Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Ross Byers

Ross Byers's page

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32. RPG Superstar 7 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 10,194 posts (11,038 including aliases). 3 reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 10 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is explicitly the kind of thing the Champion of the Faith archetype for Warpriest is FOR.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes. Do this thing.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian wrote:
THE LAST ONE RAN ON AN IPAD?

At a significant graphics and animation downgrade.

And it crashed. A lot.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:
No way - Belkar needs to face Durkula again.

Because that's gone so well for him the last couple times.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could use Droskar - it worked for the Duergar.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd avoid Hextor - He was most interesting as a foil to his half-brother Heironious.

On the other hand, you could replace that with keeping ZK's role as brother to Shelyn.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of options depend on exactly what's in the house.

I mentioned the home gym and stairs, which not all houses have.

The was a scene in Almost Human where a smart house killed its owner by closing the pool cover while the owner was swimming laps. The rules say you can't starve them out, but I doubt they can unhook your brain from within the pool while also fighting for air.

Likewise, there's no robotic arms with which you could just stab them (or do more direct sabotage), but how much control do you have over the Roomba, exactly? Is there a self-driving car? Can you actually control it or just set destinations?

The restriction on, for instance, mashing them with a door raises the question of other safety features. Is spiking a treadmill from 7 to 11 mph in the same class as slamming a door with great force? Does the pool cover have a purely mechanical failsafe that the house can't ignore (like the pull cords to open a car trunk).

Do you have access to the internet and credit cards? For instance, could you buy more equipment? Even if you have to socially engineer someone into setting up for you.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Tensor wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Post anonymously on a number of sources where criminal elements might hang out that this house has a lot of things to steal, or that the master is of a race/creed/religion that they hate. Unlock the doors when they approach, preferably while he sleeps. Lock up after the deed is done.
Interesting ploy. Not even sure if investigators would check why *your* doors were unlocked?
If I can adjust my own logs then they'd have no evidence that the doors were opened. They'd have to figure out how the criminals got in. If I'm REALLY lucky, they'd be destructive on the way in or out, albeit quietly destructive, and break in.
You could intentionally break a window by slamming it hard enough, I'll bet.

Rules say you can't close a door hard enough to cause injury, so you probably can't break a window this way.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
So Metropolis is on the east coast? Because that would make sense that there was no mention of Superman prior to that.

Metropolis and Gotham are both expys of New York City.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feros wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I just wish they would give a good reason for his supergirl hate.
Yeah, my problem with Max is that his motivation behind his behaviour hasn't been well defined by the series thus far. They really need to get a good bead on his character or it will not stand up over time.

I understood it to be the same motivation that drives Lex Luthor in Superman-focused narratives.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grand Magus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Semantics.

Correct. Respect semantics.

If someone says "Fracking created an earthquake that destroyed my house." they may be semantically incorrect in calling it an 'earthquake' instead of a 'sinkhole' or something else.

That is not the part that should be focused on: they're more focused on the destroyed house than the exact geologic phenomenon that led to the destruction.

As long as we're focusing on semantics, you say a sinkhole is mere 'bad luck'. Well, no. 'Bad luck', like the term 'accident', implies no one is to blame, when there is a clear actor to blame (the companies using fracking.)

Grand Magus wrote:


BigDTBone wrote:
Edit: Also, the term "earthquake" predates tectonic plate theory.
So what? So does oil and sand and dinosaurs.

The point is that 'earthquake' originally meant 'the earth is shaking'. Any definition involving tectonic plates has to have come later. Thus, there is a gap between what a layman might mean by earthquake and what a geologist might mean. That does not make the layman wrong. Merely less precise.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Monkeygod wrote:
Hey James, I realize this is possibly a serious long shot, but is there any chance we could get a Necromancer's Handbook in the Player Companion line?

There's certainly a chance... but then we'd have to deal with folks wanting a handbook for every other wizard specialty, and then every bloodline, and then every deity, and where does it stop?

