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 6 Season Star Voter, 8 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 10,469 posts (16,562 including aliases). 13 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 31 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Squiggit wrote:
Leitner wrote:


It is again, the same as my 8 int fighter example. Sure, you can pretend to be an idiot savant, or argue that you'd have some insight into this puzzle because of some misc thing in your backstory. But the end result is usually people just decided they wanted more physical stats and paying attention to the negatives is inconvenient.

You say paying attention to the negatives is inconvenient. I say that they are paying attention to the negatives and you just think the negatives aren't enough. There's a penalty associated with having a low charisma: you're worse at bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, perform and UMD without some special feat or trait to change things. Saying "I'm going to not engage in social situations because I'm bad at talking to people" is paying attention to those negatives and makes sense both from an in character and gamist perspective.

Now you can say those penalties aren't enough and I'd agree with you, but phrasing it as someone ignoring the negatives is just disingenous.

The point does remember me a situation I'm tired of seeing. The "party face", where one guy have high cha and social stats and the other party members don't even bother to talk because "let the guy with the high diplomacy do the talk, every talk, like ever". Not really a fan of social skills for that.


Jiggy wrote:
It's not okay to see Asians in an eastern drawing style on the box and conclude that it must be DBZ-style over-the-top ki-magic action even when the box art depicts something vastly different than that,

You are right in the sense it can easily be an incorrect assumption, just not a racist assumption I'd argue. (mind you, racism could be the source of the dislikement but it doesn't cover all the possibilities)

for the record, I saw Avatar art and I thought about anime-style combat and I got anime style combat. I saw the series in spanish and just later I noticed it was actually not made in japan or the like due to the credits I think, I would have not noticed otherwise).


Sitll not seeing what's Jiggys point.

Relating the art style (like the one in avatar) with "be hadokens and sonic sword-slices and over-the-top craziness" is a pretty reasonable thing to do. It will not always be right, of course, but so what?. pretty sure everyone make choices like that on several topics.

Have just see those Chinese movies like the one where jet lee defeat an entire army with his crazy over the top wuxia martial art techniques?, well "a story about young protagonists against a militaristic antagonist with a bit of action/combat" could catch my eyes but if it is in the style of the wuxia thing I will refuse to see it just because my dislikement of other movies of the same style. If for my refusing to see those kind of movies some person think I'm racist against chinesse people then that person is not thinking clearly.


Kazaan wrote:
Using the Gauntlet to make Unarmed Strike deal lethal damage ...It only changes nonlethal to lethal on your Unarmed Strike; nothing more.

Wasn't there an old FAQ saying that gauntlets always do the damage listed in their entry (1d3)? so for example a monk that does 2d8 with a naked punch will do 1d3 with a gauntlet?


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
It's the same thing as people mistakenly assuming your intelligence score and your character's IQ are directly proportional. They aren't. Intelligence mostly represents how well-educated your character is. Someone with high wisdom and charisma and low intelligence is plenty SMART, they're just not highly educated.

Highly disputable to say the least. The guy with more int will learn new things faster than the guy with high int/cha.


Kazaan wrote:


A Gauntlet is a light weapon. Period. So Weapon Focus (Gauntlet) is, indeed, a thing. Gauntlets, while part of certain pieces of armor, are not armor in and of themselves. They cannot be enhanced as armor, they don't provide an armor bonus, they don't interfere with Monk abilities, etc. A Gauntlet can make your Unarmed Strikes (just Unarmed Strike, a sub-element of Unarmed Attacks; not natural attacks or any other sub-element of Unarmed Attack) deal lethal damage, but that doesn't change anything else about your Unarmed Strikes. They still provoke unless you have IUS, you still don't threaten with them, and they still use Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike) and similar feats, etc. And lastly, when you attack with the Gauntlet, it counts as an Unarmed Attack (not an Unarmed Strike, but an Unarmed Attack). This means that, while an attack with a Gauntlet doesn't benefit from AoMF, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), Monk unarmed damage, etc.; it also doesn't interfere with delivering a touch spell, and can deliver effects that ride on Unarmed Attacks (eg. Stunning Fist).

