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 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 9,175 posts (12,264 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 18 aliases.


1 to 50 of 840 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fighter (or anyone) does not need to be the best at killing to be good at it.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why you would need/want "rules"?, this fall under pure roleplay.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

Well... We all know the 5 stages of Rogue threads, right?

The order may vary but the list have proven to be true thread after thread.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barachiel Shina wrote:

---A rogue is the guy who just heisted a secure vault and managed to pin it on someone else for the crime

---A rogue is the guy that knew how to get around the city to get the information you needed without leaving a trail
---A rogue is the guy who was not there for half the battle, but that's because he set up some elaborate environmental trap on half the enemies and took them down without lifting a finger
---A rogue is that McGuyver kind of guy, his mastery over mundane tools and magical tools (as most Rogues should max out UMD) gives him an edge in almost any situation as long as they are creative enough
---A rogue is the guy who disguised himself as the guards and infiltrated to assassinate the guy that intended to make the PCs lives hell by using all the military and political power he had
---A rogue is the guy that had the right sort of contacts to pretty much get whatever it is you needed
---A rogue is the guy that rose through the ranks of an organization for the sole purpose of spying and betraying them
---A rogue is the guy that was off rescuing victims, mentally mapping passageways, sabotaging ambushes and traps, misleading and misdirection enemies into danger, and basically speeding up your dungeon bashing game so that a quest that would have taken a month to finish, he just helped you do it in a week
---A rogue would have stolen enough money to hire, bribe, or blackmail others into doing the dirty work for them

If you guys want to play a real Rogue, then make one and try to get through an entire session without ever drawing a weapon and jumping into combat. Try to solely solve every situation with ONLY SKILL CHECKS.

If you fail to do that for one adventure...you simply fail at playing a Rogue and fail at realizing where their specialty lies.

A real Rogue would complete a venture with the minimal amount of combat. If ever.

The rogues are not particularly great at those, not more than several other clases.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barachiel Shina wrote:
People expect the Rogue to be this martial master of combat, except I NEVER saw the Rogue like that.

I wonder if rogue are only outclassed in combat

Hard to Fool (Ex)
Benefit: Once per day, a rogue with this talent can roll two dice while making a Sense Motive check, and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Sense Motive check.

Empathy (Ex, Su): When attempting a Sense Motive check, the investigator makes two d20 rolls and takes the higher result. If an investigator uses inspiration on a Sense Motive check, he rolls the inspiration dice twice and takes the higher result. Once per day, the investigator can expend one use of inspiration to target a single creature that he can see and hear within 30 feet. Upon doing so, the investigator detects the surface thoughts of the target's mind, as if he concentrated for 3 rounds while using the detect thoughts spell, unless the creature succeeds a Will saving throw. The DC of this save is 10 + 1/2 the investigator's level + his Intelligence modifier. If the target fails, the investigator can continue to detect the surface thoughts of the target creature for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 his investigator level. An investigator must be at least 5th level to select this talent.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For some reason this demon in a grapple is not that fun.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Nicos wrote:
James Risner wrote:
I just can't match my experience at GenCon, DragonCon, ShadowCon, Dice-siege, and 4 to 6 other Con's I've played and GM'd over the years.
So, in all and everyone of those events you have played and/or Gmed with people that use the ring of invisibility and/or hat of disguise exactly as FAQ?

I have understood so well how these two items worked for so long and it precisely matched the FAQ, that had there been an incident where these items would have been ruled differently that I would have objected at the table.

So yes, every table with either item used it as per the FAQ.

I have played dozens of games where these itmes have never showed up. Literally dozens of other players that I have no idea what they think about how these items work, and here are you claiming that everyone you have played with, in literally a hundred+ of games have always played in agreement with this FAQ, and that you know that for sure. Not to be conflictive or something, but that just sound like BS.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The change the rogue need the most is an improvement of the rogue talents. I would recomend Lemmy's revised rogue talents (I do not like all of them but It is a start). I think they are somewhere in the forum, you probably can find them with a search.

Star Voter 2013

5 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
rungok wrote:
I was wondering why people are complaining about rogues. I thought as 3/4 BAB classes are concerned, they seem to have a few things going for them. So does anyone have any other reasons behind 'they suck' for them to, well, suck?

Because, those that obsess over damage insist they don't do enough damage (I've out-damaged everyone else in the party with a rogue, but I love them). Two-handed weapon rogues are a joy to play.

Yeah damage

Hard to Fool (Ex)
Benefit: Once per day, a rogue with this talent can roll two dice while making a Sense Motive check, and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Sense Motive check.