It's more likely that you'll see us tackle something more akin to an undead-themed book; we've done a few of those already in that line and I suspect we'll do more in the future.

But one that specializes on a specific slice of a single class? Possible... but very unlikely.

What about a 'Necromancer's Handbook' that is more in line with the Monster Summoner's Handbook? That is, not a guide for a single wizard specialty, but bits and bobs for anyone dipping a toe into that school of magic.

(For that matter, it could be interesting to have something like that for other schools. 'Book Book of Explosions' would talk a lot about evocations, but also alchemist bombs. 'Complete book of wards' and so on.)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Wondering why V needed this scroll and how its destruction will impact the adventure

Locate creature is a utility spell that doesn't depend much upon caster level, so it is the kind of thing that makes sense for a wizard to carry on a scroll rather than bothering to prepare.

If V had a specific creature and casting time in mind, s/he'd probably just prepare it for that day. (For instance, if the plan was just to try to keep tabs on where Xykon was, or to try to infer what was happening inside the Moot, there's no reason to put it on a scroll first.)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.
D20DM wrote:
Middle School Teacher so...Profession (Fool)? Profession (Torturer)? Craft: (adult)

Handle Animal

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
strayshift wrote:
V also MAY be able to teleport the 5 remaining members of the OotS after resting?

V is an Evoker with Conjuration as a prohibited school. (Other one is Necromancy). Can't teleport. Back when this was first indicated, V pointed out that prohibited schools were selected in 3.0, when teleport was a Transmutation spell.

That's why they needed the orb in the first place.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Roy's ranged weapon is called a ring of jump.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
What's the most adorable familiar in Pathfinder (in your opinion)?
How is this even a question?!

Kolo is pretty adorable.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They finally deleted my CS-department home directory. Only took 7 years after I graduated.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

S+*&. I'm kinda honored.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Brooks wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
My point is that swarms are not fun.

I disagree.

I see swarms in the same light that I see golems - they get tossed in when I want one particular character type to get a moment of glory or a special challenge. I like that Pathfinder has a lot of different options and that sometimes your normal attacks won't be effective. It requires more work on the GM's part to make sure that the challenges don't become boring or frustrating, but I think it makes for a more entertaining game.

In theory, swarms should work like Golems. I find that is less true in practice. Against Golems, spellcasters can buff allies, look for SR: No spells, or cast spells that affect terrain instead of the golem itself. Or even Aid Another on the barbarian's Power Attack.

Against swarms, a barbarian can...hope he's carrying enough alchemist's fire to make a difference, and that the swarm isn't immune/resistant to fire. Or if he has a magical weapon with +damage elemental enchantment, swing for 1d6 + 50% damage instead. Swarms also have the double whammy of being both hard to hid and hard to defend from. A spellcaster can fly/levitate out of reach or at least buff his AC to avoid a Golem's attacks while his teammates kill it. A swarm doesn't make attack rolls - it moves over you and you are both damaged and debuffed (Usually with nausea or similar).

Golems turn off some spells. Swarms turn off the d20 numbers engine that the game runs on.

DM_Blake also misquoted me slightly to shorten my quote. I don't think swarms are never fun. I pointed out that it is too easy for a party to be under-equipped to handle one, both in terms of gear carried and spells prepared/known. A GM who knows their party can certain counter this - if you have players who largely wing it, you can avoid swarms that would kill them. If you have players who obsessively make sure they have at least three of any given alchemical attack at all times, you can have more leeway.

But that's less than good for a product line that thrives on pre-published adventures in the form of Adventure Paths. Almost by definition, those adventures need to work with a wide range of parties, and swarms are too likely to simply be difficult out of whack with their CR against too many parties.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
I agree. Swarms shouldn't be immune to weapon damage. Highly resistant, maybe, but not immune.

How many times do you need to swing a sword at a swarm of locusts to kill them all? While the answer is some number that is less than infinity, it is so large that nobody would ever, ever do it. Anybody who did would give up long before he could even see a difference in the size of the locust swarm.