If these are the rules, then it's silly. If gauntlets are light weapons then they should use the rules of light weapons and should not provoke AoO when you use them.


Snowlilly wrote:
Meta-Magic Rod wrote:
This does not change the spell slot of the altered spell.
The level of the spell slot is not altered. The FAQ has no effect on meta-magic applied via rod. To use the Fireball example: when quickened via rod, the Fireball remains a 3rd level spell occupying a 3rd level spell slot. Concentration DC, rod required, pearl of power, recall, etc. are still calculated for a 3rd level spell.

Yes but if you empower the fireball you will not be able to use , lets say, a lesser metamagic rod of dazing with it because the empowered fireball is effectively a 5th level spell.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Quote:
Which would mean that metamagic rods operated off the new slot level of the spell with metamagic applied. As an example, a fireball (level 3) modified by the Quicken Spell feat (+4 levels) would require a greater rod of metamagic, empower, to empower, instead of a lesser rod as before. Is this what you intended?

No. That's not what they intended.

Why not? it seems exactly as intended.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Chemlak wrote:


What we're saying is that you can't wrangle the rules so that a 1st level monk with nothing in his hands can grapple a target 130 feet away.
How many people were actually arguing that?
This guy, maybe?

Seems like a Monk/ bloodrager(aberration) with the lunge feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:


What we're saying is that you can't wrangle the rules so that a 1st level monk with nothing in his hands can grapple a target 130 feet away.

How many people were actually arguing that?


Trent formaldehime wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Zautos' wrote:
-2 str
Usually, I make characters with a point-buy system. The Race Modifiers to my Ability Scores barely matter at all.

I don't understand.

Halfling: I pay 10 points to get a 16 STR, adjust it down to a 14.

Human: I pay 10 points to get a 16 STR, adjust it up to a 18.

More likely, I'd actually shell out the 17 points to get a 16 str as a Halfling, if I was going the strength martial route.

No idea how the race modifiers don't matter.

Don't halflings get an additional -2 Str due to their size?

No, you just change the start (by -2) as the entry describe, nothing more nothing less.


Well, walking is by far a better choice than jogging for joint health and body composition. I highly recommend walking as a daily activity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I've run a homebrew world for 24 years, mostly revolving around one certain city. 3 years ago my players wanted to play in a new area of the world and use a different city as the base. In fact, they're mostly city based games. I feel like I'm dating a girl I really don't like but don't have the guts to break up with. I want to go back to the original city that I love, but I'm stuck in this relationship with a city I created but just don't like. I recently had most of if destroyed in an attack by dragons, hoping to get the other players to move to the city I like, but they're deciding to stick it out and help rebuild. I don't like this city, even though I created it. I just don't have the creative energy for it I should.

When DungeonmasterCal tells this kind of stories I'm not sure if he is really lucky or really unlucky for dming that long.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Awesome answers!

Nicos: Cool answer! I'm surprised at "no angels" - I didn't think of them as automatically having too many duties/responsibilities beyond being a powerful good outsider (as their alignment can be "any good"); while each of them come with a theme, it's noted that many of the individuals within a group vary. Is there something else that makes them seem more duty-bound to you?

Mostly that I remember angels being created for a purpose instead of being more spontaneous like the other celestial. But it seems that is not the case, and I don't remember why I have that impression, perhaps from an earlier edition must most surely I was just wrong about it.


SanKeshun wrote:
Unlike other combat maneuvers, grappling cannot be performed as an attack action, even though it is one.

An argument can be made that when you grapple using a weapon (like with whip master) you add the relevant modifiers like weapon enhancement, weapon focus, weapon training and the like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:


I 'm basically asking:
- random number of superpowers you'd choose and why

fly, I guess. it would help to avoid the terrible traffic.

Tacticslion wrote:


- random number of superheroes gestalted as self and why
Tacticslion wrote:


- random number of class levels chosen and why

I guess some levels of slayer because the combine brain, agility and strength plus some levels of sorcerers because magic.

Tacticslion wrote:


- random mythic tiers you'd have and why

I have no clue about mythic rules.

