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. 10,411 posts (16,350 including aliases). 13 reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 31 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,088 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some questions are better left unanswered :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are pretty good 1st level powers. Like the one from the teleportation subschool, I also like the one for the fey bloodline through It shoudl have been SU instead of sp.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:


But I'm not fine with purposefully useless mechanics.

I wonder what percentage of the game can be considered "purposefully useless mechanics".


11 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

But mistakes happen. Bad options get printed. That's life.

So the really damning thing here isn't that it happened. It's that it keeps happening over and over.

Combat-expertise-as-prerequisite-for-unrelated-feats agrees with you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What do you mean by caribbean?, I ask because is cold and rainy most of the year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oIIsLrpqHY ( You can hear the opinion of a US tourist)

If you go to peru and like archaeology and related stuff then machu pichi, puma punku and caral are breathtaking places.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

I can see how it would happen. Art is ridiculously expensive, and their books feature some of the best art I've ever seen..

Amen to that, the art in beast of bundle seas is just breathtaking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bigrig107 wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...

Eh, I never liked the old crane wing, that there were no roll involved always always bothered me. But yeah, with the errata basically there is no crane wing anymore.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Why would I spend 50 bucks on a hardcover when the majority of its content is almost useless?

So much hyperbole in this thread.

Not even 1% of the material was changed. So no one would consider that majority.

Because a good chunk of the book were already bad options that no one used, nuking down some of the most used items make it clearly worse.


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


But the options changed were not changed for PFS's benefit. But for the health and desire of the game for everyone else.

The book having now more wasted words than before benefits no one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:
I think "Jingasa of the Soldier with Buyer's Remorse" is the best new name I've seen for the item.

Nah, I don't like it, mainly because there are no buyers for that Jingasa.


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

Insain Dragoon wrote:
(This is something that Pre-written adventures often lack since they assume a party of PCs that haven't heavily specialized.)

This is true of all PFS, all Adventure Paths, and all other modules.

Which is the problem. The highly specialized is often where you need to seek out things to tone down.

PFS already can do it without messing with the options for everyone else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
It's a weird double standard—the same group of people who yell at us for messing up a stat block's math also yell at us when we try to fix an actual error in flavor text. It's incredibly frustrating to have to deal with that double standard.

A typo in the math or something is very different from a full description of a deity. The first is a mistake the second one pretty much reflects the author takes on the deity.

You guys, of course, have the right to retcon anything you don't like, I just wanted to point out what there is no double standard from the fanbase.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Or in meta.. Cure Light Wounds is one of THE signature spells for divine casters. Infernal Healing and Celestial Healing represent the limits as to how much Paizo will allow arcane casters to steal this niche of divine casters.

Better to not print anything than things like celestial healing (assuming it was not an editing mistake or something), but well pages have to be filled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:


I'm pretty sure Strike Back is a feat for the same reason that people with Improveed Unarmed Strike and Natural Attacks don't provoke AoOs...

Feat taxing purposes?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much as the tittle say.

I'm interested in GMing a couple of scenarios by playing PbP here in the forum. So, where to start?


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?

1 to 50 of 1,088 << 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.