Starbuck_II's page

Assuming_Control wrote:

ciretose wrote:

I think the options are there, but at a certain point if you move to effects and away from damage you increase the rocket-tag aspect. At this point, you can get basically 25% status effect with damage with the crit stuff (or rogue talents if you go that way). Plus "the" mobility class (monk) has status effects as part of the attack currently.

I also don't agree with the premise that casters were made to be blasters, and while I do understand the issue presented, I'm not sure I'm seeing enough evidence that it is actually a problem.

At what level and at what expectation do we have for what can be done?

Stunning fist has really bad DCs and actually hitting is a special event with the monk so I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.

Stunning fist save DC is your 10 + your wisdom modifier + 1/2 your monk level.

Normal spells save DC is 10 + spell level (which for full casters is 1/2 level give or take on the highest level spell, less for 3/4 casters) + caster's ability score.

A 10th Level monk with a 20 Wisdom has a save DC of 20

A 10th Level Wizard with a 20 Int has a save DC of 20 on the highest level (5th) spells they cast that day, lower on lower level spells

A 10th Level Bard with a 20 Charisma has a max of 19 on the highest level (4th) spell they can cast.

If you have low Wisdom, yes it has a low save. If you don't, it doesn't.

Plus, it still counts as an attack that does damage when you use it.

At what level and at what expectation do we have for what can be done?

He spells hit automatically. Then the enemy has a save.

But The fist has a chance of failure. Then the enemy has a save.

Monks have average BAB (3/4th), need Dex/wisdom for good DC and AC, and that usually leaves little Str.
You can skip AC boosting by focus on Str and hit reliably, but then you DC and AC are low.

You forgot the "haste" word spell grants an extra move action or an extra attack. That is useful because it means a Fighter can move and full attack.

Being a Celestial and Fiendish creature does not confer Int/language, meaning that learning Abyssal, Celestial, Infernal, Aquan, Auran, Ignan, & Terran does not allow the Caster to communicate with most of their summons. It also means that some of the simple spells to help that does not work anymore, which puts Summoning further down on the ladder for abuse, along with being a Full Round Action to cast and such a short duration. For pretty much any other caster, that means it's pretty pointless until 3rd or higher level. For the Summoner, though from level 1 on, they do not need to worry about prepping the right SM spell, they automatically get them all without dipping into their actual spell selection, which is far better than the Druid's ability to spontaneously cast them, and are not restricted as an Arcane Caster, to which creatures are on their list by alignment.

Yeah, I dislike those nerfs.

I preferred 3.5's Celestial/Fiendish improves Int to 3 so they speak common or their own language (celestial/infernal).

WotC ran into this issue recently with their now-infamous "rat swarm" in D&DN. They didn't use swarm rules (which existed in the two previous editions), instead just using 18 rats hiding in a trash pile. That's 18 d20 rolls, possibly twice as many due to advantage/disadvantage mechanic. I don't recall seeing any criticisms that the rats were overpowered or underpowered. I did see lots of criticisms that no one wanted to roll that many dice. I think effects that aren't strictly based on the rules are still valid for criticism and change.

The original module had 18 rats too. It wasn't a mistake: they wanted you to actually run NEXT in the old module.

People (players) being lazy now and not back in the day was the issue.

I was wondering how this hex works against Undead, Constructs, Elementals, and Outsiders.

Forced Reincarnation wrote:

Forced Reincarnation (Su): The witch causes a creature within 30 feet to die and be immediately reincarnated into a new body. A Will save negates this effect. Those that fail are slain and immediately brought back to life with the spell reincarnate. Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day.

Reincarnation wrote:

A creature that has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be returned to life by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can't be reincarnated.

I note that while I'd expect such a hex to be a fort save (which would make undead and constructs immune by default), it is actually a will save. Also, due to the text quoted for reincarnation, apparently the death caused by this hex is not a death effect, lest the hex would never work at all.

So, how does this work?

