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. 10,038 posts (15,320 including aliases). 10 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 30 aliases.


1 to 50 of 998 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.

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.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see the problem with that example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:

I see a lot of people complaining about the "full attack routine," or saying martials can only "full attack, full attack, full attack."

What are you expecting for martials? "

Personally, I would be much happier if combat maneuvers were not designed to be hard to use.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

ok, You are right, I admit it, Monks and rogues are newbie traps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really can't see a pathfinder game without some sort of violence, like 90% of the rules are about how to do in a combat. Perhaps you could try another system with an entire different thematic, like playing detectives in a theft case using GURPS or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:
graystone wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
graystone wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

So...from what I understand Slashing Grace now requires you to keep your other hand free to benefit from it?

Darnit now I can't play sword-and-dagger characters like Valeros! :(

Not just free but unoccupied and only one weapon. No torch, bite, ect. Disarmed and you have to draw another weapon and no dex to damage that round.
...Why?!

They seem to hate dex to damage with a burning passion and want to make it as unappealing as possible? Unless you've taken 3 levels of the only class allowed to have an OK dex to damage option, the unchained rogue, you are pretty much expected to pretend you only have one arm, can't flurry, TWF, spell combat, use natural weapons or pretty much anything else.

If you're asking why mechanically, that's how they worded the 'errata'. They had to make an explicit exception for the swashbuckler offhand items to work as they where broken too. Even carrying a pretty flower in your off hands prevents Slashing Grace.

Or because they wanted to give Rogue a unique feature that no one else can get. Giving other classes full rogue dex to damage for a feat is a little like giving Inspire Courage as a feat. Yeah, you could probably do it without being too unbalanced. (for example only giving the first level, not scaling.) But you would be giving away one of the unique things that makes bards bards.

A wierd logic taking into account dex to damage have years in the game and the Urogue is new.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
I get it, you WANT to play the uber-optimization sandboxy non-story driven game. That is cool, but it isn't representative of the genre.

*Rolling eyes*

To summarize, either you are building a massive strawman or you are clearly not understanding what other people are saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Casters don't need to be brought down. Martials need to be raised up.
IMHO, without making the game a joke, there is no sensible way to raise martial to the point of creating demiplanes or having an army of undeads.
Reign in casters more absurd powers and restrict them to a smaller subset of magical effects and raise Martials up to proper high level abilities.

agreed.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

One of the devs made a hand-tipping comment during the vigilante play test. That the general game has been allowed to get overly powerful through a series of 'unfortunate' oversights and that they were working to purposefully keep the power level of the game in check going forward.

CRB wizards what?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

THE RULESGOD GIVETH THE RULESGOD TAKETH


4 people marked this as a favorite.

No, no ,no. A FAQ on this issue would have a lot of chances to be a straight nerf, there is no need to answer that question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As it's now, slashing grace is weaker and with more prerequisites than dervish dance, how can that be considered a good thing?, answer: It can't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


It's only a tax if the pre-req is something which isn't a solid choice in it's own right.

It is also a tax if the previous feat have nothing to do with the next feat. Assuming mobility and spring attack were great feats they are still taxes for whirlwind attack since the first two and the later works with completely different fighting strategies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

There's a little thing called "overkill". "Hey, this weapon is currently insanely good—better make it suck now to make up for lost time" is a good example.

The nerfbat don't now middle grounds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is a very weird logic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

uh... i would hardly assume that, they very likely did errata stuff people didn't mention,

i believe that is in fact the case and they have stated so, but they didn't happen to catch those particular issues...

i mean, other products have multiple errata runs over multiple print runs...
it is about as ridiculous to expect paizo to resolve ALL errata issues with one errata edition,
as it is to expect them to create a perfect product that never needs errata, in the first place.
if paizo is just now discovering new errata, either thru their own analysis, or user feedback,
then they can put that into the NEXT errata/print run for this product, as is standard practice.

I agree with what you say and find those particular critics to be too much, though the problems with the eldritch Scion were well known.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Duck Games wrote:

Our campaign setting books are called "Heroes of..." we have four out for our Porphyra setting Heroes of.

They are about 50% GM, 50% player resources.