Tacticslion wrote:


- random CR monster you'd be and why

High CR good outsider. No archons or angels because too much rules and duties, no azatas because they are weird, and no agathions because they are to flurry. I guess some unique good outsider that wanders the multiverse.

Tacticslion wrote:


- gestalt variation of all the above and why

High CR good outsider that fly while wandering the multiverse slaying things?

Tacticslion wrote:


- what LoZ you'd be a protagonist in and why

Never played any Zelda game. ask me about lufia or chrono trigger and maybe I have an answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, your set of question are a wall of text o-O, can you not simplify it a little?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tacticslion's, apparently.


Dave Justus wrote:

Grapple is a word in the English language: engage in a close fight or struggle without weapons; wrestle.

The designers of the game foolishly thought that using this term would make it clear what they were talking about.

Incorrect. Here, Grapple is a technical term for the pathfinder game and refers to a group of set of rules for an special action whiting the game. That's why grappling with a whip, an harpoon or an arrow is a thing even if that goes against what you wrote.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

You know... I just now noticed your nametag is "Tactics Lion" written as a single word. oO

To this day I've been mentally reading if it were just a random made up word... And in my head it sounded something like "Tah-ctic-seeleeon".

I'm sure that's is more comon than one would think at first

Link


The rules are silent to my knowledge. But since hamatula strike doesn't mention melee attacks somebody could argue that ranged grapple checks are allowed. Perhaps the only way to harpooning someone in PF.


Rysky wrote:
Nicos wrote:
amethal wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Protection from evil to seal an unholy pact with a devil prince?, a good act in the multiverse.

I think you might be missing the point a bit here.

Effectively they are (at least) two acts. One is good and the other is evil.

Well, yeah, you are right, Just cast the spell five more time and we are cool. A good thing that the spell level don't count for those rules.
The assumption that all acts are equal is false, just FYI.

The rule is there, cast several times a good spell and you are good. Don't be dishonest.


amethal wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Protection from evil to seal an unholy pact with a devil prince?, a good act in the multiverse.

I think you might be missing the point a bit here.

Effectively they are (at least) two acts. One is good and the other is evil.

Well, yeah, you are right, Just cast the spell five more time and we are cool. A good thing that the spell level don't count for those rules.


Rysky wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Except we do have explanations for why things are evil.
Not from a rules perspective that's not a tautology. "It's evil cuz it's marked evil" isn't good enough. Consider the audience. I would wager the real world faiths and attitudes of most gamers or the atheists here provide a very visceral understanding, albeit subjective, as to what is wrong and evil. You also have a bunch of folks with encouraged, deliberate, and active imaginations. Saying something is a certain way with no underlying connection as to the cause or a deeper underpinning comes off as lazy, wrong, and absolutely something to be at least questioned and at most mocked.

Except in Pathfinder the Alignments are actual things. Good and Evil are actual tangible forces that exist and can be interacted with.

Evil is an actual literal thing that can be tapped into and, in the case of spells, power them with.

So for the explanation: this is evil not because it's labeled evil. It's evil because you are screwing around with the actual forces of evil that are not only proven to exist but are also a very real and tangible force.

Protection from evil to seal an unholy pact with a devil prince?, a good act in the multiverse.
The unholy pact outweighs the 2nd level spell part.

Well, it's only a matter of casting the spell for all the party and done.


Rysky wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Except we do have explanations for why things are evil.
Not from a rules perspective that's not a tautology. "It's evil cuz it's marked evil" isn't good enough. Consider the audience. I would wager the real world faiths and attitudes of most gamers or the atheists here provide a very visceral understanding, albeit subjective, as to what is wrong and evil. You also have a bunch of folks with encouraged, deliberate, and active imaginations. Saying something is a certain way with no underlying connection as to the cause or a deeper underpinning comes off as lazy, wrong, and absolutely something to be at least questioned and at most mocked.

Except in Pathfinder the Alignments are actual things. Good and Evil are actual tangible forces that exist and can be interacted with.

Evil is an actual literal thing that can be tapped into and, in the case of spells, power them with.