1. Specific trumps general, with the Hex you *can* reincarnate those creature types.
2. Those creatures are killed as per the hex, but then they get hit w/ Reincarnate, the spell says, "uh...this isn't in my job description, sorry," and does nothing, and they just die.
3. Since they can't be both killed and reincarnated, the hex does nothing.
4. Something else.

I think by RAW, #2 is how it works, though #1 might also be the case. I don't see why #3 could possibly be correct.
The hex does mention killing the target, so perhaps undead and constructs are immune for not being alive. But at least for undead, there are spells to "kill" them or make them "dead," such as undeath to death.

#2 because the spell says it kills them. Not the spells fault the reincarnate fails.

I mean, I think Brilliant Energy is a wildly overpriced property anyway... Maybe they just decided to eyeball it rather than follow the formula. But it's hard to tell.

Mainly I just feel bad for my player... He traded in a +2 evil outsider bane bow for this, but this campaign (Savage Tide) gets more and more demon-heavy as we go along. Brilliant energy doesn't actually do anything against most demons, since they're just a pile of natural armor...

Agreed Brillant is over priced.

Dabbler wrote:

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

effectively, building a monk to deal damage requires one of 2 things, either not acting like a proper monk, or becoming a glass cannon

...or using a dexterity build and an agile property on the AoMF. However, monks are still not great damage dealers. To be honest that doesn't bother me so much as the fact that they have no other options to influence combat - stunning fist is too unreliable, maneuvers too situational (and the core monk isn't great at them anyway).

The monk designs that DO work are largely one-trick ponies; they may be good at that trick (although it's not guaranteed), like the zen-archer or the tetori, but they aren't much cop for anything else. Looking at other classes, few are so restricted - a fighter doesn't have to sacrifice much AC to be a great damage dealer, for example.

Dexterity build falls apart before 7-8ish as a noncontributor due to a lack of ability to get an agile amulet of mighty fists without either, extremely good luck (nearly impossibly good), or DM fiat.

the amulet's biggest weakness in rarity is that it is competing with the wondrous items list.

and agile eats a whole +1 off the amulet. now DR alignment is unbypassable for you.

now you have simply blown 2 feats, and +1 of your amulet's bonuses to compensate for a low strength if you want damage or manuevers.

the agile amulet hinders you in the long run.

especially since its ability cap is halved, and price is doubled.

Assuming you don't mind few attacks with a bonus, get ki straps or whatever they are they add +1 to 1-4 attacks based on bab. This combined with an agile Amulet of MF amulet is cheap.

Nicos wrote:

TheSideKick wrote:

all i have to say is my tetori uses dimention door to grab dragons, then bowerbombs them to the ground, and beats the snot out of them.

he is a pure monk and is the second most bad ass character ive ever played.

you can take all your bs "monks suck" talk over then and bury it.

Can you post your build?

I am waiting to see this build also. I also want to know which dragon(s) he is supposedly owning, and how this is taking place.

at 8th level, Graceful Grappler cost 2 Ki to grab anything larger sizes (assuming he beats grapple CMD)

Chokehold sadly limited to 1 size larger. Which sucks because Pinning Knockout lets you deal double damage while pinning (which Chokehold helps)

But I don't see anything about powerbombing, must be just how he describes it.

the best third level spells are

1. haste
2. slow
3. stinking cloud

in that order

But a Summon Monster 3 can conjure a Stinking Cloud: the loveable Dretch.

So you get a meat shield for a few rounds and a Stinking Cloud all in same action.

Did you include Fallout Brotherhood of Steel? It uses same engine (same equip menu/shops/combat)

Majuba wrote:

The biggest reason is probably "Int 6". Certainly, if you reach a certain threshold of shadows, if they coordinated attacks and swarmed to create more spawn, they could be quite a threat. Might take a crusade to beat them back.

However, with their low intelligence, as well as this:

PRD wrote:

The shadow is an undead horror, and as such has no goals or outwardly visible motivations other than to sap life and vitality from living beings.

