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

Talonhawke's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,205 posts (4,289 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 1 wishlist. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Peeks in...Checks 83 post for possible clarifcation..... checks he FAQ'd......Leaves again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rest in peace and know that you will touch the hearts of generations to come with your works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Level 2 is the point that you can't rebuild under the rules your traits your stats your feats are locked in. If I picked stats for 2 casting classes and feats and traits to complement then I'm fairly set on that path.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:

That's somewhat of a technicality, don't you think? You can certainly narrowly look at the PrC rules and the SLA rules as two completely separate entities, but ultimately they were at one time very closely coupled because of the old FAQ. SLAs were at one time (and technically still are at the moment) a valid method of meeting the prerequisites of a PrC.

The fact of the matter is that with the FAQ, PrCs were more accessible. Now they are not. Period. Saying that this FAQ didn't change PrCs is disingenuous at best.

That being said, I don't think we need a grace period for this. I know that people would abuse it to get as many early entry PrC characters as possible while the opportunity was available.

What does need to change though is that the design team needs to be more aware of the ripple effects of their FAQs.

To reiterate no one is asking for a grace period. None at all, people are asking for extended grandfathering but not for a grace period.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bustler wrote:
Krodjin wrote:


That's not how it works. Flurry is a special full-attack action. TWF requires a full attack.
You cannot execute two full attacks in the same round.

I agree, one cannot execute all flurries and another 2 attacks from TWF - which clearly would be executing two full-attack actions.

My view is, that Flurry adds extra (attack) actions just like fighting with two weapons, having high BAB, haste, Spell Combat/Strike does.

Standing by for FAQ verification.

Don't hold your breath FAQs are usually written to address issues with rules not being clear enough I doubt you'll get one saying you can't combine a full-attack action that is like TWF with TWF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah if you haven't read that campaign it details exactly what happens if the party doesn't clear an area. Guys move around they get backup and they send guys on ahead to let higher ups know what the party is capable of.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite.

The now official thread to hopefully get Jiggy to recap all your favorite debates from old thread.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
David Higaki wrote:
For some reason, I think the addendum you quoted was added after the initial FAQ posting. So the timeline would be, FAQ was posted, some people brought up the early access to PrC's, and then the design team clarified with the addendum. However, I do not have a copy of the FAQ when it was first released, so I'm going off of fuzzy memory from about a year and a half ago.

I followed this when it first happened, so I'll share the timeline:

1) First, the PDT made The FAQ, without the addendum that BigDTBone quoted.
2) Then, those community members most proficient with the rules realized that this meant you could give your fighters Arcane Strike or even get into a PrC early.
3) Those less proficient with the rules said "But those prereqs say 'spells', plural, so an SLA doesn't count."
4) The PDT clarified that no, that pluralization doesn't mean that, and yes, an SLA really does count.
5) That same population said "But SLAs aren't arcane or divine, so they can't fulfill prereqs that require arcane/divine spells."
6) The PDT posted a new FAQ about SLAs being arcane/divine and how to tell which is which. (The exact wording of this FAQ changed a couple of times, but with little effect other than tweaking which SLAs counted for which prereqs.)
7) That same population then said "But the examples you're using [Copycat and Send Senses] aren't exact duplicates of those spells [mirror image and clairvoyance], so they don't count as being those spell levels [2nd and 3rd]."
8) Then-designer Sean K Reynolds clarified that an SLA's spell level is always the level of the spell it emulates; the only time you have to calculate a spell level is when it's not based on a spell at all (like many domain/bloodline powers).
9) After weeks of having every protest countered by the design team, that same population resorted to the old fallback of "But it'll be broken," with many of them adding, "and therefore that's not how it works."
10) Many heated debates ensued, as...

Completely off topic but now I want to have Jiggy recap other rules discussions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I'm not seeing it but how could the grandfathering of lvl2 and up be abused. As has been stated if I was gonna be a MT/ET/other early entry I'm built for it if I wasn't planning on it till I found out that only an existing char could do it how many possible characters could I have that could really be worth changing over how I was gonna build the char.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
SlimGauge wrote:
The character can't tumble in medium armor (but since this is mithral, he can).

Tehnically you can tumble in medium or heavy armor so long as they don't slow you.

SRD wrote:
You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10. You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor. If an ability allows you to move at full speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to move past foes.
Hence dwarves always being allowed to tumble. (They're probably not good at it in heavy armor with the ACP - but they can try.)