Personally for GM's I recommend Monsters of Porphyra which is a 196 page full-colour monster book. Each monster has a paragraph for integrating them into our setting much like the old Monsters of Faerun did.

Noted.

Hey, you are the ones that made "though the cotillion of hours", great adventure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Basically as the title says. Lately i'm more interested in DM stuff than in player options (like classes or magic items)

By DM stuffs I'm talking about things like wilderness dressing by raging swan (I´m in love with Raging swan products and I plan to (eventually) buy all their compilatory books) or the excellent 101 Hazards and Disasters by rite publishing and I would like to know more products like those. I could also be interested in campaign settings books (if they are not too expensive, like the midgard books unfortunately are) and short adventures.

PS: It is important that the can be purchased in rpg now or the like


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, the only one weapon, the feat tax and the no light weapons were silly, the complains were legit.

but, anyone that wanted dex to damage in their games have housruled it one way or another (most likely with success) for years now anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Mentioning a succubus in every grapple thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mr.u wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Mr.u wrote:


Jesus was more forward thinking than anyone else in his time. The effect of Jesus on history

Taking into account that many of the new testament is a later invention, that is probably not true.

The new testament is a collection of all jesus's teachings and known life and gospels of the disciples and paul the apostle letters.

98 percent of all historical scholars in academia agree that the new testament is a historically reliable source.

90% of people knows that 98% percent of statistic are invented.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Wizard doesn't get squat for free.

They pay for it with lack of armor, arcane spell failure, poor BAB, and by extension poor CMB/CMD, lower HP, and a baked in expensive resource system.

Ah, right... Let's see...

Wizards can't use armor... So tey get Mage Armor at level 1. And that last hours per level. Also Fly, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Shield and Blur, just to name a few...

They have lower hp... A great amount of... -2 hp per level? Which is all but insignificant. Also, false life. And healing spells.

They have low BAB... Good thing most spells don't require attack rolls, then. And the ones that do... Will target touch AC. And armor won't protect you against those.

And we can always remember how much gold casters save, compared to martials.

Those things you mentioned all are part of the resource system. They choose between attack/utility/defense.

Low BAB means low CMD. Low CMD means vulnerabilities. In many cases catastrophic ones. A caster that finds themselves tripped to the ground, them blinded by a thumb to the eye (dirty trick) is in serious trouble.

With all due respect, you really need to inform better of how things work with medium to high level caster in PF. You'll be surprised.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


No, those who say Martials are underpowered are also saying that 4e was wonderful.

I miss the reunion when everyone that believe that there exist martial/caster disparity in PF agreed to say 4e was wonderful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can borrow some from here

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rzms?101-possible-101-threads#1

like

2. 101 Silly Elemental Planes (with descriptions!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Tried it a few times. Decent flavor, massive waste of time.

If it's something important, you're in trouble if your players don't get it and half the time someone will just look it up online if they can't solve it right there.

Puzzling out a riddle is fun in a narrative, but in a game it tends to either stump the players, leading to long, boring stretches of them trying to figure it out and getting frustrated or someone gets it right away and you might as well have just told them the information you wanted them to get in a less roundabout way.

I will say this.... giving noncritical information in a riddle or other artistic fashion (like a prophesy that you may only recognize in retrospect) can be fun for the players.

A silly example:

Roses are red, melons are green
The key to the treasure can never be seen

.... because the key is kept in a room with a permanent darkness spell on it, or perhaps is an invisible key on the king's key ring. Of course, a simple knock spell will also open the treasure chest, or you can bash it open with a mace, so no one's going to be frustrated if they can't get it.

You ninja'd what I wanted to say.

The best use for this kind f puzzles are for non-critical stuff, or even complete optional things, like extra loot or something. The dangerous way to use puzzles (AKA the bad one IMHO) are the ones that are needed to complete the main line of the adventure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The lore warden is a well balanced archetype, I can not even imagine how someone could think it was a moronic design.

If that was bad design, then I prefer that bad design, than the "balanced against a core class" dozen of horrible rogues archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
One misgiving I have with trip is that it's restricted to one size category larger. Not only is this bull, it's also not even slightly realistic. My cat has successfully tripped me a few times and I'm pretty sure my cat is a tiny creature while I'm a medium creature.

