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. 10,229 posts (15,914 including aliases). 12 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 30 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

That's quite generous on our part, I'm in I guess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Those 3pp companies are great, so I'm in.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Me wrote:
No dead levels.

I was going to say that.


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:
thejeff wrote:
Crimeo wrote:
Ah fair enough, fair enough. Okay yes one of the totally broken instances then.

Not anywhere near so broken as allowing a Diplomancers to stop any fight with a 1 round skill check.

As I said earlier the only real defense against well built Diplomancers is to hit them with pointy things until they stop talking.

So why is it wrong for well-built Diplomancers to succeed at the one thing they built their character to do? (Especially if ending the fight in one round with a AoE or battlefield control spell is perfectly OK?)

You say that as if maximizing and using Diplomacy required a great amount of investment and resources.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Josh-o-Lantern wrote:


it's just like taking Combat Expertise when you know you don't want it and will never use it...

You mean, a sign of bad design?


Chess Pwn wrote:


EDIT:
I have a perfect example of this.

** spoiler omitted **

...

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.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Byakko wrote:
You can wield two lances, but you can't TWF with them as they both still count as two-handed weapons, thus requiring your offhand's worth of effort to attack with.

Uhh, no. There is a reason so many mounted builds use a lance and shield. Because it does not require your offhand to use the lance.

What do you think "wield as a one handed weapon" means?

Shield use your other hand but not your "off-hand", speaking in terms of the unwritten hands of effort.


Gauss wrote:

It would not make sense that you are unable to ready a charge when you have a full round of actions but be able to do something MORE when you are limited to a standard action. This is not nerfing martials. If it were allowed it would be giving a benefit to someone because of a penalty, this doesn't make sense.

You cannot ready a charge, the FAQ states this clearly by answering "No".

Summary: a penalty should not result in gaining an advantageous option that you could not normally use.

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.


MisterSlanky wrote:

Yesterday I had a player complain that a vital strike sword & board player "wasn't an effective fighter" because it didn't fit his idea of how much damage a fighter should be doing. Said fighter was actually fine. It was that player's problem, not an actual problem with the character.

It's actually a pathfinder problem/feature that some options are just inferior to other options for whatever reason.


alexd1976 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
What caster can do is irrelevant to the actual question.

Fixating too much on minutia is a bad idea, ignoring how this would interact with the rest of the game is both suggested, and a good idea.

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.


What caster can do is irrelevant to the actual question.


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.


Heretek wrote:

My recommendation: keep the GMPC as far away from the NPCs as possible. A dumb martial would be ideal so you can let the others shine. Don't talk to yourself (NPCs), minimize any risk of metagaming as much as humanly possible. Your goal is to not exist. Serve your role in combat, and stay away from anything else.

As mentioned, the dumb martial works, but you could also try something like a reach cleric and focus on primarily healing the party, while also being able to fend for yourself a bit. This all really depends on what the other players are though.

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.


THat's depend on the cleric ¬¬..., a healer, a buffer, a caster, a warrior?. Personally I love protection. Travel and trickery are pretty good, and DArkness and madness are strong.


Headfirst wrote:
Nicos wrote:
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.
Correct, but that's the most inefficient way to use aid another in battle. Reverse the situation and it makes much more sense: Even a sorcerer with only a 6 Strength grants a +2 bonus on his barbarian friend's grapple check.

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)


Xexyz wrote:
Davor wrote:
Tell that fighter to stop scrubbing up, get in the game, and get off his butt. If they're still having issues, consider getting Aid Another bonuses, and the Bodyguard feat. Invest in means that prevent damage, rather than heal it. There are lots of means of preventing damage, as long as you know what's coming in a fight. Plan accordingly.
I'll try to convince the fighter to save up his money and buy a cloak of lesser displacement. What other things are our there?

Eh, as much as that would help with the HPs, for fighters cloak of resistance are mandatory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:


And what you fail to understand is that the 'experiment' WORKS. Jiggy has done it, plenty of other people have done it. Without character death.
I'm not saying it does not work. if you can guarantee 100% odd of success all the time. Then go ahead. IF not no thanks risk someone else character.

