|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
As in TriOmega example, you can't guarantee 100% success with healing, so there is a double standard here.
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.
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?
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.
Still only the cleric player right to judge.
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.
THat should be mandatory, IMHO, being locked to one weapon is a bad bad thing.
DM Grimmy wrote:
I already started and read most of slumbering tsar...so I would prefer Rappan Athuk :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lawrence DuBois wrote:
The problem is when you could not even try that kind of stuff withut the relevant feat.
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.
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)
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.
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.
(not saying I agree with the article, just that the issue is not so clear cut)
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.
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.
Todd Stewart wrote:
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.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Or it could happen all the contrary, as it have already happened to real life outside the internet you know.
Ok, you nailed it. This is a very accurate description of the game.
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.
Yeah, in what monster book is that enemy?
And, for that kind of contrived scenarios a high level cleric is still a better choice.
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.
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.
The FAQ never states any DM intervention in the charisma check stuff.
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.
Milo v3 wrote:
"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.
Uhm, you are right,... on the other hand you can only color Items, not sure what that entails.
Do note htat prestidigitation only works in non-living material.
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.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
The priest from adamant entertainment is the PF version of the 3.5 cloistered clerichttp://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.
Personally, I would be much happier if combat maneuvers were not designed to be hard to use.