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. 10,347 posts (16,178 including aliases). 13 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 30 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,073 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
Neither does the new Jingasa. Because you probably used it on the greataxe wielding cyclops a few levels back.

*Ahem*, because you already sold it to buy something decent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
And I thought PFS didn't drive errata. :P

yeah.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:


I'm just trying to show that the game is "healthier" with it no longer a luck bonus.

It is just that your heavy armored/ tower shield character is not very convincing. You invested your resources to have a high AC and then you achieved a High Ac, so?. do they have to nerf circlet of persuasion if I build a character that invest most of his resources into never miss a diplomacy check?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see the problem of a character that invest most of his resources into having a high AC to actually achieve a high AC. And still find no reason to destroy the item the way they did it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I understand this errata did very little to make bad items viable and did a lot to make good items into bad items.

Broken items are no longer broken.

They are broken just that now they are broken in underpowered direction.

James Risner wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I understand this errata did very little to make bad items viable and did a lot to make good items into bad items.

Broken items are no longer broken.

TriOmegaZero wrote:


The difference is just too great. It's very hard to make a character that might get into combat and not use full plate/tower shield.

Really tower shield?, it seems e play very different style of games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

... Dunning-Kruger effect ...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:

This argument makes the assumption that unless it's cheap, and amazingly powerful, it's not useful.

No it doesn't, ANd even if it were you're still miss the point that destroying the item was not the right choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:


Objectively, if every person that had a Jingasa goes to no hat, there is not a net decrease in diversity. There is an equal transfer of diversity from "hat" to "no hat".

no because when you had 5k available there wa the choice between the Jingasa and, perhaps, putting another +1 into your main weapon. Now it is not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

EVEN If there were 12 other good options for the nerfed item it is still a bad design to nerf the item to the ground, because having 13 good options is better than having 12 good and the 13th to be garbage. So the very lazy policy of nuking the items down and not caring is just bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If the problem is that every character is buying the same thing in the same slot, then make more than one thing that people want to put in that slot.

Which brings the spinning back around to the "big 6 items".

Which will lead to "use ABP"

Which will get interrupted by a rant.

The writing of this show is getting really predictable.

In a group we've been using an automatic bonus progression since 2012 or so, and still struggle to find good items, there are few that are worth their price.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
So why not cut out the middle man and just ban everything that wasn't in 3.5?

I'm not sure if you are being serious (as not understanding why this is different).

Or if you are just being snarky for fun.

Or something else?

Your reasoning is very weird. You get an AC of 35 using other means and the items that rise it to 36 is the problem?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought that the idea of ultimate equipment was to introduce new items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And was the Jingasa the guilties thing for that AC? because without it AC 34 is still beyond the number you are giving.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
I don't find options that are a waste of space/ink 'better' in any way.

100% of my characters had the Jingasa.

100% of my melee characters had the feather step boots.
One of my characters had the cap of the freethinker.

Some of my character has some of the other items.

I loved many of those items.
I also understood they were broken.

Well, they are broken now but in the opposite direction, that is pretty much not an improvement at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
What I'm bothered by is the ascent (which I was there to observe all of) of a narrow, ordered way of thinking and speaking that doesn't play well with anyone who doesn't speak and think their way, and winds up marginalizing the rest of us wherever it takes firm root because it demands understanding without extending any.

I say that describe your stance accurately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Ring of Protection, cheaper yes, but takes up a ring slot.

you have a better idea to use the ring slot for comparable price?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
... so we find the things that stand out as a gem and use them because they are good.

Everyone knows that If you ever choose something for its mechanical advantages then you are a munchkin powergamer MMOplayer who don't know how to roleplay talkien-esque characters.

=========================

Joke aside, the problem is not that they changed the items that were perceived as too good, but that they nerfed them to the ground, I don't know how people can actually defend that the book know have (more) words that are just there just to fill pages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
And a 100% chance to negate a critical hit once isn't?

No, at 5000 gp it is not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:


Using that logic..we should ban adamantine weapons, swarm bane clasp, golembane scarab, cure light wound wands, wands of infernal healing, rings of protection, cloaks of resistance. They are all 'must get' items.

Your hyperbole non-withstanding: some of those items are absolutely necessary. If you want to kill a golem, you'd better have an adamantine weapon. Healing is a part of the game, and if you can't heal yourself, providing a wand for others to use on your behalf is a good way to do it.

Those items aren't "too good."

They are under the definition of "almost universally chosen by everyone who could", at least the cloak definitely is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Endzeitgeist wrote:
@Nicos: Terrain Toolbox and Alternate Encounters by Sneak Attack Press, 101 Mystical Site Qualities by Rite Publishing; Caves and Caverns by Raging Swan Press. Those are my go-to-encounter-upgrade books.

Incredible books, all of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Human Priest 4; AC: 14 (or 16 with shield); Hp: 22; CMD: 12; Fort: +7 Ref : +3 Will: +9; Perception +4; ; Initiative +1; Concentration +7; Channel energy 3/3

Seems grimmy did a good job recruiting old school gamers (I'm young, but old school at heart)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If that is the only movement the crab do in the round then it is 5-ft and do not provoke.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Male Human Priest 4; AC: 14 (or 16 with shield); Hp: 22; CMD: 12; Fort: +7 Ref : +3 Will: +9; Perception +4; ; Initiative +1; Concentration +7; Channel energy 3/3

Assuming I'm not too late, does somebody want to summarize the last 287 campaign posts for me?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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


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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Human Priest 4; AC: 14 (or 16 with shield); Hp: 22; CMD: 12; Fort: +7 Ref : +3 Will: +9; Perception +4; ; Initiative +1; Concentration +7; Channel energy 3/3

I will be sad of not completing the adventure but real-life is first. And to be honest, last weeks have not been easy for me in RL so I will benefit from another break.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Human Priest 4; AC: 14 (or 16 with shield); Hp: 22; CMD: 12; Fort: +7 Ref : +3 Will: +9; Perception +4; ; Initiative +1; Concentration +7; Channel energy 3/3

Perhaps you want to put that information in the campaign info page, so it will be more easy to find in the future.


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 :)


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 person marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:


It's not the end of the world.

Exactly the same if the wizard say no, unless the fighter players is quite immature.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand, having to choose between "flavorful options I want" and combat effectiveness is not an ideal situation, and it is not surprising some people dislike it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElyasRavenwood wrote:


Now for the PFS game there is the trait prehensile whip for climbing with a whip, there was Improved Trip, Improved Disarm and Improved Steal. In one PFS game, I was informed that my character could not use his whip to snag an evil cleric's holy symbol which the cleric was presenting forth in out stretched hand with out the improved steal feat.... so I picked it up at the next available level.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lawrence DuBois wrote:

I feel your pain, but I do think it would take some dedicated training to pull off some of those whip tricks. Consider the lengthy montage of teaching Zorro how to extinguish candles with his whip. My personal opinion is that that's where a feat would be fitting. You have to seriously practice to snag something with a whip. Anyone could angle a shiny shield so that it blinds their enemy.

That said, to each their own. If a GM thinks that grabbing things with a whip is a reasonable trick, more power to you (pun intended).

The problem is when you could not even try that kind of stuff withut the relevant feat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 to 50 of 1,073 << 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.