As in TriOmega example, you can't guarantee 100% success with healing, so there is a double standard here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Nicos wrote:


Exactly, how is the cleric putting your character at risk?
It's not so much a risk so much that assuming everything will go there way. The injured characters won't die or get attacked. That extra attack is not going to be wasted. That the spell will go off. I'm also unimpressed with one player who is allowed to refuse to use a class feature. Someone else decides to do the same. But the second one is being selfish and for revenge. Yet the first one is not. If any character who is playing a loner and not caring about the overall health of the party. Its not going to have the rest of the party want to do help you out either.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


memorax wrote:
Nicos wrote:


Still only the cleric player right to judge.
I'm assuming that the person running the cleric has some common sense. If two characters are hug by a fireball. One goes from 100 hp to 70 the other goes from 60 to 20 with a failed save. One assumes the cleric is going to heal the one that has less hp. Sometimes it is that obvious and it still not that hard to judge IMO.

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.


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


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.
its D&D not rocket science. It's fairly obvious when the need for healing is right and when it's wrong. A player gets a scratch I usually don't bother. He or she takes 30+ damage. Diseased if cursed. You really don't need to be asked IMO. Too often players who go take that kind of hp damage wrongfully assume they can survive the next combat. Chances Are they won't. Sometimes one hAs to be both proactive not just reactive at the table.

Still only the cleric player right to judge.


memorax wrote:


I still maintain that a class that can heal in the right situation should.

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.


Creighton Broadhurst wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Will there ever be a village backdrop collection like the dungeon dressing book?
We already have two such collections and a third one releases next week! This page

Yeah, I already bought the first one when they were at half-price.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:


The only reason it is not written as "negative damage" is that it would confuse the crap out of newer players.

Or perhaps they just meant damage to be reducing someone hps and that negative damage is not part of PF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


LazarX wrote:
noble peasant wrote:
Fair enough, weird, but fair enough. There goes any idea of an eldritch scion being fun.
You simply need to redefine "fun".

Or you need to accept that is ok for some people to not find some (flawed, I would say) mechanics to be fun.


So, you reunite again. What do you do?


memorax wrote:
Melkiador wrote:


The problem is that you are complaining about things, where you have to face the reality that they aren't going to change. Martial-Caster disparity is here to stay. And you can complain about it all you want, but it won't change anything, because that's just the game. And if you don't like the game, then you should find something you like better.

Well there is nothing stopping the devs if they truly wanted too. To try and fix the martial-caster disparity. I'm sure they could do it in a such way that does not invalidate casters nor make the game unrecognizable. The thing is if they want and imo they truly don't. So I see no reason why fans of the game should be happy. let alone accepting of the disparity.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
djones wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Jack of Dust wrote:
Will we only see Weapon Style Feats for weapons that are already commonly used by PCs or will we also see them for weapons that are currently seldom used due to currently inferior stats? (light and heavy pick, certain throwing weapons, quarterstaff, etc)

Weapon Style Feats are like normal style feats, but tin stead of having Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, they have Weapon Focus with a specific chosen weapon (and sometimes other things). When you take them, you can use them anytime you are using the style, have the chosen weapon with Weapon Focus, and meet the circumstances of the feat.

Though there's additional flexibility to what weapons you can use it with if you have the appropriate weapon training category, as well.

None of which should be confused for advanced weapon training, weapon mastery feats, or weapon tricks, all of which are their own separate systems in the book.

"Though there's additional flexibility to what weapons you can use it with if you have the appropriate weapon training category, as well."

So, for example if I have a weapon style that I can use with a glaive-guissarm I can use the same style with a spear, a halberd etc but not a long sword?

THat should be mandatory, IMHO, being locked to one weapon is a bad bad thing.


Redjack_rose wrote:


So... the people who run the organized play, are in contact with the devs, and are responsible for ensuring fairness when players/gm's disagree meaning nothing. -slow clap-

Yes. Their opinion on the rules is exactly as valuable than any other experienced gm out there, not more not less.

Redjack_rose wrote:


I have given proof after proof how this could be done, with in the rules, with APL appropriate enemies and within Wealth by Level, as well as why it's a valid tactic for an enemy to spend 5,000 to neuter 1/4th of the party. None of these require GM fiat and are all with reasonable expectations of play. They are perform-able by the GM and Player.

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.

