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

Talonhawke's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 5,664 posts (5,871 including aliases). No reviews. 4 lists. 2 wishlists. 12 aliases.

1 to 50 of 658 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

If this is a PFS issue, it should be in the PFS section of the boards. Or are you expecting the design team to remove the changes they just put out, because it affects a few people in organized play? I trust the staff a lot more than that.

I do NOT support this petition, despite the fact that some of my PCs will have to spend a bit more money.

This much like the Monk = Two weapon fighting FAQ. affects alot of things besides just the cost of these items. There is a ripple to suddenly revealing that a majority of at least forum goers assumed that it worked contrary to the way the FAQ explains it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Flutter wrote:

" Light rocks Pitch forks here! Light rocks, Pitch forks here..."

(Like the druids local is going to sell torches in the height of fire season)

That's what continual flame is for, so you can have the glow but no heat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't worry i still don't get what they think changed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Flagging for a forum change this should be Houserules.
2. What GM would let you get away with "orc" corpse?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Oh damn, it had to be something serious if we're talking Blasphemy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:

Yeah it is. You're playing a game where the reasonable expectation is that mechanics change. Why are you buying a book for a single feat when mechanics change?

Because to use that one feat I have to purchase the whole "X of Golarion" DLC for $19.99, I cannot simply purchase the "Use a polearm as a polevault implement for a +4 to a distance jump" feat for $1.99

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay keep up the amazing work man!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I felt like the reason for most of the divine fighting techniques was "only followers of a god, thereby already invested in the sacred weapon, would bother to try to innovate techniques for this weapon, rather than picking a better one."

Since if you think about it, the glaive is one of the worst polearms in the game, a crossbow is almost uniformly inferior to a composite longbow, a bunch of deities get daggers, the greatsword is all fine and well but it's no nodachi or butchering axe, etc.

People with the options to use better weapons should, unless they have some external reason to say "no, I should use the inferior weapon for reasons of faith."

And yet if for some reason they lose their faith and worship another glaive wielding god no dice you forget how to be graceful with it. Even though nothing about the feat is magical or supernatural, best part is you can't teach to your glaive wielding buddy either.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
The "so what"? part is that it would be a better game without unnecessary prerequisites.

I feel quite the opposite honestly. There are, at time of posting, so many feats that "reading them all when making a character" is a daunting, unreasonable task. What I find helpful a lot of the time is "Okay, I'm a Gnome Druid from Nirmathas who worships Gorum, so I'll look at the various feats and traits that I can take because of that and see if any of them appeal to me.

The thing is that in the case where prerequisites are silly or unreasonable, it's entirely appropriate for the GM to intervene and eliminate them (e.g. I made "Combat Expertise" not exist.) But we can't ask Paizo to do it for us. The game, after all, has a human empowered to make rulings for a reason. So your Baphomet Cultist who infiltrated Shelyn's church to learn their secret glaive techniques? By all means go for it, that's pretty appropriate to what those wacky Baphomet kids are like.

Which is fine when there is a reason only X can learn something or because Y god is sending you power. But when apparetnly only those who follow abadar can use a crossbow to shoot a gold pouch off of a guys waistband or only Halflings can have had a piece of gear they "didn't know about" in their pack it looks like your just gating for the sake of gating.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's worse those feats will lead to more "Shelynites" in play that don't care about anything but their nifty feat. So the representation the deity gets goes up but more and more of those will just be "dirty min-maxers" and before long that's what everyone will see glaive wielding Shelynites as.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Valandil Ancalime wrote:
Amiros Valeri, have you ever had a DM rule against this?

From my reading of both threads no, he is worried about a future that I believe most of us would count at not happening. This would be along the lines of someone worrying that having all martial weapon Prof. means they still take -4 with a bastard sword in 2 hands because its exotic even if it has a special use.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

A thought just occurred to me looking at the FAQ for the trait in question if the OP is correct and the spell even for an instance lowers the spell level then it can't be used on any spell at all.