Dwarven armor master fighters. Heavy armor acrobats


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I saw this thread title and upon clicking on it was prepared to ask if the OP and drank their milk.....only to find it a thread from 2 years prior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just picked up S&S this weekend and other than lamenting I waited this long to try PACG I have a few questions.

1. We also picked up the Ranger Class deck, Does this provide enough extra cards to increase the players past 4 or do I need to get the char-addon pack. (will be doing so anyways but may have a group of 6 by this weekend.)

2. One of my buddies loves caltrops but we weren't sure if he could re-add to his deck at the end of scenarios if all caltrops got banished and there were still enough items to rebuild his deck.

3. WE cant seem to understand moving the ship and encountering new ships if anyone could explain it easily.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

From SKR back in 2011. Hope it helps The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.

The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances.

I'm not an athlete, but I can easily to a standing broad jump of 5-6 feet, over and over again without fail. It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump. With a running start, it's even easier. If I were an adventurer, a 5-foot-diameter pit would be a trivial obstacle. Why waste game time making everyone roll to jump over the pit? Why not let them Take 10 and get on to something relevant to the adventure that's actually a threat, like a trap, monster, or shady NPC?

Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Problem is nothing stops a really good item from going to use by the caster as well. If it's really something they want to do they can hit those prereqs as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So we are back to all barbarians being raging angry people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dammit I'm gonna miss bleach. Length hasn't be an issue for me but I also am a reading addict. My issue really is the weekly wait for my 4 small hits then back to waiting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaime Sommers wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
As I am 30 and out of the house it isn't a problem for me, however my youngest brother is wanting to get into pathfinder and my father is extremely conservative religiously.
Excuse me but... how young is your youngest brother?

17 years old. In other news after talking with my father about my experiences with the game and a discussion about clerics and religion with our pastor who it turns out has a son that plays he is going to let my brother play provided that it doesn't interfere with his school work and he doesn't start acting weird as he put it.

Thank you all for the advice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I am 30 and out of the house it isn't a problem for me, however my youngest brother is wanting to get into pathfinder and my father is extremely conservative religiously. Can anyone possibly point me in the right direction of some articles I can show him or anything really along those lines so we can at least get a dialogue going?

P.S. Sorry if this is in the wrong section.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Please of Magnificent Many-Eyed King do not bring attention to these fools. There lack of these things makes it easier to sneak up and destroy your foes and bring new souls upon which to feast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So if I take RH Tengu and long nose form how large of a beak do I have now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lights incense at the altar of the rules team and begins summoning ritual.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe your just really good at using your massive Orc ass in combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This to me would be like learning that you supposed to negotiate with a Rakshsa for the release of hostages at level 1-3 and coming back the next session ready to bless a crossbow bolt and let the true strike casting wizard shoot it because you found out it was an instant kill ( or at least used to be ) during the down time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Once again lack of info on why is the issue. In the Viking example it's evident why humans only. However lets say a guy shows up with a short bearded human with a high con, a Scottish accent, worse alcoholism than the cast of Jersey Shore, and a big axe. Will you be frustrated because he is a dwarf rip-off? ( and yes I know that guy fits in great with Vikings)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing is the GM is only at fault if there is a complete refusal of discussion. If I say that I'm running Dragonlance you can't be a halfling but if what your wanting is a small race who are good at sneaking that's an option. If you wanted to play a warforged your outta luck as well but maybe you just wanted the constructy flavor (mmnm wood, metal, and oil) so we might ask the resident tinker gnome if he minds you playing a gnomish invention of a close friend who he is helping test. But if I just say no without at least learning what your seeking then who am I helping.

On the flip side if it's a game set in the godless years and you demand to play a cleric or you won't play there isn't much I can do to help. Same thing if you show up with a 3pp moogle race that you have to play, and by Reorx's beard you mean a moogle not a kender then am I the problem?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

What I've picked up from the thread is that there is no problem with any of the hypothetical characters, all the hypothetical players seem to be unyielding douches. Because if we decide to play a game of political intrigue and you bring Sir Smash and Burn, then the player not the dwarf fighter is the problem. If no elves exist in your world then 90% of the time bringing an elf is bad form. But if we are playing a campaign where it just might work (exploring a new continent, interplanetary travel, or the like) then asking isn't out of the question. Heck asking for something and listing your main reason/s why should never be considered bad. However only having that one idea and refusing to budge is bad for the player to do, just like adamantly refusing to at least talk to the player as a GM isn't going to help anything