... they simply don't have the motivation or mentality to do so.

For smaller cases, temples, wizards, or monasteries (4th level monks can kill shadows fairly well) keep the population down.

Movie zombies = less inteligence, though more hunger. They often spawn apocraphyl worlds of horror. Why not shadows then? Is it b/cause they don't NEED to feed, like movie zombies do?

Movie Zombies are known as Ghouls, notice they paralyze and make more.

Why don't ghouls make more of themselves like the movies?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

leo1925 wrote:

It isn't OK to kill evil babies, it's GOOD to kill evil babies. And the people saying it aren't just people in this thread, paizo has said it.

This sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that? I know paizo wants their baddies bad, but it sounds a bit extreme.

He got it from Paizo:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

Read last sentence again: Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

So, you can kill the babies and the game regards this as a neutral act.

I think a lot of people have trouble leaving real world ethics at the door when they come to game. The ninja CHARACTER may not have much reason to be offended, but the ninja PLAYER on the other hand, might have a big problem with the "killing of the helpless", unable to set aside the comparison to humans, even if the monsters in question only have the fact that they are bipedal in common with us.

Sleeping people are helpless: the ninja was stopped from killing them earlier.

So the Ninja has no grounds for moral high ground on that subject. The Ninja is just upset he couldn't kill sleeping people.

I am torn between having my ninja wait until the paladin is weak then strike because he is fortified and has an elemental all non sneak attack stuff. or just being has evil has possible arounf him and every time he calls me on it "say o were these guys not starving and chained up enough for you you have no authority of me hypocrite"? regardless of whether it was okay by torags rules it was still not okay for my ninja.

i wanted to address why I was going to write the letter. it was because my ninja doesnt know how paladins work but figures if this dude is going to be like him and kill like an assassin maybe he will be like him and write a letter. Thinking maybe that is what you are supposed to do? like trying to follow the rules when you dont know what they are.

So he acts like you, and this reflection of your own actions angers you?

Wouldn't it be smarter and clearer to just ask why I can't kill sleeping people but you can kill prisoners?
This might open a dialogue.

phantom1592 wrote:

On a slightly more serious note... When Luthor was President of the United States, he gave MANY orders that Superman simply would not do. He trusted the legal system to take of itself, but he refused to be manipulated by it.

When the law was evil, He broke a lot more laws. And he did so without any angsty guilt over a code. He does HAVE a code... but opposing evil authority is NOT a violation of it.

Weirdly the President can't order civilians around like he is their God-King. Lex would need a court order before Superman would need to follow that order to respect authority. At which point a paladin would have to figure out whether or not that government was a legitimate authority. Superman is not a paladin though and does not risk losing his powers over such a matter.

You have heard of executive orders? They are law till congress disagrees and votes to block them.

Paladin and the party doesn't enter the city. Problem solved. Or they leave city do to ignorance of the law. That or they submit themselves to the authorities for breaking the law. They don't eat the baby.

Again more weird corner cases.

In American law, Ignorance of the law means nothing. Still committed crime (till proven guilty not punished though).

Breaking a law doesn't make a paladin fall though.
Not if he makes this a habit, then the DM might make him no longer Lawful.

EldonG wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Ummm...no. He's protecting innocents. (And the guilty, too, but hey.)

But they're adorable, and they can't defend themselves! Just because they breed faster than rabbits doesn't give you an excuse to murder them!

You horrible monster.

Who says they can't defend themselves? Goblins breed like rabbits and we murder them to keep population down too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is all irrelevant if you are playing a happy go lucky My Little Pathfinder edition, where there is no real evil, only victims of circumstance and tragic figures who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A magical world of rainbows and sunshine, where every villain can be turned to serve good, given the time and understanding that it was deprived of as a child.