Magical Lineage (trait): Can I use this trait to adjust a spell's effective level below the unmodified spell's original level?

So as we can see if the actual level is being lowered for a purpose other than simply finding the final value the trait fizzles and does nothing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't remember the poster but one of my favorites mentioned on the boards before was an unarmed focused barbarian who acted like a Zen monk his rage was an enlightened state (same mechanics) that focused his body on becoming a living weapon. So no running around frothing at the mouth just calm deadly silence.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there Folks,

Magical Lineage was never intended as a way for you to actually lower a spell's level. It was put in to allow you to reduce the increase from a metamagic feat. So, no unlimited magic missiles. I will see to it that the language of this ability is clarified soon and I will get this added to the FAQ.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

This is the closest you will probably get on the issue, it is not a means to lower the level it never lowers the level it just reduces the cost.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
Redelia wrote:


Some women are fine with 'guys,' especially if you make a comment the first time you use it. The corresponding term I've heard is 'gals,' often used as 'guys and gals.'

** spoiler omitted **

As a GM I find that calling the group "targets" or "unwitting pawns" helps alleviate any issues, then everyone is upset.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kileanna wrote:
Rysky wrote:
*hugs more*
*Hugs the succubus*

Careful that can lead to grappling a succubus and we all know how that thread went.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Think I may fry some for lunch.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bottom Picture and all i can think is I need a Tiger riding barbarian with that thing to hang around and fail at spell casting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anti-grievance today one of my old Highschool buddies got a group together and I actually got to be a PC last night. Whoo!!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Does ANYONE still watch Survivor? I never hear anyone talk about it anymore.

Captain Yesterday fun fact: i've never seen an episode of Survivor.

I'll be honest I can't remember if I watched it, either i never did or I forgot.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I say it every time one of these threads comes up, Hero Points. Hero points are the solution since it lets the player decided to "fudge". The player decides if the fight is hard enough to need help. When you fudge as the GM you never know if next round the wizard was going to drop a spell to incapacitate the opposition or if you accidentally lined up the enemy for the fighters newest feat to be able to kill 1/2 of them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:

I'm feeling terribly sad about the loss of the political threads. The latest incident feels like all of us losing some very educational threads because of trolling. I wish the troll had been removed, not the discussion.

But, along with everyone else, I'm 100% behind the staff decision. I just hope that the LGBQT thread continues to stay open. In these times, that issue is very political and already draws people who post a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with those issues.

Accolades to staff for the skillful management of the previous threads.

Don't worry I don't believe the LGBQT thread will be going anywhere. And anyone going there to troll probably will get the ban hammer.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They only let me hit it once.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goth Guru wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Alicorn, you don't actually seem to understand the martial-caster disparity that's built into the game rules. For starters, damage dice have essentially nothing to do with it. Then again, your posts indicate that you tend to prefer to play Magical Tea Party, where DM fiat rather than class features determine narrative power, so in your games it probably isn't much of a thing.

That's because a lot of gamers do not believe in it. It does not take into account that wizards and sorcerers are very vulnerable. If they wear armor, they have spell failure. Their protective spells have to be cast to be of any use, and they never know when combat is about to happen. They get the weakest hit dice. Anyone who makes a wizard as a frontline combatant is trying to get their character killed so their friends will stop asking them to play.

And Magical Tea Party sounds like a Ponyfinder module. I don't know what your point was by that comment, but you should better use your time by creating that module and bringing it to conventions. Both Pathfinder and MLP conventions.

It's not about combat but a factor of Caster level in relation to reality. The higher it is the less reality matters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Well the Eldritch Scion is from the ACG so you could make a general FAQ like "when an Archetype says any class feature that uses [Attribute] now uses [Attribute] does that affect skill ranks as well?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
be prepared...