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alrighty after reading this thread it's clear what I'm doing wrong as a GM. I watched too many Saturday morning cartoons as a child. Coupled with too much comic books. It causes me to instead of blanket barring of things based in concept to wrap my head around a way to fit the square peg in the round hole. Sure a bit of cutting might happen, but whether it's to the peg or hole remains to be seen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My point was that they were all twisted evil lil bastartds. Then it was revealed that not all were changed over. Simply because no elves have been seen for 40000 yrs doesn't mean that there aren't some out their somewhere, if it can fit the narritive. It's funny how there were no oracles or alchemist ( as in the classes with the abilities they bring) in my home setting until hmm I like the rules for this sure lets use it, same with the Bo9S classes nothing out there was even close to what they did but that didn't stop me from working them into my games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:
I think most players and GM are long-since used to the notion that drawing your arrow out is actually part of the bow attack itself.

Drawing that arrow is still a free action by the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to agree with Snorter here but on both sides neither the DM or player should be done with their creative works until talking to the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ciretose don't forget about QuickDraw shields.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

BBT flurry is not twf anymore. Flurry is now simply extra attacks at certain levels. Thus rulings affecting TWF and THW dont affect flurrying with a THW.

Also how come everytime the devs rule in a way you dont like you start firing off outlandish off the cuff reasons why this new ruling is completly ruining the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Malachi using the actual rules show me one thing that will break. You and both know that your above list is worse scare tactics than political talk radio. You still can't seem to understand the word can't. All the FAQ has to say is that without EWP you cannot wield a bastard sword in one hand. It's called a rules exception.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

We need to just get over the term "action". Again, like I said, PF is not meant to be read legalistically like 3.5. It is to be played under RAI aka Common Sense. So, it makes no difference whether "no action" is a "action" or not.

The RAI is very clear. You can do NOTHING except transfer hp to your eidolon while Held but make your save. You can not delay.

Fixed it for you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Kristopher Miller 644 wrote:
I have a clarification question regarding the flambard; am I correct in the following interpretation of its function?

{A character with only martial weapon proficiency can only wield it two handed and does not gain the bonus to sunder.}

Correct.

{A character with Bastard Sword Proficiency but not Flambard Proficiency can wield it one handed and does not gain a bonus to sunder.}

Correct.

{A character with Flambard Proficiency but not Bastard Sword Proficiency can only wield it two handed, but does gain the bonus to sunder.}

Correct.

{A character with both Flambard and Bastard Sword Proficiency can wield it one handed and gains the bonus to sunder.}

Correct.

{Also, shame on Paizo for publishing that bats are rodents in one of their products.}

Reminds me of writing the 3E PH and trying to explain what weasel-like animals were for the purpose of a familiar's "speak with animals of its kind" ability. "We can't say 'speak with mustelidae,' most people don't know what that means without looking it up...."

It's actually to your advantage to treat bats as rodents, otherwise bat familiars can only talk with bats, while rat familiars can talk with rats, mice, squirrels, porcupines, beavers, chipmunks, guinea pigs, and voles. And yes, I know the familiar rules treat them as different types of animals.

here is the link if you like


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They are proficient with those that state it such as the temple sword. Otherwise no luck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clicked the button but as you already know I'm firmly in the rules language camp. One-handed weapon is a rules term it does not mean the same thing as a weapon wielded in one hand. So when you use a weapon as a one-handed weapon you use the rules for one handed weapons. When you are simply wielding it in one hand then use the rules appropriate to what type of weapon it is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All ha the almost never wrong lord Wraithstrike


2 people marked this as a favorite.

BBEG A enemy figure who has some how managed to rise to some form of power within his tribe, religion, or other group despite the fact he usually dies to Adventurers within 18 secs of actually confronting them due to his egotistical need to confront them at odds of at least 4 to 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait you mean my GM lied and my barbarian doesn't lose his class features if his Int is higher than 7 or if I wear more than a lion cloth?? Am I also allowed to talk in complete sentences or is actually banned?

In all seriousness always crazy mouth foaming barbarians are as bad as always evil orcs right Mikaze?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
ciretose wrote:


Here is why this won't work.

1. Schrodinger's Wizard magically appears at 12th level. He didn't have to to go through the awkward phases of wizard life picking up all those feats and pre-magic item min/max scores, often dying in the process, he appeared fully formed. And he always has the exact right spell at the exact right time, and plenty of time before and after to buff. Hence, he is undefeated.

2. Assuming anything is begging for the goal posts to be moves.

3. Some people on here seem married to beliefs to the point of religious fervor.

I'm not even reading the posts, how right am I?

Wizard hasn't been brought up in a few pages I don't think. :P

3 is correct.

