|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
It used to be more obvious in previous editions that the so called "rules" are really just guidelines. It was usually even part of the book title like the: Dungeon Masters Guide, rather than Dungeon Masters Rulebook. Some Pathfinder books still follow that tradition like the: Advanced Class Guide and Advanced Players Guide so I think the assumption that the books are just a bunch of guidelines still holds. The resolution to every dispute should be whatever the GM/DM decides.
THe way things are written today is in response to how things were writing in those days. A lot of people wanted more rules and less guidelines so they will be protected from their DMs and pathfinder follow that tradition
Gwen Smith wrote:
You say that as if maximizing and using Diplomacy required a great amount of investment and resources.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Your point and your example are very accurate. In particular, limiting some effects to one weapon (AKA, slashing grace) is a very horrible way to try to balance anything.
Shield use your other hand but not your "off-hand", speaking in terms of the unwritten hands of effort.
I agree that the FAQ means that you can't ready a charge.
However your first train of thought is irrelevant. Yes, it doesn't make sense, but it also doesn't matter rule wise. A staggered barbarian can't full attack someone right in front of him but totally can partial charge -pounce someone at 30 ft away, it doesn't make sense but that's the rule.
What is the reason behind preventing Alchemists from using alchemical weapons as, well, weapons? Will this ever be changed?
It's actually a pathfinder problem/feature that some options are just inferior to other options for whatever reason.
Some questions have clear answers, to some the rules are silent and to some others the rules are confusing and contradicting. Yet, to answer the actual question you must go the the rule or FAQ, not if wizards are allowed to cast two wishes per round or not. The houserule forum is for that.
Eh, I will distribute the skill point so the GMNPC is not an expert on anything, that way he could be helpful sometimes without stealing that spot for the players. I would consider a problem if the GMNPC is good at sense motive, you don't want him to be the one to uncover the secrets of the adventure.
Seconded, more or less.
With a simple class the players can decide what GMPC do in combat, move and attack x or move and attack y or stay here and protect me. I really advice an spellcaster, keep the GMNPC as simple as possible.
And I agree that the Pc should do the talk outside combat, but that doesn't mean the GMNPC have to be just a filler in the party. A GMNPC have succeeded when the players actually cares about him.
I doubt a sorcerer want to get that close to a creature that grappled a barbarian.
EDIT: ah, Misread. you meant to help the barbarian grapple somebody else. I bet is still too risky for a sorcerer. FOr that 1 lv bard it could be an actual good option at low levels.
I find aid another in combat to be disappointing. Most of the time there are much better things to do than using your own action to help a friend with the roll, and in the situations when I have actually considered to use it a mere +2 is nothing.
A barbarian with a +20 to grapple CMB roll a 18 and still only gives a +2 to the sorcerer to escape a grapple. It is pointless.
It is just a narrative you can use. It could be good or it could be wrong depending on the circumstances. The biggest mistakes here is to overdo it (your player will get bored), and to not give the opportunity for you players to do something about it (No escape plan should have plot immunity)
Eh, as much as that would help with the HPs, for fighters cloak of resistance are mandatory.
I know little about your books, but 101 hazards and disasters is absolutely brilliant. I would like more DM resources like that. Perhaps a 101 series that deals with something you can put in the battle maps and are interactive so they can become important for the fight at hand.
As in TriOmega example, you can't guarantee 100% success with healing, so there is a double standard here.
You are also assuming the healing (which is a small amount in pf) will not be wasted because you took more damage that round from the monster the cleric did not kill.
And still, not sure how is only cleric responsibility. If your character is constantly in a position when you need healing or you die, then the inefficient one that put everyone else on risk is your character.
You want to play a non-standard version of a class. Risk your own character not mine.
Exactly, how is the cleric putting your character at risk?
For the last 2 years I've been playing a healer-buffer-summoner based priest (AKA, 1/2 bab- 1d6HD -non medium armor prof clerics) in a lost land campaign.
My Low AC, Low Hp character have gone to the extremes of putting himself in great danger just to heal another party member or even put himself in front of the enemy and use full defense action to protect someone else.
And I did it gladly because that was the character I wanted to play when I made him, but If the rest of the party suddenly have some of the attitude I have seen in this thread then screw it all, I better play a charging barbarian instead.
Common sense is nothing. I can claim that common sense dictates the cleric to try to do something to stop the enemy to launch another fireball, like casting an offensive spell or going to melee against the caster.
Still only the cleric player right to judge.
The problem here is defining what is the "right" situation. Assuming the standard situation of the cleric player caring for a fellow party member to not die, then it is on cleric player to judge the situation.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Or perhaps they just meant damage to be reducing someone hps and that negative damage is not part of PF.
If the problem was the interaction between the bloodrage powers with the eldritch scion, he could try playing a not bad designed archetype.
Either way CAmpingCarl is right, the rule question have been already answered.
Or you need to accept that is ok for some people to not find some (flawed, I would say) mechanics to be fun.
I think Melkiador is right. The time to argue and complain was like 3-4 years ago. What we have now, for good or bad or whatever, is what the devs wanted for pathfinder.
THat should be mandatory, IMHO, being locked to one weapon is a bad bad thing.
Yes. Their opinion on the rules is exactly as valuable than any other experienced gm out there, not more not less.
You have given examples of contrived and ridiculous scenarios that will never happen in real games, not even in your games according to you and that only prove that GM Fiat wins everything. If you can't see why your example is irrelevant after the complete explanations people have given to you then there is no much more to say.
you know that "the PFS GMs I've played with think I'm right" is an anecdote right?
...that means nothing...
and more importantly, this whole tangent about illusion is pretty irrelevant, even if the rules are correct, the scenario proposed is contrived, silly and proves nothing.
DM Grimmy wrote:
I already started and read most of slumbering tsar...so I would prefer Rappan Athuk :)
Well...yes, I don't disagree.
EDIT: I mean, I trid to say that you were right and that even if not, that would be besides the point because I don't see the value of comparing the balance of a class with some of the most broken stuff in Pf.
Well, generally speaking I love build comparison, but the APG Eidolon also have the unfortunate feature of require a lot of work to build.
I will try to search for some of the ones I have seen in the forum, but in the meantime just forget I said anything.
Really, this is irrelevant. Again, building a super-druid (and definitely a "super-animal companion") is much, much harder than building a Super-Eidolon
And that is besides the point. The less breakable stuffs int eh game the better.
No animal companion comes near to an APG eidolon.
As a GM the unchained summoner did touch some of the things I banned the original one. Less crazy spellcasting and less crazy Eidolon. No clue why paizo screwed it with absolutely pointless and useless restrictions though.
There was also the issue of the interaction of those spells with metamagic rods. That opened the door to several shenanigans. The spell nerf is a good thing.
Unless really clear cut cases (like not casting breath of life or something) then Not doing his best is only the other guy opinion. Does the wizard tell the fighter to what enemy attack? what maneuver to use? to which square to move? what weapon to use?.
That is only one spell is irrelevant.
Or to summarize. It is understood that everyone in the team will act with the intentions of helping the team and winning the fights, how they will do it is up to them.