Empathy (Ex, Su): When attempting a Sense Motive check, the investigator makes two d20 rolls and takes the higher result. If an investigator uses inspiration on a Sense Motive check, he rolls the inspiration dice twice and takes the higher result. Once per day, the investigator can expend one use of inspiration to target a single creature that he can see and hear within 30 feet. Upon doing so, the investigator detects the surface thoughts of the target's mind, as if he concentrated for 3 rounds while using the detect thoughts spell, unless the creature succeeds a Will saving throw. The DC of this save is 10 + 1/2 the investigator's level + his Intelligence modifier. If the target fails, the investigator can continue to detect the surface thoughts of the target creature for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 his investigator level. An investigator must be at least 5th level to select this talent.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Maybe it's not RAW, but strictly speaking, how is an illusion NOT mind-affecting by it's very definition? It's not there, you only perceive it to be there, and perception is all an affect of the mind.

there could be illusions that create the image per se, like an hologram.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Human Diversion wrote:

The biggest thing for me are rogue talents; quite a few of the rogue talents that are once per day are things other classes get unlimited times per day as a base part of their class.

.
.
.
Anyway, IMHO, rogues could be fixed through talent changes alone.

Agree. But giving rogue bad talents was probably the paizo's idea, not sure why, but it seems imposible to me that all this year all the books are filled with bad taletns by mistake.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Todd Stewart wrote:


Ideally IMO an expanded planar source book (hardcover even?) written formally in the Pathfinder rule-set would be great.

Agreed. Hopefully will happen someday.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:

The player should be allowed to play what he wants.

Yes, of course.

Zhayne wrote:


Proper adventure design is the GM's responsibility.

THis have nothing to do with the rest. In PF you can deal with trap with every class, in multiple ways.

And, at least for me, part of the fun when playing is dealign with challenges.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
The GM should design adventures around the party's capabilities, not the other way around. If the party has no trapfinder, then he shouldn't use traps often and shouldn't make them overly debilitating.

Or the player could fill their weakness with one of the several ways PF offer.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Howie23 wrote:
Gauss' answer appears correct to a more abstract reading of the rules, Dave's more accurate to the concrete approach to what is going on.

This.

I would go with gauss's because RAW.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Oly wrote:
Nope. You may want something unrealistic, but that doesn't mean realism should be ignored. Realism should rule where it can without killing balance or destroying a lot of the universe (as it would with magic or monster types). And you don't really want to ignore realism or you'd champion Cha to damage and Wis to hit or something.

CHa to ac and wis to hit and damge are in the game. You can totally have a str 5 monk destroying a str 30 beast.

Of course, that have nothing to do with the fact that without some sort of dex to damage iñigo montoya sucks in PF unless he is a very specific cavalier archetype.

The "you should play another game" is BS as always.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
If you have a dex based build, and improved weapon finesse is an option, it is a must have. You'd be a fool not to take it. Ever. And that, my friends, is over powered.

With that criteria a lot of stuff are overpowered and should not be in the game. Power attack and longbows to give two examples. But more importantly, if you have a melee dex based build. weapon finesse is already a must have.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Oly wrote:
1) Realism: If there's any question as to whether the big strong person or the smaller quick person is better in a fight, just ask why boxing, wrestling, and MMA have weight classes:
Because they do not fight wit pointy sticks that can kill you without needing much force?
True - but they don't wear armor either.

True. And attacking witha rapier the guy in full plate is not the best idea, but neither is to use a longsword or to use a longbow in close range, and still those two are perfectly functional combat style, we even have point blank master because dacing in the middle of the battlefield using a longbow is fine but with a dagger is wrong.

Selective realism in bad.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
When to Dex-to-Damage can already be done with Sawtooth Sabres, Rapiers, and Scimitars, why is the dagger a deal-breaker?

Because optimizer would not stop there, they will start asking for crossbow to be as good as bow. Or, God forbid, Slings to not suck. Silly optimizers.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anomalies that, not surprinsinly, help more full casters.

Star Voter 2013

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Caliban_Loreseeker wrote:
It would be nice if it gave a +2 circumstance bonus to disguise or something,

I'll argue that this kind of circumstance bonuses are the DM job.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a PC have a bite attack and bite the the succubus, does that constitutes an act of passion?

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a point in extreme codification. The "You need a feat to do that" can be pretty silly like with strike back or the utterly horrible helpless prisioner and caustic slur.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
The early edition of the game didnt fail to quantify these things (though I remember dms in adnd using ability checks for social skills), they failed to realize they were important. Have you read the adventures actually written by Gygax? Do you think this guy had deep roleplay heavy game sessions at his table? His original vision was a very limited scope of story. Go to dangerous place, kill monster, get stuff, collect reward, get more badass, repeat. Later editions have incorporated more kinds of stories into the game rules (things like social intrigue).