The canon setting of Golarion has some horrifying stuff, just read up on the bestiary entries for ogres and goblins for confirmation, and the paladin has a holy mission to go forth and combat the terror that lurks out there, serving gods that embody the worst of sins, whose desire is to see the world filled with pestilence, death and ruin.

If the paladin shows mercy, and allows someone to keep their lives, HE becomes responsible for every act of evil that creature does from that point onward. In my game, letting an irredeemably evil creature live for any other purpose than being taken to a rightful trial, and subsequently imprisoned or magically atoned, would fall. It is a willful evil act to give aid to someone who will use said aid for evil.

Please, play My Little Pony Fantasy 6, a Ff6 version, and say that about evil.

Heck, watch My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and see the episode with Discord.
Evil is not nice and willing to be turned.

Luna was an exception as she was once good, but turned evil.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that expectation of anime fans is one of the major drives of "D&D martials suck" movement. Of course, WotC didn't really help with throwing them a bone with ToB:Bo9s...

ToB was Alpha Orcus. What 4E might have been before they nerfed Orcus... sigh, what could have been.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

From Gladiator, Maximus Decimus Meridius wrote:

"At least give me an honorable death. A soldier's death."

Death by elemental shredding is decidedly... not.

It is the Paladin's class feature, it is definitely honorable.

Conundrum wrote:

Get over it already, why does anyone even care anymore?

Because I still want to play a Monk. Not the class as it is, but as I imagine it should be.

Does need to be a Pathfinder class because Swordsage with that unarmed feat in ToB fulfills this. Get Snap Kick too.

Then you can unarmed strike when you unarmed strike allowing multiple unarmed strikes along with those unarmed strikes. Tis a beautiful feat.

I've been hearing a lot about gunslingers. Are they worth playing? My original thinking is that paying 6 gp per shot is a hefty sum.

Am I off base here?

Might as well, use Dragon Mech d20 and their steam guns (2 handed and 1 handed versions), ammo is cheap (uses sling bullets or rocks)

Let Gunslinger's abilities apply and you are good to go (although the 2 handed versions can only fire every other round, but free action reload either version)

Stonelords don't have Smite evil btw everypony. They get another ability instead, but they do have detect evil.

i think my big issue is that

Assuming it is true that the pally HAD to kill the morlocks because they are evil then he HAD to kill the drow because it is evil also.

It just seems wrong, unless i misread that a while back and he killed the drow too

No, the god Torag makes exceptions if they provide useful information.

Since when can half dead prisoners, who aren't a part of the conflict, surrender? Also, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's as black and white as you think.

Who says that the opposite to Mercy is murder or killing? You can show no mercy by walking away. Who says that it's not meant during battle? These are all questions that different DM's will answer differently. I can already tell you that all the PFS DMs around here disagree with your reading so that tells you right there that it can be interpreted differently.

If they never surrendered then you can do whatever you wish to them as they are then enemy combatants.

"No response required?"

Hell yeah, one is! To me and many others, it sounds like you can't stack them all on one target, to others you can.

I agree w/ THD's assessment. I don't like it, because IMO even if you can stack them all on one foe, Weird Words is pretty weak. I definitely think it should be errata'd to allow that. I would totally houserule it if I was running a game and a player wanted to take it. But as written? I don't think so...

No, response translates to yes you can target same target multiple times.

You have to read between lines regarding the FAQ button.

I was thinking of taking a Hawk and giving it the flyby attack feat.

I also thought it be interesting if the hawk could swoop down and attempt a disarm then fly back out of range.

I m not sure how the Flyby attack feat works. Is it like Spring attack ?
Flys in does a attack then flys back away?

I m doing a druid that is there to for utility vs damage. I need a Animal companion that serves the same purpose. I don't want to steal the spotlight from our damage doers.

Any suggestions would be nice.

Yes, it is like spring attack but you get a standard action between moving instead of an attack action.

There are times this is useful (dragons can breath fire for example while Flyby Attacking.

Should have just cast reincarnate with the scroll as it has a lower material component then.

I more fear CON drain.