So for the explanation: this is evil not because it's labeled evil. It's evil because you are screwing around with the actual forces of evil that are not only proven to exist but are also a very real and tangible force.

Protection from evil to seal an unholy pact with a devil prince?, a good act in the multiverse.


Generic Villain wrote:


So if the primordial force known as Good decides "okay Good mortals, use a few too many Evil spells and you're off our team," why would Evil not have the equivalent rule? "Woops, that was your third Good spell today Antipaladin Jim. Get your arse out of my (strictly metaphysical) house."

Generally speaking, evil forces are not that dumb.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
I still don't quite understand this thread

Inspired by the reply of Mikaze to a post of mine (where I said that chris will have a lot of work to do after all the post made in the weekend in the warpriest playtest thread and Mikaze said that he will have to apologize to Crhis for participating in the whole mess) this thread is Intended to be a place to make some jokes and post funny stuff, a la blame Cosmo thread.


I don't understand what you try to say. True, A wizard doesn't need to dump str, yet he can do it without major consequences.

In the context of this thread the full-casters are rewarded for the way the already worked while most martials (wiht the exception of the paladin it seems) will have a harder time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Of course it's fair. Unfair is to compare the 2000 gp that cost to remove the penalty of low strength cost with the dozens of thousands that cost for a martial to have all the things you mentioned and pretend they are on the same ground.
It's not just a penalty to low strength. I've seen caster dump dex and con too and need gear like any martial would making up for caster deficiencies for protective gear and gear that gives concealment and whatnot. It's hardly a "martial only" problem. Folks are simply being a bit selective in their examples here.

I've also seen terrible builds, yet I don't see what that have to be with the fact that the penalty for low strength is almost a joke for wizards or sorcerers unlike the limitation for martial that can be circumvented that easily.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
ONly [sic] if those items combined cost the same of a handy haversack and doesn't compete with other items the martials needs to do their job.
No, not only. That's not a reasonable restriction. Do you really expect a reasonable cap to be 2,000 gp? What's the value of a "caster party member" since strong party members were also the opposite stand in? Capping the cost comparable to a handy haversack alone just doesn't fly in any kind of fair comparison.

Of course it's fair. Unfair is to compare the 2000 gp that cost to remove the penalty of low strength cost with the dozens of thousands that cost for a martial to have all the things you mentioned and pretend they are on the same ground.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Hardly anybody even tracks encumbrance, and there are tons of ways to get around it. Mules, handy haversacks, strong partymembers, to name a few.
Conversely, martials rarely need to worry about mental stuff or casting stuff. With all the buffs, conditional removals, auras, and so on, a martial rarely needs strong mental abilities in any kind of balanced party. If items (e.g. handy haversacks) can make up for casters deficiencies, then the same argument should also have equal weight for martials using items which almost completely levels the playing field. The resulting saves and totals will be a bit different but you'll still have bonuses, rerolls, ability score improvements, x/day negating effects, and so on.

ONly if those items combined cost the same of a handy haversack and doesn't compete with other items the martials needs to do their job.


Unluckyblackjack wrote:

And when I said played well, I meant "like a person who's first response to a problem isn't fire." And while there is a place for a good hack-and-slash, not everything can be solved by "Mike the Magic Murderer."

Odds are that mike the magic murderer have way more ways to solve problems that have nothing to do with murdering people that bob the stabber.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finneous Frye wrote:


Incident 2) A few sessions later we found ourselves rushing into a room full of evil cultists. We had surprise on them. This in and of itself my monk figured was fine. They weren't sleeping; just surprised. I quickly discovered that the cultists were incapable of defending themselves and the fight was going to be a slaughter.

To slaughter evil cultist is like the best way to deal with evil cultists.


Paizo is very unlikely to develop another setting, but that is what 3pp is for. Midgard, Cerulean seas, Obsidian apocalypse, the lonely coast, that one where rappan athuk is. No need to ask paizo something where there are many high qualities options out there.

And to stay on topic, I'm not fond on paizo choice on making more classes and the way they did it. Since the ACG my interest in paizo crunch book declined considerably.


Sundakan wrote:


In Ambervale: Not sure what I have to add to the current scene.