Many of the earlier published adventures are location based. So the books only have detailed the rooms and hte monsters and the traps.

That means nothing about the ropleplaying in earlier editions. It was the DM duty to fill the holes with his own story.

This is my whole point. DMs ADDED to the game to make it something different. Did the books, either rulebooks or adventures include descriptions of how to go about this? I am pretty sure no. The dms added that all on their own.

Houseruling a game to make it different then the printed product, doesnt mean that product is what you made it to be. You took a tomatoes and made gazpacho. Nothing wrong with that, by all means enjoy your gazpacho. But you cant then turn around and say the store didnt sell you tomatoes because you made them into cold tomato soup. The product the store sold was tomatoes.

It is not houseruling if you are not modifyng or adding rules. You could have your story story heavy game without without designing rules for it.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:

Right. Earlier editions of the game were wargames where roleplay was encouraged, but there were no rules for it. I think the difference in later editions (starting with 3e) is that an effort has been made to mathematically quantify more and more roleplaying aspects with game mechanics, such as social skills.

-Skeld

I have no reason to have rules for roleplaying. For me the heavier the ruleset about social interactions the lower the roleplaying and it is more like a "combat" in the middle of a talking.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jarazix wrote:

The player rolled the action, it was phrased it attempts to touch you, but not attack, do you want to attack?

TOuching is a form of attack in PF, In several cases is even more dangerous that a weapon attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Female Human Master of Many styles 2/ Sword saint (Ronin) 3/ AC 19 (touch 14, FF 15); Hp: 36; Saves: +8,+8,+4; CMD 22; Perception +8; init +4

So, what is our next move? I proppose to keep hunting pirates, it seems like fun and lucrative activity

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
People keep saying canny tumble is useless. I don't get it. What is useless about it? +2 to hit for something that characters who tumble tend to do a lot of the time seems pretty decent to me.

Several awful prerequisites for a mediocre +2 to 1 attack...and the existence of a waaaaaaay better feat but with fewer feat taxes?

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Approaching someone, even politely, in that situation is not ok. Period.

I have no idea how people act in new york but this statement sounds so absurd.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:


I wonder if women were bigger and stronger then men, if cat calling would stop overnight, or if the roles would get reversed?

Several years ago a (aprox) 1,90 m, 90+ kg gay men flirted with me in a gym. I'm smaller and way weaker.

If the guy were stalked me, and actually harrased me I would have been worried. But he just said a couple of compliment to my body, and while it was not the most comfortable situation I would not call him a bad person at hte level I have seen in this thread.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I generally agree with thejeff in these kind of thread, but the level of exageration and double standards have reached silly proportions.

Not sure since when saying obscenities and stalking a woman for 10 blocks is as bad as to say hi to her.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Can you address why the rules speak to only being able to use one weapon? It says A light or one-handed weapon (not plural). This implies you can only choose to use one weapon during the attack, presumably because you can't use two hands in an action.

I get five attacks. My main hand gets three: two at +6 (because haste) and one at +1. my off hand gets two: one at +6 and one at +1 (because Improved TWF).

Every single one of these attacks only requires a single hand. Three of them only require my right hand and the other two only require my left, but not a single one of them requires both!

During the full-attack action however, you are using both hands because you are attacking with both of them. Unarmed strike is not used in a hand, and so you do not have to use both hands to make multiple TWF unarmed strikes.

Look, there is hands and "hands". An unarmed strike do not need a hand, but you still TWF with a main "hand" and an off "hand".

If you ask where is that stated, it is not stated anywhere, it is an unwrited rule fore a reason (no clue what is the reason though. )

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

TWF with unarmed strikes does require "hands", just like TWF with anything else.

Flurrying doesn't require two separate weapons. While unarmed strike is "one weapon" for your entire body, it doesn't necessarily follow that the intent was to allow you to punch twice with the same hand for TWF purposes.

So, if you are prohibited from TWF with other weapons for some reason (like being grappled), you should be prohibited just the same from TWF with unarmed strikes. Flurrying is different because Monks can explicitly Flurry with one weapon.

It requires a main/off hand to be chosen, but unarmed strikes themselves do not require "hands" to be used. You can unarmed strike without 2 hands free, which is the clause required for actions in a grapple.

Oh no. Unarmed strikes do not requires hands to use, they do require "hands".