Sure, sure, his sword kills a few locusts. Keep it up long enough and he might kill hundreds of locusts before his arm is so dead-tired that he can't even lift it anymore. But the locust swarm will not even notice the loss, won't look smaller, won't do less damage to local crops, won't be affected in any way.

The dead locusts on the ground prove that they are, individually, NOT immune to the sword. But the essentially unaffected swarm has, literally, suffered no ill consequences for that swordsman's best efforts.

That's practically the definition of immunity.

The abstract combat system we use cannot effectively draw a line between "immunity" and "Millions of rounds of attacks would eventually eliminate the swarm but thousands will not". That degree of "highly resistant" just doesn't exist in this system, nor should it.

So swarms just use "immunity" because it's simpler than tracking millions of sword attacks.

I didn't say it wasn't realistic. You make a great point for why swarms work the way they do.

My point is that they are not fun. I don't have a better answer - while a high-level fighter with a magic sword probably should be able to hurt a swarm, I doubt you'd ever get a consensus on exactly how much.

I don't know what the right 'solution' here it.

Maybe its to get rid of the swarm mechanics and live with the fact that a swarm of killer bees or a carpet of rats might be better of treated as a hazard than a creature.

Maybe it's to give better monster design guidelines so that a swarm's CR can be better calculated, and their HP set in such a way that the party is more likely to have adequate answers.

Maybe it's to create more and better area-of-effect powers for martial characters, and possibly to insert some of them as default class abilities (or just combat rules) so that martials have options to contribute.

Anything but telling a 10th level character who isn't carrying 5 of every possible alchemical item that there is literally nothing useful he can do.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about the Swarm subtype? I love what it's trying to convey, but 'immune to weapon damage' means martials can't hurt it, and 'immune to effects that target a single creature' pretty much eliminates any chance they had to affect it with something other than an attack roll.

Even if you come equipped with splash weapons, you can easily use up your splash weapons before a swarm runs out of hit points. Or it might be resistant/immune to the energy type of splash weapon you brought (I'm looking at you, vescavors).

Changing the rules on the party is desirable, but swarms are the kind of thing that lead to arbitrary TPKs regardless of CR because you didn't bring enough specialized gear and eliminated the ability of half the party to meaningfully contribute. Or because the wizard's last fireball left the swarm at 3 HP and then the party was out of gas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Human Trap Breaker Alchemist 3

Argus looks grimly pleased with his bomb's results. Orcs and bandits...these he is equipped to handle. Burning alive is a terrible way to go, but those who live by the sword, die by...volatile semi-magical chemistry. Anyway, they started it.

He'll shoulder the big crossbow (move action) and launch a bolt toward the Orc harrying Lisbet (standard action).

Masterwork heavy crossbow, precise shot, point blank shot: 1d20 + 5 + 1 + 1 ⇒ (4) + 5 + 1 + 1 = 11

And 'toward' is probably the best that's gonna do.

Damage, just in case: 1d10 + 1 ⇒ (1) + 1 = 2

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chronomancy - bad idea or worst idea?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there are some players that lean on race/class to define their characters than others.

By which I mean, it you have a 'race of warriors' (Klingons) in your setting, there's going to be some people who will only make Klingon Barbarians - because if they're playing a fight-y type, they want to use the fight-y race. Even though you could make a human barbarian too.

I'd think that the human ethnicities would be actually great for these players - because it means you can play a Spartan, and not just a Klingon. But if you've already decided humans are boring, you'll never look.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the lesson of 'don't prep plots' isn't actually 'don't prep plots', it's 'don't prep fragile plots'.

Don't make plots that rely on the PCs making extremely specific decisions or succeeding on a single skill check. (Three clue rule.)

Don't make narrow assumptions about PC motivations to move from one part of the adventure to the next.

Don't plan 'cut scenes'.

Basically, Occam's Razor - make the minimal number of assumptions about what the PCs will do. But you do need a plot - otherwise your adventure sight has an assumed motivation of 'I dunno, we went to kill some kobolds/goblins/whatever.'