Edit: I'm sorry i misspoke. The word wizard was used 3 times in the past 3 pages before you came in.

Speaking of Religion can I speak to you about the wonders of his Magnificance Lord Wraithstrike.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

33. If you don't like your salsa burning hot warn me .... I mean the person making it so I don't throw in a handful of super hot peppers.

I was so glad we had plenty of milk that day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I usually try to have a contingency plan ready for running away. The best I've seen however went to our party monk a tetori who had grab and rhino's charge. He really liked to charge and burn ki to grapple spellcasters. He had ready to charge the next person who cast a spell believing the enemy wizard would cast shortly after his turn the wizard died on the next turn from the paladin followed by every one but the monk and sorcerer failing a save against a contingent wail of the banshee. The wizard goes to cast teleport the monk looks up " what about my readied action".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
EldonG wrote:


Nonsense.

If it's actually a scenario set in Golarion...(where there is NO AMAZON)...

But there is the Mwangi Expanse and the jungles in that area.

Very analogous to the Amazon, is it not?

EldonG wrote:
I approach a ranger.

Where? Generally they're already out in the wilds somewhere, not just hanging around town swigging beer with nothing better to do.

The Mwangi expanse is more deepest darkest Africa, which merges into Egyptian culture if you head north and east, and Moroccan if you head north and west, just like our world.
Yep just like our world plus DINOSAURS. That is all.
Don't be like that. C'mon, you know they copy paste real world geography and cultures heavily (with some changes of course). The Arabs are always south and east of what could be considered Europe, Asians are in the East or so far West, and so on.

I was meaning that you were right except that Mwangi is better because of dinosaurs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Detect Magic wrote:

I am similarly against gay marriage, but not because I think gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I'm against telling churches that they have perform marriage ceremonies for folks that they don't believe should be getting married. Besides, if a church wants to deny a gay couple the opportunity to marry, why would you want to be a member of that church? Even if I was religious (I'm not), I'd find it hard to associate with (or support) a church which doesn't view all people as equal under God.

That said, I believe marriage should be a religious ceremony and nothing more. It shouldn't grant any legal benefits. The fact that it does seems to me to be a violation of the separation of church and state.

All "marital rights" and legal benefits provided by marriage should be provided instead by a civil union. Thus, two people can join, legally, and be recognized by the state, whilst having no association with the church (or any other place of worship). If they'd like a religious marriage as well, they should be free to have one, but would obviously have to find a pro-gay congregation. Now, that's probably a problem for some people depending upon where they live. Pro-gay churches are out there--but they're not abundant in all places.

Sadly, as I don't expect this to happen, I'm in support of gay marriage, because I think all people, regardless of sexuality, are entitled to the same human rights (including the right to "marry" whomever they wish).

This highlights how I feel as well on the issue though said far more eloquently than I could even begin to. Bravo!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the limits are arbitrary or misinformed then yes I might ditch. If the limits are defined or make sense then I'll rehash my concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry 3.5 not meaning to poke fun but when I read "must be this high in diplomacy" all I could think was "do you smoke it, freebase it, or does it come in drinkable form"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Watson wrote:


And now you know, even if you didn't really want to.

And knowing is half the battle!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Been following this for awhile now and honestly I'm with Kirth. I've had to modify classes/ races but very few times have I ever had such an issue that something was banned( one example of banned is the Truenamer and that was a group agreement). On the other end I've had GMs ban classes at their whim or bad rules reading. Two GMs I've had banned monks completely one because they had read the rules horribly wrong ( they thought a monk could flurry with all of his limbs as in at 1st level 2x hands feet and head for 10 attacks). The other banned it because quivering palm was overpowered and broken. Even after being shown that an equal level wizard could install kill so much better and more efficiently he still thought it was a game ruining ability.

So I had to pass on my favorite class every time they ran ( which for years those were the only DND to be played) and go for something else. All because of very uninformed gms who didnt want to even try to listen to any reason.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
organized wrote:
I'll take some good old fashioned Jack Chick over Robertson any day. Some one in my neighborhood used to give out his little graphic novels every Halloween.

I remember those from church camp that's where I learned DND was about summoning the devil. And rock and roll albums were blessed with animal and virgin sacrifice by the Church of Satan. Yeah fast forward 10 years and I started playing best friend at the time was the preachers kid. He wouldn't play without making sure it was cool with his dad so i let his dad borrow my books. Two weeks later his dad's only things to say where "I don't see a big deal with this." And "Are halflings anything like hobbits?"

1 to 50 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 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.