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.


1 to 50 of 1,043 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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 person marked this as a favorite.

All weapon specific feats now works for the entire weapon group or even the whole weapon class.

Example a: Weapon focus (longsword) becomes weapon focus (heavy blades)

Example b: Slashing grace work with all the weapons that qualify for the feat (and the rapier because duh)


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

Yup, the standard thing is that pbp don't last long. I will say this group is unusual in that regard.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Hurtful and cornugon smash are actually great martial feats, but if every fighter needs them it defeats the whole point of the whole class.

And still, far away from what EVERY full caster can do for just being a full caster.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

the wizard Casting fly on the (not unchained) rogue so the rogue can still suck while flying is not like a great idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

The problem of induction.

I really don't see a problem here. The laws of physics have stayed the same across time and space. We know that because the stars we see are cranking out a rather predictable spectrum of light. That tells us whether you go billions of years in the past or billions of light years thataway the laws of physics still work.

That is not solid logic actually.

I think I get what you are saying, that there exist some actual laws that doesn't change and we just need to find them. But your reasons doesn't really holds.

The prediction of the spectrum of light, for example, depends on multiple parameters (masses of electron, proton neutron, planck constant, the electric charge). The fact the numbers agree now doesn't mean the numbers (as they are now) have to agree forever. There is nothing preventing the electric charge to not be a constant, for example.

http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/publications/PIE_abbott 2013.pdf

(not saying I agree with the article, just that the issue is not so clear cut)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
So people who play casters should make weak choices on purpose so the other guys at the table get a turn/have fun. That is by far one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard on the issue.

It is not about that they "should", But personally i find non-optimized games to be quite enjoyably, and with more variety.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
C. Fighters can be extremely important. A well played Fighter with a well played Caster will almost always be as successful as two casters and will perform much better in high SR/AMF situations. They also will perform much better in situations where the party finds itself having to eschew resting or where spell conservation is required.

Not in pathfinder past level 5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Todd Stewart wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fair warning: I have drink a gallon of Gatorade and visit Karl Poppers grave on my bucket list....

Not a fan of Gatorade, but Karl Popper is absolutely one of the most important Philosopher's of Science out there. Ideally I think burgeoning science majors in college should take a class on Philosophy of Science as part of their major (with a focus but not exclusively so on Popper's ideas). Popper is widely influential among scientists (especially in the hard sciences) but there's been a bizarre strain of criticism among non-scientists for years (that I suspect is partially due to his rejection of Marxism).

Falsification of theories and reproducibility of results are two things that we should strive for in science. It's all about checking and stressing each others' theories and experiments to continually refine and occasionally revolutionize our models for how reality operates. The universe doesn't care about our feelings or our politics, and those shouldn't interfere with our data collection or with our interpretation of results. Experimental design should strive to eliminate sources of bias both among test subjects and the experimenters themselves.

While I don't dislike Popper ideas, they should not be taken that seriously.

I mean, At its core science very pragmatic. I agree with this words

"The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is—insofar as it is thinkable at all—primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far. He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis; but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to an epistemological system." - Einstein

For example, I know no one that works in a physics theory thinking about if it is falseable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Here's an experiment you should try: Delete everything you've ever heard online about "martials suck" from your brain, forget you ever heard it, then play a few games with a well-mixed party and observe the proceedings with fresh eyes. I think you'll find that there's nothing at all wrong with "martials." They do exactly what they're supposed to do, damned well, and without the limitations and drawbacks that mages pay for their power with. The idea that they're no good is really just the result of a hivemind effect that prejudices people to see what they've been told to see.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

Or it could happen all the contrary, as it have already happened to real life outside the internet you know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

I think there's (at least) two Pathfinders, and that's where the trouble starts. The game tries to be Sherlock Holmes, Conan the Barbarian, and Naruto Shippuden all at once, and it does that by making it so that only some classes are allowed access to each of those types of play.

Ok, you nailed it. This is a very accurate description of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BackHandOfFate wrote:

Okay.. getting close to 600 posts not counting the 200 deleted posts... Waiting for the next thread titled "What Kind of Better Things Do Martials Need?"

I just discovered Path of War not too long ago. This stuff is the bomb.

I also started using Path of war not too long ago and I can't like the system, the whole idea of preparing maneuvers kills it for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
This is supposed to be a game where everyone shines equally right? Then why is it that one set of classes don't get the tools to shine.

They do though.

Highly spell resistant enemies. AM fields. Enemies that can only be killed by the sword of (insert here).

All are part of the genre.

Let's see the Wizard shine when the enemy can only be killed with the Sword of Truth and the enemy is immune to magic.

(FYI that's basically the shannara scenario)

It's supremely easy to set scenarios where classes shine.

Yeah, in what monster book is that enemy?

And, for that kind of contrived scenarios a high level cleric is still a better choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dislike the big 4 items of +x in pathfinder, but there are not in 5e other kind of items that let you do other stuff besides increasing your numbers?, like rings of invisibility and the like, it would be boring if not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

THat explainable by saying that the caster have more levels than Conan. On the other hand, HWalsh posture is contradictory, You can't argue that casters have to be stronger than martial (as in PF) and then say that that would not create a martial/caster disparity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nah, feel guilty and post more :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:


3. Paizo's FAQ answer has determined that it will leave the bulk of this question to individual GM's.

The FAQ never states any DM intervention in the charisma check stuff.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
thejeff wrote:

"What would make my character's backstory more interesting?" is not what he was saying.