Con drain is more dangerous the more HD you have because every 2 Con is 1 hp/level.

Negative levels area flat -5 hp per negative level.

So at low levels Con isn't that bad (you barely lose much hp till you are out). But negative levels are scary (-5 hp per can be a lot at low level, plus amount equals your HD and you die).

That said, I don't think there's a Perform (Fighting) skill, Abraham. Thus, my point is perfectly valid. If I'm in error, please elaborate... because I'm not seeing it ~_~

3.5 had it in Complete Warrior.

Shadow Dragons were particularly nasty. They had a breath weapon which did 2d4 negative levels or 1d4 if you saved. Either way you were pretty screwed. A fight against a Shadow Dragon was almost always lethal and on the few occasions that the party survived they would be left drained and out of resources.

Modern players don't know how lucky they have it.

The amount of negative levels is based on age catergory in 3.5, you deal 1/2 the amount on save. So you negate wyrmlings (1/2 of 1 is 0 for them).

But the higher HD ones were dangerous.

It is fundamentally impossible to set the CR for something with a no save incorporeal touch attack.

* It's a touch attack so armor doesn't help defend against it.
* It's incorporeal so it can attack out of walls or floors to also face flatfooted AC

Objection floors are impossible because it can't enter/pass into object(s) larger than itself. Floors are larger than most incorporeals.

QUESTION 2

Is this a mis-print?
3 or 4 HD: The creature is blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, then stunned for 1 round.

If they're blinded/stunned for 1D4 rounds, why add another 1 round?

something might work vs stunned but not blinded or vice versa. Stunned doesn't deny dex like blinded.

So he for 1d4 rd can be sneak attacked, then just +2 to hit because stunned 1 rd.
The target can't act as he is stunned, but blinded makes him also lose his dex. Stun doesn't do that.

Assuming he has good AC, just Summon Swarm him to death, bypasses AC and deals damage.

RadiantSophia wrote:

Piccolo wrote:

I don't like ninjas and samurai because they are derivative/unoriginal in terms of Pathfinder, and because they simply do not belong in traditional Western fantasy.

What is "traditional Western fantasy"?

Edit: Sorry, premature post.

is "traditional Western fantasy" meant as like an American western (movie) or like medieval western Europe, or something else?

medieval central and western europe, but with fantastic creatures spawned from those cultures. some parts of eastern europe, I suppose. Read some Tolkein.

Read some Tolkien, there were Asia and Africa people in their world. So Ninja and Samurai are appropriate.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do people say Ninja, Samurai, etc: they are just archetype not classes?

I'm tossing this in the Rules Questions even though it's a third party thing because this is more of a questioning on a ability. ( I noticed that the third party section seems less about rules and more about promotions) Here is my post on Dreamscarred Press forum.

So this is my first foray into the Psionics Expanded handbook and making a Psionic character under Pathfinder rules. I decided to make a Tactician because it fills a role within the King Maker campaign. Looking over one of the abilities, it seems a bit underpowered or rather part of it seems completely pointless.

The ability I'm talking about is, of course, the Echo Effect ability. On the whole it seems a pretty balanced ability, allowing a person to copy buff spells onto another person in the collective. Where I run into issues is with the augmentation part of it.

With the base ability it always costs in power points, the manifester or caster level of the buff you want to echo. This makes sense by itself. So for example if everyone in the party is 8th level and you want to echo Mage Armor from the Wizard to the Monk it costs 8 PP. Simple enough. However, under the augmentation rules in order to try and echo this ability to an additional target you must spend 4 PP for each target. The problem is with the limitation on this "if this augment would raise the cost of the echo above the tactician's manifester level, the echo attempt fails (although eh may still attempt to echo it onto a single target)". The way I read this is that the base cost of the Echo for moving Mage Armor from the Wizard to the Monk is 8 PP. If you are an 8th level manifester this is pretty much where things stop. Your PP cost is your manifester level and as long as all the other casters in the part are your level this is where it will ALWAYS stop. One person costs 8 PP while trying to augment will tack on 4 PP making it 12 PP. The only way this would be doable would be if the Wizard was a 4th level Wizard 4th level Cleric because then it would only cost 4 PP to echo mage...