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thanael wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
I would say that you cannot use a weapon in your off-hand, but you can TWF with a weapon and an unarmed strike (like a kick). But, not sure on the RAW.
+1

That depends if you have one hand unavailable or one "hand" unavailable.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I did not like most of the ACG, not sure if I would like PF unchained or the other hardcover of the next year. The good thing is that you do not need those new book to still enjoy the old PF material.

Star Voter 2013

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lathiira wrote:
If dancing is an act of passion, a succubus could make for one killer dancer...and a whole troupe of them would really mop up on the dance floor. Dance till you drop takes on a whole new meaning....

With a troupe of succubus there is always a lot of things to mop up.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:


It says "add a second time" not "double his Int mod". Adding a second time is explicitly forbidden. So who is putting forth bad information?

You can not do something that is forbidden unless a special ability explicitly allow you. Like this case

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Consider asking their character concept first and chosee the class after that, it does not matter that much if they do not cover all roles (because you can patch it later).

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Flawed wrote:
Nicos wrote:
animemetalhead wrote:
Flawed wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Flawed wrote:
2+INT skills per level sucks when int isn't really a big stat for you. Fortunately things like combat expertise exist to a show you that a fighter can do well with a 13+ int
Really? Combat expertise cannot be used in any serious defense of anything.

What are you even talking about?

Combat expertise IS used for defense. That's the point of it. Combat expertise is also a prerequisite for combat maneuvers of which the fighter is capable of using. It requires a 13 intelligence. The end.

I think you misunderstood Nicos there. Combat Expertise is widely regarded as the WORST feat tax in the game and a general waste of design space, locking combat maneuvers (which a fighter should be able to excel at) behind a stat wall that makes no sense. Using it as a 'defense' of high-INT fighters is laughable.
yup.
Yes, I did. My bad, but I wasn't saying combat expertise makes fighters good. I was implying that a feat that gives access to more combat feats has a prerequisite of 13 int and since fighters are capable of performing maneuvers its a little informative that a 13 INT will be common on fighters.

Since this is the houserule forum and the OP was asking for houerule I have a very good one

(a) Take away combat expertise as a prerequisite for any other feat that is not realated to defense (Funy enough, the only feats taht have good sinergy with CE does not have that feat as a prerequisite, stalwart).

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Second, you're treating Razmir as if he were some kind of hopped up player character ...

Because that is what was asked in the OP?

Star Voter 2013

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:
Artanthos wrote:

[\

My fighters already do what the OP is requesting, without house rules.

Same.

It's amazing what's possible when you don't dump all your assets into killcrushmaim and take a SLIGHTLY more balanced view.

Don't dump Int AND Cha and you should be fine.

Fighters have a bajillion Feats that can be employed to make them pretty well rounded OUT of combat.

It sounds Good, until the Ranger can dump int to 8 and have more skill points than a 14 int fighter, plus virtual skill points, plus the skills from the animal companion, plus magic, plus better saves.

And then, when the fighter is spending his feat to out of combat stuff he is also losing the edge in combat agaisnt the ranger who now have more out of combat and more in combat too. And hope that fighter is not specializing in a feat intensive figthing style.

Fighter are "ok", but they are incomplete, and after the slayer it shoudl be clear the lack of skill points and other stuff was a bad idea.

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Stuff that allows moving and full attacks for martials please.

I woudl not complain if the book have something beyond "I move/stand still and attack" for martials.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Bave wrote:
It looks like a huge number of people play with really bad DMs and players that are real dbags. I have never seen a player intentionally ruin an AP by circumventing something via teleport, etc.
I've seen a few people attempt to do this unintentionally. When the GM said they shouldn't, the common response was "why not?"

I thought the whole point of GMing for PCs was because they do unexpected things.

If your campaign can't handle teleport either don't go to that level or don't allow the spell to exist.

It remind me this

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pmd5?Help-My-PCs-jumped-to-the-end-of-the-adve nture#4

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
My fighters already do what the OP is requesting, without house rules.

And they also fall short at other things that they should be doing at the same time, unlike several other classes.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

The ability Blessing of the Faithful was in fact removed in Development, I believe to make space for all the rules necessary for the Divine Bonded Object and the example necessary for Domain Mastery. I know this because I wrote the archetype.

And the nice picture, don't forget the space for the nice picture.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is one of those moements where Pathfinder is more fun when you don't know the actual rules.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, assuming the full caster get their most WTF broken things nerfed and the rogues and fighter get improved. Without any mention of 4e, what exactly would ruin the fun for those people?

1 to 50 of 840 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.