Redjack_rose wrote:


If you want to be on an even field with me in this debate, you'd better start disproving things with data or applicable anecdotes rather than just calling things silly because you couldn't think of them or haven't encountered them. Once you do that, then I'll consider responding further to you.

you know that "the PFS GMs I've played with think I'm right" is an anecdote right?


Redjack_rose wrote:


I would believe you, except for many of those GM's have been from PFS and of those, many are Venture Captains/Lt. .

...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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The scenario is ridiculously contrived and silly, and even if it works it proves nothing at all. Just let it go people.


DM Grimmy wrote:
Cool. How did you like the read?

The adventure is filled with great miniquests and areas to explore, but the lack of an underlying plot hurt it a little.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Grimmy wrote:
Leoven. wrote:
What happens is that some friends want me to DM them Slumbering Tsar, and I not sure if that Adventure have spoilers for this campaign.

Hey Nicos,

Like OTM-Shank was saying, my idea was a sandbox campaign that can go where the players take it. The modules are written that way anyway. But, somewhere around level 6 there is a big fork in the road that can go more toward Slumbering Tsar or Rappan Athuk.

If you want to read/GM slumbering tsar for your home group I think it will be ok because I am leaning towards using more bits of Rappan Athuk in the high levels since it has better digital support now. Hero labs files and maps.

Of course I want it to be up to the party, but that is what I was thinking..

I already started and read most of slumbering tsar...so I would prefer Rappan Athuk :)


Psyren wrote:


Nicos wrote:
Psyren wrote:
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.
The stuff that breaks more easily is what causes more problems. Wizards haven't been touched in years of PFS despite being the most powerful class in PF. Optimization floor matters.

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.


Ravingdork wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Psyren wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


I still stand by my statement that organized society adventure design is a much worse problem (in that it helps to create the lop-sized situations you describe) than the even the original summoner.
Even if you're right about this, here's the thing - Summoner is the only class that's had these kind of organized play issues. So even if it's a shortcoming of the format itself that makes them seem stronger than they really are, it's still easier to approach the issue by tweaking one class than it is tweaking every module and scenario they've ever released or will release.
I'm failing to see how this is any different than druids, who can have companions who can pounce or fly as well.
No animal companion comes near to an APG eidolon.
Stat one up and I will at the very least equal it.
I find your statement somewhat dubious as well, Nicos. At the very least, it's not the universal blanket truth you seem to think it is.

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.


Psyren wrote:
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.


Ravingdork wrote:
Psyren wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


I still stand by my statement that organized society adventure design is a much worse problem (in that it helps to create the lop-sized situations you describe) than the even the original summoner.
Even if you're right about this, here's the thing - Summoner is the only class that's had these kind of organized play issues. So even if it's a shortcoming of the format itself that makes them seem stronger than they really are, it's still easier to approach the issue by tweaking one class than it is tweaking every module and scenario they've ever released or will release.
I'm failing to see how this is any different than druids, who can have companions who can pounce or fly as well.

No animal companion comes near to an APG eidolon.


The best thing you can do with that spell is to ban it. If you don't want to, then the answer to your questions is "whatever that you feel will not do any harm to your campaign"


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.


9mm wrote:


A: it wasn't even close to being disruptive.

It disrupted quite a lot of games, there is no other definition of being disruptive.


avr wrote:

The original summoner's 'early' spells came at most one character level early and often later. Memorax mentioned SM VIII as a 6th level spell; well, summoners get 6th level spells from character level 16, wizards & clerics get 8th level spells from character level 15.

The only real oddity was haste at character level 4, and that mainly because at low character levels every one is a big difference. Otherwise the original summoner's spell list was IMO better thought out than the unsummoner's.

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.


Almost All classes can be good party face with the right choice of stats and traits. Besides having good social skill what other stuff do you want to do?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:

@Nicos

I have provided reasons for why it's an immature act. Things like it's only 1 spell, it's for a friend, it's more beneficial to the group, it takes very little time or effort, etc... It is not the same as a ''It's immature'' ''No it's not.'' conversation.

As for your summary

''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.''

Great, the fighter has decided to help the team, he'll ask the wizard to prepare 1 spell for him. He is acting with intentions to help the team win the fight and is doing it in a way he sees beneficial.

The wizard now says no because ''I wanna do what I want! I'm helping the team even if I'm not doing my best!''

Seriously?

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 to 50 of 10,229 << 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.