Linking us to the rules would have helped...

Yes, you can't echo to more than 1 target unless you are have a higher manifester than their caster level (id echoing a spell).

This is possible due to items, feats, etc that raise Manifester.

Overchannel (does it work?), Wild Surge, etc might help.
3.5 had a good number of +X manifester items (usually 1 or 3/day).

So does having fire resistance like being a Tieflings helps against environmental Heat?

I'm asking cos there are more Tieflings characters appearing in my local PFS and I'm unsure how does them having Fire resistance helps against heat.

Reading the rules on environmental heat, there does not seems to be any reference to fire damage, unless in extreme heat. All non-lethal damage seems to be untyped.

My current conclusion on the rules is: "Having Fire resistance is like wrapping aluminum foil around a potato. The potato does not gets burn if exposed to a naked flame. But if you place the wrapped potato into an oven and heat it... you still get a baked potato in the end."

Is this the right view of this situation?

Well, 3.5 did allow fire resistance (Sandstorm and Frostburn books go in depth about this and protections).

But Pathfinder never added those type of sourcebooks so not as far as yet.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Starbuck_II wrote:

DigitalMage wrote:

I love how Eberron is a kitchen sink setting, but it is done in such a way that it has a cohesive theme and feel.

[...]
So because Golarion is the only setting for PF, and it isn't one I am fond of, my interest in PF isn't as great as it could have been.

You can run Pathfinder if 3.5 settings though.

Not without some conversion though which is in itself enough to make me unlikely to do so, but when I also prefer 3.5 over PF, there really is no incentive to do so other than perhaps if I get to the point when I can only find players willing to play PF but not 3.5.

If however, Golarion had been even more appealing to me than Eberron I might have pursued the PF RPG in spite of itself - hence why settings can help the success of a system.

Wait, how does running Pathfinder in a 3.5 (like Ebberon) setting require conversion? Unless you are using a module, you don't need to convert anything.

Maybe warforged could be boosted, but otherwise it works.

thaX wrote:

So... read two pages and no one has mentioned my reason for the success.

The one thing Pathfinder does do is concentrate it's efforts into one setting. Though the "kitchen sink" setting (like Eberron) sometimes gets it's detractors, this setting has stirred the imaginations of many through excellent products that treat the setting as a place instead of a generic placemat.

For me, the fact that Pathfinder RPG only has one official (i.e. Paizo created) setting is actually a turn off.

I got into D&D with 3.5 and I bought the 3.0 Forgotten Realms setting book thinking that would be my D&D setting (I liked the map with trade routes etc) - however I got really bored slogging through reading the book (Dale after Dale after Dale!). If FR had been the only D&D setting available I think my love of D&D would have been shortlived, but luckily there was Eberron! :)

I love how Eberron is a kitchen sink setting, but it is done in such a way that it has a cohesive theme and feel. Golarion on the other hand feels like a hodge-podge of mini-settings, and while I can like some individually (Darkmoon Vale for example) as whole it feels "bitty".

So because Golarion is the only setting for PF, and it isn't one I am fond of, my interest in PF isn't as great as it could have been.

You can run Pathfinder if 3.5 settings though.

I'm planning to run Dragon Mech in Golarion (in Rise of Runelords): Varaisia is only continent not affected by Lunar Rain. So PF and Dragon Mech classes (Gunslingers can choose a steam gun instead of gunpower gun if they wish, no touch AC but easier to reload and no misfire).

Marthian wrote:

Anyone know if Channel Smite multiplies on a Critical hit?

Because if so, it might suddenly be very deadly.

Bonus points for using a Falcata.

It does not, not any more than the fire damage on a flaming blade.