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I also suggest that PFS also ban the Conjuration school of Magic. As well as Augment Summoning. And Elementsls off Summon Monster list. A Conjurers who specializes in calling Elememtals to me at least can be just as distriptive as the old summoner.

I'm not sure that being disruptive was the largest problem. I think it was the difficulty of auditing an arbitrarily complex eidolon.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:
Redjack_rose wrote:
Unchained Summoners are required in PFS because they're more balanced. Finally a summoner sitting down to a PFS table doesn't give the GM an impending sense that this session is just going to suck.

Bah! It's a bunch of FUD.

Summoners are not unbalanced. People imagine all kinds of specialized scenarios and picture a summoner or "druidzilla" or RAGEPOUNCE barbarian or whatever class winning more often than not. In actual play, it never works out. There's just too many variables you don't take into account. No class can go through an adventure path without the rest of the party.

It's required in PFS because PFS is a different animal than an Adventure Path. I trust the campaign leadership when they believed it to be an actual problem. If you're playing an AP at home, no one can make you do anything. Use the old summoner. Do what you like.

And in the context of Organized Play,a perceived problem is almost the same as a real problem. If you have a swath of players, or worse of GMs, who cringe when they come to the table with a particular class (summoner, gunslinger, necromancer, whatever) the fact is they're having less fun, even if there isn't a 'good' reason for it. That can drive down attendance (or, if the problem is GMs, fewer tables for the players who DO show up.)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Louis IX wrote:
Also, removing posts? Are you going to remove this thread, too? Ban me, even? Delete these forums because people express their opinion? Meh. I'll know if you do, and I'll sit back and remember the days of T$R.

If you're going to throw yourself on your sword, it's usually more effective if you make sure the sword actually exists.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the cost of 'everyone has to have this feat to work' isn't much of a cost when you're using 6 monsters with identical stat blocks - the cost of a Teamwork feat in that context is exactly the same as any other feat.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Sara Marie wrote:

sara marie: just now I read something as the Pathfinder Society Gluten Free Guide

sara marie: instead of PFS Field Guide
sara marie: i don’t even know how

katina: well technically our books are gluten free, right?

sara marie: what do we use to bind pages?

gary: industrial heavy duty curses

robot chris: tears

tanis: black bile and the stapler you borrow from sara marie

katina: love?

Urge to cuddle Katina rising... rising...

A reminder that being Powered by Love is not always a good thing.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Don't think that happens? Just look at Prone Shooter. Originally, if I recall the statements made by the design team correctly, it was designed to give a bonus to hit while firing from prone. Then someone who didn't realize that the rules for firing while prone had changed between PF and 3.5 decided to change it so that it instead negated penalties that didn't exist,

Those penalties didn't exist in 3.5 either.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. Multiclassing is basically broken (as in does-not-work, not 'too-powerful) for spellcasters, and the fact that it sort-of functions for non-casters just illustrates why those classes lose their luster at high level.

The 'multiclass' PrCs like Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge were band-aids for the problem, before the decision to just go all-in with new base classes.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
requiem_in_mortis wrote:
I think a lot of the issues people have raised regarding firearms kind of miss the point of firearms in Pathfinder. They're SUPPOSED to be powerful (there's a reason firearms replaced every other weapon), they're SUPPOSED to be rare and expensive (only one country on Golarion makes them, and as a result they get to set the prices), and they're SUPPOSED to be tricky to use (early firearms were notoriously unreliable, and it took a lot of skill to get good with them). I think it's ludicrous that DMs ban firearms entirely because they don't want to deal with them; I just enforce the setting rules and limit them to early firearms.

They should be powerful - I've love to see them as increasing the Crossbow progression, and offering a high-damage alternative to using thrown weapons or a composite longbow with a strength bonus. A gunslinger should be a ranged character that can actually dump strength - while an archer still wants an 18 for his Str + 4 bow.

But targeting Touch AC - in a system where the base assumption was Touch AC is a gate to effects (spells, supernatural touch attacks, etc.), not repeatable high damage - makes them very powerful.

