


Are American values better revealed by our formal documents? Or by our actions?

Neither. There are personal values, not national ones I would argue. The belief in national values is very dangerous one.


The Fox wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.

If only we had some collection of documents that codified our values.
That is pretty meaningless. At best it codify the values of the one that wrote those documents.
Are you unaware of how the Constitution and all of its Amendments came to be?

Mostly yes. But I would assume it was not by a vote where it was confirmed by the majority of the population, I could be very wrong of course.

But that is unimportant, the fact that it is written doesn't imply it is truth, and I'm not talking about the law, but about the nebulous concept of "american value", or more generally speaking any concept of "national value".


The Fox wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.

If only we had some collection of documents that codified our values.

That is pretty meaningless. At best it codify the values of the one that wrote those documents.


The Fox wrote:


Nope. State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to American values.

It is?, I mean, you have a governor trying to make that a law, and I guess some people that voted for him think like him.

Not trying to say that State-sanctioned discrimination is an American value, but that the idea of a set of values that apply to a nation is a myth.


WBL is just a guideline for me, and I never follow it closely. I try to give opportunities in the sense that what PC do and how successful they are is what have an impact in how much money they earn, in this regard I consider consumables pretty useful because they can greatly help in the task at hand. I also like random tables for treasure.

But the usefulness of consumables do vary from campaign to campaign, In pbp games I have a couple of Pc that have never used their consumables.


The Fox wrote:

Clearly a lot of people here are unfamiliar with the history of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.

Have you wondered where all of those "Whites Only" signs have gone? It wasn't the so-called free markets. It was the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

I don't get it. (speaking from total ignorance of the actual issue), would the law not be unconstitutional?, therefore it should not have even a tiny chance of becoming an actual law.


there is also

Steadfast Personality

You rely on your assuredness and sense of self to help keep your mind clear.

Benefit: You gain an insight bonus on Will saving throws against mind-affecting effects equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum 0).

if you meet the prereq, Divine protection is better though.


My( little) knowledge of PFS is that players can not play evil characters but that in the PF society there are indeed evil members, that would means there is also evil parties I would assume.

So, going full-murderhobo, "Ends justify the(my) means" is something that totally can and do (one could assume?) happen in the pathfinder society, and the pathfinders (the group) are basically fine with that. It is that correct?


(I think) that I recently saw that you DMed a pbp campaign back in ye olden days here in paizo forum, (if I'm remembering correctly) how much fun was that campaign? do you people ever finished it?, how many pbp campaigns have you played/DMed?, any advice for pbp gaming?

1 to 50 of 9,643 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.