This is the real problem with maneuvers, no the CMD vs CMB. Manevers should be buffed, perhaps not in the sense that make them just plain stronger (some do need that though) but this kind of restriction should go away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. CMD scales just fine, IMHO.

2. There are plenty of ways to increase one CMB checks.

3. Agreed that disarm, sunder and trip could use some help. but there are a couple of ways to use the weapon related bonuses for the others maneuvers.

4. Agreed, feat taxes sucks.

5. Not sure about this one. But as DM i like to use maneuvers against the players so I don't complain.

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

Most definitely combat expertise should go away as prerequisite for the maneuver feat, it was a terrible idea back in the day and it is still a terrible idea today.


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

Can I say that I liked the rat idea more :P?

KN religion: 1d20 + 9 ⇒ (3) + 9 = 12


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco Bahamut wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

It's not a simple issue that's binary is nature (black or white), How allegorical is the Pathfinder campaign setting supposed to be?

Do we ban Amiri because she goes against the ideas promoted in contemporary feminist theory?

Do we hold Paizo responsible for such actions? And what do we do about it?

Do we bombard their twitter accounts like critically minded feminists did to Joss Whedon during Avengers 2?

Paizo is just a role-playing game publisher not justice's hand for all of the world's woes. They do have a policy of inclusion not exclusion, and they do that admirably, although they do have to cater to the interests of a broad range of people, and make products that sell.

Not everyone views Pathfinder as a vehicle for social progression, and its fine that people do, but I think the history of D&D/Pathfinder and its community is strong enough to have many versions of the Pathfinder game.

Create some african gods and submit them to a 3PP publisher, accountability starts at home, rather than always expecting other people to do it for you.

Edit: I have studied post-colonial theory while at university, and queer theory, my senior lecturer, Adam Geczy wrote a book about it, so I have some idea how complex the issue is. It's not an easy fix and can be divisive even among people within the same community. Paizo are doing their best in the often turbulent socio-political climate we exist in.

So, what you are saying is that Paizo don´t want money from black people ? I am ok with that.

Come on, that is just purposely misreading of what he wrote.


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

Don't forget to recap your current hp after Leoven's channel


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:

The Paladin did not torture. Therefore not dishonorable. The Paladin attempted to prevent the torture, via talking.

Saying something that you know will have zero effect don't really count as "attempted to"


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

:p

Either way, the good deputy should not be dying right now


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

We're not talking about making our own stat arrays. We're talking about the one you're supposed to use for NPCs. Right out of the rulebook.

13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8

Effectively 3 point buy.

And yes, +0 is average. -1 is below average. +1 is above average. Nobody is arguing with you about that.

Aratrok, the stat arrays in the PHB are for ease of use so you dont have to roll ability scores for or pt buy each NPC.
So, unless a person have 10,10,10,10,10,10 that person is not normal? because if a 9 or an 8 is noticeable, then a 11 or a 12 is noticeable too.
This is correct.

We have then that a normal person are very unusual, a statistical anomaly, basically your definition of normal person make them very abnormal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Roleplaying the low stat is acceptable, there is nothing wrong about it. Adding extra penalties on top of the ones the rules already impose is too much. What's the extra penalty for the 7 str wizard?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Taking into account they will be running for their life I don't think they will think about pulling a lever.

All the better.

"Traps" shouldn't be fair.

THat is hardly a trap, a trap would be if the lever delivered 10d6 electrical damage to anyone that pull it.
Better yet, it's BOTH. The only way to get to the kobold wizard, BUT it also delivers the electrical damage.

But why it would lead to the kobold wizard? that doesn't sound very smart from his part.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zilvar2k11 wrote:

Why is it that arguments for and against low stats almost always go back to the Stormwind Fallacy?

Because it makes that people to feel better about themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Taking into account they will be running for their life I don't think they will think about pulling a lever.

All the better.

"Traps" shouldn't be fair.

THat is hardly a trap, a trap would be if the lever delivered 10d6 electrical damage to anyone that pull it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

THis kind of reviews make me want to not be poor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

I have a side question; How often have any of you bought something as a result of a good review or avoided something due to a bad review?

My last buy was due to the multiple 5 star reviews it have (Retribution, from Raging swan)

1 to 50 of 998 << 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.