He was saying, as you quoted: "People aren't saying 'I have this really awesome character concept, but I just can't find the rules, classes, and/or feats to make it work. Here's the story, help me make it a reality.' ”

You're arguing against something that wasn't said.

And we're saying that they don't need to tell us that. Presumably their character is really good at X, Y, and Z and they need help to make it so. /Picard

Indeed, why to bother others with the background when they could just could just say "I envisioned my character doing X,Y, and Z".

As pointed out so many times, people not mentioning their character background in the forum tells absolutely nothing about their roleplaying preferences.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

SOmeone that don't have the creativity to go beyond the non-mechanical description of a class just can't pretend to lecture about "roleplaying".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I might not agree with some of the examples but it is true that feats can take away with in game versatility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So DungeonmasterCal can finally play and not DM?, this probably will be an interesting campaing to stalk. Good luck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Nothing is black and white, there are limitation and there are pointless limitations. There is the bluff skill sand there is the strikeback feat.
Bluff makes sense to exist as a skill..... though strikeback really shouldn't exist since IS already be doable by default with the ready action.... So that isn't a case of adding rules when it should be flavour, this is a case of someone having misunderstood the ready action rules.

"You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach."

The bolded part can't be done with just redying an action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I could not sent a pitch this time, hope there is a villain codex III in the near future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
ryric wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
ryric wrote:
IMC older dragons use prestidigitation to conceal the color of their scales, so the great wyrm red likely looks brown or purple or white in color. Only a well educated individual can tell the real color from the shape of the wings, horns, and so forth.
That seems a little much for a mere cantrip. Wouldn't disguise self or even veil be more appropriate?

TBH, it's based off the old 1e cantrip color whose effects are somewhat subsumed into what is now prestidigitation(along with effects like flavor and clean). I'd say a higher level effect like disguise self could make the caster look like an entirely different kind of dragon, changing those things like horn shape, wings, that sort of thing. Changing only your skin color seems like a much weaker effect than even a 1st level spell, so prestidigitation seems appropriate. Basically IMO there's a difference between a blue dragon and a red dragon who is painted blue, but you need to be able to make the Knowledge check to know those differences.

Note that the effects of prestidigitation are obviously magical, so it's obvious that the dragon has hidden its color behind a falsehood. It's really only a strong effect against metagaming.

Do note htat prestidigitation only works in non-living material.
I see that it can only be used to chill or flavor nonliving material. Other effects do not have that restriction.

Uhm, you are right,... on the other hand you can only color Items, not sure what that entails.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
ryric wrote:
IMC older dragons use prestidigitation to conceal the color of their scales, so the great wyrm red likely looks brown or purple or white in color. Only a well educated individual can tell the real color from the shape of the wings, horns, and so forth.
That seems a little much for a mere cantrip. Wouldn't disguise self or even veil be more appropriate?

TBH, it's based off the old 1e cantrip color whose effects are somewhat subsumed into what is now prestidigitation(along with effects like flavor and clean). I'd say a higher level effect like disguise self could make the caster look like an entirely different kind of dragon, changing those things like horn shape, wings, that sort of thing. Changing only your skin color seems like a much weaker effect than even a 1st level spell, so prestidigitation seems appropriate. Basically IMO there's a difference between a blue dragon and a red dragon who is painted blue, but you need to be able to make the Knowledge check to know those differences.

Note that the effects of prestidigitation are obviously magical, so it's obvious that the dragon has hidden its color behind a falsehood. It's really only a strong effect against metagaming.

Do note htat prestidigitation only works in non-living material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Meaning you have a social contract that the stronger characters will help the weak one, falling under 2 again.
Meaning we play as the game was intended, and designed for.

I have a hard time seeing how the game could be intended to be played like that when all the options point in the contrary direction.

Now, I mean, reading the dev post I understand your point, but hat is not what is wrote in the books, look for example the disconnection between the actual rule and how JJ play in the Scry and fry case.

What options point in the direction that the game should be played competitively rather than co-operatively? I'm not sure which parts of the actual rules support that interpretation?

The part where a daze-Fireball could shut down an encounter faster than any cooperative playing. If the intention is to characters to depend on each others then the rules should reflect that instead of allowing some characters to dominate over others.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand, Using BAB instead of thaco in 2e is a very simple thing, the math is the same in the end anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Silver Surfer wrote:
- Paizo for some bizarre reason refuse to make a D6 divine class which would do a proper job
Paizo doesn't seem to like the idea of HD/BAB changes in their archetypes. But yeah, I would really like for them to import the 3.5 version of the Cloistered Cleric. Honestly, the Pathfinderized version of it almost feels like a passive-aggressive swipe at all the fans asking for a conversion.

The priest from adamant entertainment is the PF version of the 3.5 cloistered cleric

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/pri est

There was a priest-like archetype in the ACG, with editing issues, I think it has an errata now but I don't now.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I would like to try something new from time to time but after all the rules I have learned from PF trying a new ruleset feels like a homework instead of something fun.

1 to 50 of 1,043 << 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.