Spoiler:
(In the base game, Touch AC is sufficiently secondary that a ring of protection and an amulet of natural armor cost the same, despite one increasing Touch AC while the other does not. If you have lots of guns in your game, ring of protection should cost 50% more.)

Not necessarily broken - not every encounter is a Dragon, and not every problem can be solved with bullets - but it is disconcerting that firearms get to completely ignore a +30 natural armor bonus. It takes a mechanic that was supposed to ignore a chain shirt, or at most +14 for +5 full plate and takes it to a ridiculous level. At a certain point, armor should become 'good enough' to stop or slow down a pistol shot. But the current rules do not reflect that.

SKR has an essay somewhere about absolute mechanics. I don't agree with everything he says, but I think the important takeway is that absolute effects very easily degenerate into absurd situations (Fire Giants walking on the sun, for instance.) Often those are corner cases, or thought experiments only (When do the PCs go to the sun? If the God of Locks shows up in an adventure, a few words could be spared to shut down knock. Whatever.) But a Gunslinger's ability to get a free (better than) brilliant energy weapon comes up all the time - there at lots of big, tough monster with low touch AC.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Myrryr wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:

I mostly just divide the 'ancient' dates by 10*, resulting in a timeline with much less 'medieval stasis' (i.e. Earthfall was 1,000 years ago, Absalom was founded 470 years ago, etc.)

** spoiler omitted **

Slight problem with that. All outsider races (tieflings, ifrits, etc.), and elves now could've possibly experienced Earthfall and still be alive. And they easily could've heard of it from dad or mom. Additionally, that would mean every single great wyrm dragon lived through Earthfall. Thassilon and Azlant and Shory wouldn't be 'forgotten magics', they'd be 'oh yeah, go ask this elf here about 'em, he lived there, he could tell you all about Karzoug'.

Also, when a meteor lands on a planet, it takes a lot more than 100 years for the dust to settle. Granted, I don't think the 10,000 year medieval stasis should be that long either, but cutting it by 90% adds way to many other issues.

Elves and dragons should be able to witness the bulk of human history. (And the planetouched races have elven lifespans instead of parent-race lifespans has been subject to debate.)

But You're right - moving a decimal place is just mostly easier to remember. Dividing it in half still works, and means that Ancient Osirion goes back just about as far as Ancient Egypt. And it handily puts the right number of millenia since the calendar was at zero.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mostly just divide the 'ancient' dates by 10*, resulting in a timeline with much less 'medieval stasis' (i.e. Earthfall was 1,000 years ago, Absalom was founded 470 years ago, etc.)

*:
It's more of a logarithmic scale.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Golemwright - Providing painfully detailed instructions to literal-minded machines.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Revan wrote:
If spell preparation is doing 99% of the spell, then a wizard should be able to cast any spell he knows at any time by doing then long-form out of the spellbook. An preparation takes, what, an hour at the start of the day? If you're doing 99% of each spell ahead of time in that time, the long forms can't take *that* much longer.

The wizard CAN do this. It's why people leave a couple spell slots open and consult their spellbook.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I dislike the ability to cast unlimited zero level spells.
Oh yeah. Would much rather see school/domain powers unlimited and cantrips/orisons back to the way they were.

This would also let Alchemists and Investigators get some dammed cantrips already.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the Universal Monster Rules page, everything below 'Fortification' is bolded.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe this is a good time to admit that the rules around tunneling in stone, like the Craft/profession rules, are at best an extremely rough approximation of reality, intended to cover corner-ish cases like hacking down a door (instead of picking the lock or forcing it with a Str check.) Adamantine weapons are meant to be used for sundering and occasionally as 'master keys', not as burrowing tools.

They are rules of convenience, like how Burrow speeds almost never leave a usable tunnel.