Fire damage does multiply on a crit from, flame blade spell.

I think we should be holding actual lawyers to a high standard when it comes to interpreting game rules. They're trained to look for the intent of the writer, so they should be able to see what the writer wanted even if he expressed himself poorly.

Often "rules lawyering" is a dubious art of twisting text to coax a meaning from it that's obviously not what the writer intended, but is more advantageous. A lawyer should be good at that, and should realize when someone is doing it.

And since this is a game, not a court case he's being paid to win, he should not be doing it.

But the issue is laywers do rules lawyering all the time: otherwise we wouldn't need prosecuters and defenders in lawsuits.

A Lawyer art of twisting text to coax a meaning to make it more advantageous toward their position.

Rules lawyering has nothing to do with writer intent that is just interpretation of the loser of the case. Because if they intended it another way why make it ambiguous?

The author Fish said writers intent has no meaning, the reader makes the intent.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And that's just in core. It's really, REALLY unfair to compare the core 3E game that came out a decade ago to PF, which presumably should have learned from its mistakes at least somewhat, as an adaptation of 3E. The fact is, as 3E rolled on the designers *did* note the failures of the rogue class and actually worked pretty hard to gradually fix them. You got various means to sneak attack forbidden creatures, like the truedeath weapon crystal and the vine/grave/golem-strike swift action spells....

3E Rogue was blatantly better than the PF Rogue is. Both on its own merits, and in comparison to the other classes / class balance.

True, though most of that is because of the weird nerfs to sneak attack Paizo added for some reason.

A PF Rogue using 3.5 rules would be better, but a 3.5 rogue using PF rules would be worse.

A 3.5 rogue using 3.5 rules is better than PF Rogue, but a PF rogue using 3.5 rules (acid Flask qualify for sneak attack, etc).

** spoiler omitted **

Could one apply sneak attack damage to the needles?

It counts as a thrown weapon attack so it fulfills sneak attack rules, if enemy denied dex or flat footed it can be a snbeak attack.

It would deal 1 + Xd6 damage.

It is once per day.

Yeah 3/day might make it worth it, but once/day? Seems pretty weak.

Are there many people still playing 3.5? I figured Pathfinder's success would have a more deleterious effect on that game than it did on just about any other. (I know it's compatible to a pretty large degree, but it isn't identical. And presumably Pathfinder is more compatible with 3.5 than 3.5 is with Pathfinder?).

I dont recall any recent 3PPs producing stuff for 3.5 - havent they all switched to supporting Pathfinder?

3.P (3.5 with some Pathfinder) is more popular than P.5 (Pathfinder with some 3.5)

Without a great rules system, the OGL wouldn't have mattered much, either.

F.A.T.A.L. could be entirely open sourced (hell it could be, for all I know or care) and freely available. No one's going to play it even so.

It is not Open sourced, but it is freely available (well Alpha and Beta versions are). You have to buy the completed versions.

Starbuck_II wrote:

Allowing someone to die isn't evil. It is neutral.

This depends largely if not entirely on the circumstances. Refusing to employ extraordinary measures on a terminal patient constitutes allowing someone to die, and is morally justifiable according to many.

Allowing an innocent hanging on a cliff's edge to fall to their death when one could easily, or even with difficulty, lend aid and rescue them is unquestionably evil.

Seeing as I question it: I'm assumingly it isn't unquesionably or even evil.

Neutral.

Before I looked at it I was expecting to see it had no SR and make a comment that it must work similar to pellet blast. But this just seems to be an exception to the rule.

Agreed it should be either SR no or not be affected by DR.

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

So you are saying that a unarmed fighter that isn't a monk will not get extra attacks using 2 weapon fighting?

I recall "a few" threads that were offering the opposing point of view.

Or you are saying that you can use unarmed combat together with two weapon combat always using the same limb even if you aren't a monk?

Well, Brawler rage power Barbarians get to TWF with unarmed strikes. So there are other exceptions.