Just saw the thread for the first time and chuckled since i was actually preforming as Mufasa in the Lion King about the time you posted that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also keep in mind that if the +INT is a feature of classes then why do all creatures even those without classes still add their INT to skill points.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heck I think the GM might have even been in one thread so they both might have been looking for confirmation.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know but with any type of just trained technique there is no reason that a wayward follower could not teach it. Easy to find that guy not at all, but if he exist it's the same as a spell in a runelords spellbook. Once it gets learned by someone else there is a chance of it being disseminated to the masses.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wish those feats had a bit of Divine ooph in them. Right now most of the combat ones are just Techniques that anyone who learned them and fell to the wayside of their religion could teach. Actually making the feats supernatural or in some way tying the feat to the actual divine patronage would make them a easier pill to swallow. It's as bad a if a combat feat came out with Taldan as a prereq that taught you how to apply your power attack penalty to AC instead of Attack.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
  • Over or under for toilet paper?
    Seriously, there's some things civilized DMs just don't do. :P
  • Whether or not the milk in the fridge is fair game and punishment for drinking it if not.

  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    Torbyne wrote:
    I've actually seen the players set themselves up in this situation before where a PC wizard dropped some pit spells between two buildings with a 5 foot gap between the pits. the baddies were closing in and the front liners had to jump their allied pits to get to safety. i think they were acid pits maybe? anyways, no one wanted to go in the hole and they were very worried about their acrobatics checks to get over them. in this case falling in the pit would also leave you stranded for the baddies to play with after you get all face acided.

    I think the problem in this sort of situation can be resolved by actually talking about what the rule in question is before you start doing things. That way, if you establish the DC to jump a 10 foot pit is 10 before you start executing this tactic, you don't really have ground to stand on when you want to claim "it should be 15" after all the monsters easily clear the acid pit.

    If GM A runs it as "10" and in a different game six months later with GM B it's "15" and in both cases everybody knows before anybody tries to jump over a pit, I don't really think that's a terrible situation. As long as everybody at the table understands the rule, it doesn't matter if that understanding is different from table to table or time to time.

    So what all do we need to cover before running a game? How many threads or FAQ hits in a thread are needed before I should consider making it part of my new player packet of how I rule things?

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Basically I would like something from the higher ups if possible simply stating (mostly to ease and head off any issues whether GM or player) that for all intents and purposes it doesn't matter that you have to work with Evil people and that either it's not enough to warrant the atonement in the first place (though feel free to buy your own for RPness all day) or that if it is required that the society does something to help. We all know that outside of actual PFS play the Society probably doesn't send Paladins out with things that make paladins shudder that often. But in organized play it could be a weekly thing to have to put up with.

    EDIT: In short whether its not an issue or the Society at the least covers basic enough aura cleansing that the player would only be out money if the chose to be either by RP reasons or choosing to do something outside their tenets.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Does the Society require you to bribe people or drink? The difference is they do require the paladin to work with evilish associates which can bring about that need. Unless you can show me where your class features say that any time the VC's roll you out of bed their is a chance of you needing to drink 450 gp worth of Alcohol then your booze tab is different.

    Edit: Keep in mind we are also only talking about waiving the 450 spellcasting fee to cover forced associations and possibly for any missions that might cause through it's completion the need for atonement. Not for covering atonement when the character has taken it upon themselves to go against their god.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Working on creating an organization created by King Arthur and the original Knights of the Round Table for a Bleach D20 game. Basically Arthur and the Knights would be the European branch of the soul society based in Camelot.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Made a thread for that Rysky!

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Since one of the major rules of the Society is cooperation, and sometimes that means paladins have to work with evil as part of the job would it be possible to get an answer on whether or not

    1. Such cooperation requires atonement as per the Associates section of the paladin class.

    Associates wrote:
    While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.[/b] A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

    2. If so for this instance of atonement only would or should the Society foot the bill for the cost of the spell?

    EDIT: I think that having this codified would help with making sure that GM's aren't causing paladins undue issues due to sheer dumb luck of who else is at the table, and also give the paladin players a RP reason why either they don't need said atonement or how they cover their possible need for constant aura cleansing.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    JohnF wrote:
    PossibleCabbage wrote:

    I feel like the 10 foot pit argument is precisely a perfect example of the difference between "how people actually play Pathfinder when they sit down at a table" and "how they talk about it on the internet."