The more your game focuses on these out-of-focus rules, the weirder things get. It doesn't matter if that's because you have an Alchemist PC who can churn out potions daily, but still takes weeks to make basic alchemical items.
Or why 8 hardness and oodles of hit points means explosive weapons are basically useless at blasting stone walls.
Or if you have players who made the logical leap between hacking down a door and hacking through a wall.
Or you have a glibness bard who can test the limits of 'impossible' Bluffs.
Or you just think too hard about why a 35-foot tall Rune Giant is restricted to the same 5-foot step as a 6-foot human being.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can we stop using the 'Can I sleep with your wife?' thing as an example? It implies that only the husband's consent is necessary for someone to sleep with the wife.

Please substitute 'Can I sleep with you?' It is more direct and is something the charmed creature actually has control over.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, clearly he's wrong, since Roy does. But, Durkula mostly likely knows of the move because Roy told him (well, Durkon) about it sometime after his resurrection (he was already talking about it here).

Durkon/Durkula clearly doesn't actually know the move. But he's old enough to at least know OF the move, just as Wreclan does.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Dwarves also live a really long time: Durkon is probably older than the dead grandfather Roy learned the move from.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
In the other thread, someone actually put this really well
7thGate wrote:

I find this fascinating, since I also interpret "something I would ordinarily do", "something I wouldn't ordinarily do" and "something I would never do" as nonintersecting sets, an interpretation that seems to be held by some people and not by others.

The question I have for myself is why I feel that way, since it would generally make sense that if a set of actions is described as matching a particular adjective, than all other actions should be "not" that adjective. As such, if an action is not an action that I would ordinarily do, it must be an action I wouldn't ordinarily do.

I thought about it, and I came to the conclusion that the reason why I felt differently was that the phrase has additional connotations beyond its literal definition. If you hear someone start a sentence, "I wouldn't ordinarily do this, but...", what are they about to agree to do? They are universally about to agree to do something contrary to what they normally do, but never something extreme. It is not a phrase that is used to describe murdering your family or lighting your neighbor's house on fire, its a phrase used to describe not giving someone a speeding ticket, letting a friend copy off your homework assignment or pretending to call in sick to work because the girl you met at a party last night wants you to do something. Describing murdering your family as something that "you wouldn't ordinarily do" is like describing torturing someone to death as being "unkind". Yes, technically, its probably an accurate statement, but its not the correct phrase for what you're trying to communicate. I think the difference between the implied and the literal definition further amplifies something that was already poorly written and mechanically flawed to help propagate a myriad of different interpretations for how this should function.

Emphasis mine.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
strayshift wrote:
I wonder if Roy is any good at sundering?

The staff? Durkula probably learned that spell by now, and even if he hadn't, that's not the kind of instant win he needs right now.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chronicles of Amber used Vancian.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

I've never been a fan of the five-foot step mechanic.

Why is it that a Cat can move five times further than the length of its own body without risking getting smacked for it, but a titan can't move the length of it's own big toe?

I've ruled in my games that a creature can "adjust" up to the size of it's own Base. This means small characters have a bit of trouble moving safely, but I add Size bonuses and penalties to Acrobatics checks to balance this.

There's a lot in the combat system that clearly made sense when it's Orc vs. Human, but gets progressively weirder the more you move away from medium-sized creatures hitting each other with weapons.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knitifine wrote:
Again, this is usually ruled in my games to be "you can see normally in dim light". In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone specifically address the range low-light vision stops working even in organized games.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Lighting is determined in a radius from the light source. Do you mean that Elves simply have no concept of 'dim light', seeing without penalty 40 feet from a torch, with darkness beyond?

Knitifine wrote:
(The amount of nitpicking being done here, sheesh. None of this really effects my problems with the rules in question).

It's because when you complain about a rule you're ignoring or changing, it sounds like someone complaining about a food they've never tried, or claiming a recipe is bad after making an unlikely substitution.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
This is because following/breaking laws is a function of the Lawful/Chaotic axis of alignment, not the Good/Evil axis. So yes, chaotic good characters break the law whenever they want (see Robin Hood for the iconic example).

This is also not true - Law is not Legal. Law is 'Order'.

1 to 50 of 1,443 << 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.