Whatever, anything :(


Are you claiming you can't reposition a neutral bystander because he is not your foe?


I would take the final copy if there is no problem with that.


Lemmy wrote:

I think he's agreeing with you...

In any case, I think we now derailed the thread's derail! XD

Well, Jiggy basically gave the definite answer to the Op in the first page.


Talonhawke wrote:
Nicos wrote:

I just would not call racist somebody for refusing to see a new anime based on their previous dislikement of other animes. And do note that we all do that kind of thinking in our lives.

I will refuse to see any Adam sandler movie based on my dislikement of his other movies, and I doubt that that would make me an antisemitic.

Might be apparently not wanting to go see the new Ghostbusters makes me misogynistic even though the reason I'm not seeing it is I have yet to watch a movie from those actors and director I found funny. Same reasoning different results simply based on the target and not the actual reasons.

I'm sorry, I don't know if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me or just adding something else. Not native speaker here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
Nicos wrote:

Individual people and not cultures create the art. It's true that people are influenced by the cultures and themes in his surrounding.

But Anime have been in the TVs around the world from a long time now. People that grew up seeing plenty of Anime can take anime as their main inspiration for their own art.

Individual people are the atomic units of their culture. Simply watching "plenty" of works from a culture foreign to your own, even if you find inspiration in that, isn't the same thing as being a member of that culture.

So?, you don't need to be of Japanese culture to create an Anime-style cartoon. Or to be a black guy from brooklyn/harlem to create hip hop.

Alzrius wrote:


Quote:
Though, defining Anime as "works of animation made by and for Japan" is a workable definition I don't find it to be a particularly useful one.
Why not? It strikes me as being better than any alternative offered so far. "Visual style" isn't helpful because there are anime with highly distinctive pictorial elements that look nothing like other anime (e.g. Crayon Shin-chan). "Thematic elements" isn't helpful because there are large numbers of anime for which any particular theme(s) aren't found. If we hold that the term "anime" is describing something specific, then what other definitions could be considered?

Would you insist that only black people from brooklyn or harlem can create hip hop?. Because an statement like that is of the same style as saying that only japanese people can create anime.


thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Then again, being uninformed/uninterested in something... Even disliking it... Is not necessarily bigotry.
It's also not what I'm talking about.

Just because I quote your posts, it doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with you... I might simply be trying to expand on your point.

Your post (in the context of replying to Nicos' post) gives me the impression that you're saying that making false inferences based on <X> is "X-ism". I'm just expanding on that point and saying that's not necessarily the case... The person making the false inferences might be mistaken, uninformed and/or uninterested.

Might be mistaken, uninformed or uninterested, but if they're making false inferences based on <X>, that's still X-ism. Maybe not the most extreme kind, but still...

True, but do we know what the <X> is? If I dislike Hip hop the only possible explanation is that I'm prejudiced against black people?. Sure there will be people that hate hip hop just because they associate it with black people, but that stance don't cover all the bases.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
We all make false inferences in our lives and plenty of our choices are based on irrational judgements, It's standard human behaviour. Jumping from that to racism is probably too much.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is age, then it's ageism.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is sex, then it's sexism.

If the information upon which you've based your false inferences is race, then it's racism.

...

Well, okay, I guess technically those are all "prejudice": judging prior to knowing. Theoretically it's not until you oppress someone that it becomes one of those "isms". But of course, they all start with prejudice, so I'm not sure I see a purpose in pointing out that being prejudiced in your thinking isn't actually [whatever]ism yet.

I just would not call racist somebody for refusing to see a new anime based on their previous dislikement of other animes. And do note that we all do that kind of thinking in our lives.

I will refuse to see any Adam sandler movie based on my dislikement of his other movies, and I doubt that that would make me an antisemitic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We all make false inferences in our lives and plenty of our choices are based on irrational judgements, It's standard human behaviour. Jumping from that to racism is probably too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:


Quote:

Sailor Moon wouldn't bee any less anime if it had been written and produced by a French author/company... Naruto would still be anime if it had been produced by a Brazilian author/company... And the same goes for One Piece, Death Note, Dragon Ball, etc.