    I don't think there's a single table in existence where an argument would erupt in response to "the DC is 10" or "the DC is 11" or "the DC is 15". People would pick one, and move on. If there's a disagreement, flip a coin and go with whatever it says.

    The argument erupts when the player rolls a 12 on his acrobatics check, is sure that he made it across, but the GM says "Nope - the DC is 15, so you failed!"

    I've just had a convention where a different 'rules ambiguity' at a table (a GM ruling which severely restricted some players) resulted in a near-TPK, one player leaving the table, and two other players complaining about their experience in a public location. Thats not good.

    Yes and this can be exacerbated when you get to things like PFS and 2 tables with a different ruling (heck possibly because of 2 different books with the rules) can cause a difference in play experience. Something as simple as T10 rules on climbing a rope up a cliff with no other factors could be the difference in one group sailing through with T10 and the other nearly TPK'ing because of bad rolls.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I would assume that due to the nature of the Society they probably have provisions set up to cover the atonement spells needed due to their own horrible scheduling. In fact that might be something worth seeking a more direct answer on from the higher ups.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Your paladin signed up for the Society knowing that sometimes they have to deal with such. They aren't forced to join and they aren't forced to stay but they are required to cooperate.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    DrDeth wrote:
    Talonhawke wrote:
    DrDeth wrote:
    Ed Reppert wrote:
    what if you don't want to ban it or make it impossible, but just make it difficult?
    Either ban it or say "first, play thru RotRL..."
    Or go with independent research and enforce all the rules for it.
    " At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. "

    I meant researching new spells, if your wanting a lost or obscure option to be difficult then its a way to do it. Saying the player has to play RotRL to have to spell is effectively banning it as the GM since the player is playing what you let them.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Ventnor wrote:
    Talonhawke wrote:
    Purple Overkill wrote:
    Lady-J wrote:
    Talonhawke wrote:
    So why doesn't positive energy corrupt evil then? Constantly using healing energy or other positive energy on something doesn't ever seem to effect it's goodness. That is the big disconnect for a lot of people I think they want evil/negative energy to be this huge thing that is like a virus getting into everything around it and corrupting it but suggest that any other descriptor spell does the same and your crazy.
    exactly if all undead are evil due to being powered by negative energy(which is the main argument for them being so) than all living things should be good as they are powered by positive energy which is not the case so why should it be for those powered by negative energy
    No, that is exactly not the main argument. Everything to do with the inner planes is pretty much neutral. It´s the act of being created by/with negative energy, not being powered by it - which is more a side-effect, that changes the base nature to evil.
    So then shouldn't destroying things with positive energy be bad?
    I would say yes. If a wizard found a way to twist positive energy in such a way that it causes things to decay or be destroyed, that would absolutely be an evil act because of the way they are using what is normally a creative force.

    So Bolt of Glory and Life Blast should be listed as evil spells then correct?

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Yeah no that's not even close they are opposites and the opposite of evil ain't neutral

    EDIT: Not to mention circular logic Undead are evil because they are powered by negative energy which is evil because the things it powers are evil, which are powered by negative energy.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    What character concepts can't you play as a Kobold that you could play as a full sized "true dragon" character? Don't say "Guy who uses has a breath weapon, can fly around with multiple natural weapons, and is immune to paralyze and sleep effects" because that's not a character.

    It feels like you can be as much an greedy gold hoarding lizard who is above the stature of mere mortals and as you want as a Kobold or comparable "lizard-like" race.

    1 to 50 of 658 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
    Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

    Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.