Just because certain themes aren't as popular in a certain region/culture as they are in others doesn't mean those themes couldn't be used somewhere else.

I don't believe it's a question of "themes," per se. Rather, it's a recognition of the fact that cultures, like individuals, are a unique gestalt of their history, values, characteristics, and myriad other factors, and that this is reflected in the art that they produce. When the country in question is Japan - and the medium in question is animated work - we use the shorthand term "anime" for that.

The idea that the uniqueness that comes from this is something bad is a view I personally reject. Yes, those differences can be used as a point of hatred and divisiveness, but that's a perversion of their strengths, rather than being an inherent quality of them. By that same token, suggesting that that uniqueness is false (e.g. because any recognition of differences between groups is inherently bigoted and needs to stop) and should be torn down does a disservice as well, since it throws away something special just because it could possibly be corrupted to a bad end.

Hence why I believe that "anime" is a term that applies only to works of animation made by and for Japan, and that's okay.

Individual people and not cultures create the art. It's true that people are influenced by the cultures and themes in his surrounding.

But Anime have been in the TVs around the world from a long time now. People that grew up seeing plenty of Anime can take anime as their main inspiration for their own art.

Though, defining Anime as "works of animation made by and for Japan" is a workable definition I don't find it to be a particularly useful one.


Sundakan wrote:


3.) Blocked dragon fire with a shield. Then died.

Can't happen. Except the dying part.

It's a sad thing that shields get shafted in the game :/


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nicos wrote:


THis is misleading at best.

It is not in any way shape or form misleading. You do NOT need a forum to reach those conclusions because the vast majority of people did reach those conclusions without a forum. The rule is there. You don't need a forum to reach it you need a change in perspective.

The rules are meant to be interpreted with an honest, neutral effort to derive meaning. If you want to try to force a reading on them in pursuit of mechanical advantage, you're going to get that reading.

Say it's unclear.
Say it's ambiguous
Say you didn't have a good response to an argument as to why someone thought it worked another way.

But when you complain that your "clever" interpretation was getting you more attacks or more damage than you should have was stopped by people making up rules? That's horsefeathers.

Then You say it was unclear, or it was ambiguous but the whole "the vast majority of people read something agreed with me since the beginning" is quite dubious.

On the other hand, Implying a rule was interpreted in one way because the reader just wanted to deal more damage is a statement that only deserve a *rolling eyes*.

THe whole metaphorical hands was not in the book, otherwise the DEV would have not call it an unwritten rule.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


No. That is the exact opposite of what you're talking about. Those are the rules, they are written in the book ,. you don't need a forum to reach those conclusions.

THis is misleading at best.


Buri Reborn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
not really getting your point here.

It is the difference between the game someone might understand by purely reading only the books as printed, no 3.5 experience, and so on versus someone active on the forums, reads the FAQs, stays up on errata, with previous system experience, and so on. One of the biggest hurdles for me "getting" the game was that I never was into 3.5. Some of my earliest questions here were answered with "duh, noob" type responses or "it's always been like this" and was rather unfriendly even though this community likes to pride itself on its approachability.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its not really a new rule, it ... derives would be the wrong word, as it implies a mathematical certainty about the info you start with and the results you can, but it can certainly be interpreted from

the 2 weapon fighting rules, which specify a one handed weapon and an off hand, not any weapon and your off hand.

game balance, as am extra attack for 15? gold pieces of armor spikes is kinda nuts.

an absence of rules support , as there's technically no "attack with a two handed weapon and an offhanded option"

This is what I'm talking about. It's apparently a rule that's supposedly "always been known." I hate these kinds of rules. They require a certain kind of meta knowledge that's seemingly an open secret.

It was not "always been known", that's the reason the whole unwritten rule was son annoying.


Ascalaphus wrote:
Nicos wrote:
The FAQ just created way more problems that it solved, the way is easier and with less questions without it.
How do you mean? As far as I can see, the FAQ solves all the problems and it's pretty simple too.

I mean, the first FAQ, the one they reversed later on.


The FAQ just created way more problems that it solved, the way is easier and with less questions without it.

1 to 50 of 10,469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.