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. 5,517 posts (5,722 including aliases). No reviews. 4 lists. 2 wishlists. 12 aliases.


1 to 50 of 601 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Hallet wrote:


For example, what happens if a magus uses his arcane pool to increase the enhancement bonus of his weapon from +1 to +3. I believe it should still bypass cold iron/silver DR, but someone might broaden the scope of this question by trying to apply it to all temporary bonuses.

Kinda wondering on this myself now does this affect any other methods of only temp. boosting an item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At what point did I claim I had an answer. I pointing what based on my opinion led to the current state of the FAQ. Your taking offense to this like I'm preaching some magic 5 step program to fixing it and there really isn't a way to do it. So guess what, we probably aren't going to see more FAQs or even more of the hard questions answered. Probably even less so once we have Starfinder.

Honestly I'm not sure what your expecting of me here Sissyl, so please if there is something I can do let me know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Excuse me, but I find the following comment rather valid here: "What 'we' are you talking about?" Yourself and your pals? Or, as I believe, everyone on the forums?

None of us has the ability to stop someone else from posting.

Spraying the blame hose seems to be rather modern, sadly. That doesn't mean it's anything but the old punishing everyone for the fault of a few. So, don't do it. You don't have to place blame, of course. Just don't claim everyone to be responsible.

I am speaking of the forums collectively when I say we. And while no we can't stop someone from posting we can create an environment that they don't want to spend their spare time dealing with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kileanna wrote:

People take it as everything he said was the absolute truth but all he can give is advice and opinions. He was very helpful with some fluff stuff I had to ask, but there were too many people abusing his kindness.

And sometimes you have to just houserule things that are not clear. Not everything is going to be in a FAQ.

Which sadly is mostly in part due to the posters. We used to have not only James but SKR and to a lesser degree Jason answer questions it might not have been 100% official but it gave clear intent as to how the people who adjudicate the rules would adjudicate it. But the people started being people and we had to have an official PDT account, which led people to telling SKR when he did still offer insight that he wasn't the rules account. Then we attacked almost every FAQ that was released looking for little cracks in the armor, or words that could be still twisted to our ends. So now we get 5-10 a year maybe. And I feel that has also affected what will be FAQ'd it's far easier to write bulletproof FAQ's for things that aren't super hotly contested, or are simple answers that just need someone to pick one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


There's others.

I'm sure we could probably find ones just as long hell I think masterpieces is getting there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kileanna wrote:

Yes, I am a bit shocked about that kind of GM who says that a written encounter is too hard or too easy for his players and that he realized it in advance but did nothing about it because it was written like that. They even claim to know how they should have fixed it. And they blame the written thing for the ressults. As they didn't have the power of rewritting anything they wanted.

No matter how good is a prewritten adventure it will never fit perfectly all players/games.

Yeah I will gladly tone down encounters that might TPK my group. I might beef up face rolls but typically only if it is a major point of the adventure. Sometimes the party needs to show up and mop the floor with the bandits and just be big damn heroes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I do need more grues hanging around..

Part of the issue is it's Mother's Day weekend, and 5 players will be out of town, but all but one said they had no interest. My group is 4 people, with occasional "guest players" that sometimes brings the group up to 8. But I have other friends I've contacted about it, and they just blew the invitation off with excuses of "I don't know how to play" to "I think it's a horrible game and offensive". sigh...

I know the feeling the group i've had off and on for 8 years plays all kinds of board games and such on a regular basis where they are at. When the come over to my place to game it has to be pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

So what is the point of charging with a lance but not attacking with it?

Exactly, no offense meant to the OP on this but we see questions like this alot from players trying to game some benefit out of weird rules case. They will ask a general question that seems pointless or even better to their detriment if it works, but they are hoping it works so that some non-mentioned feat/ability/spell can be used to better effect.

So we have to ask what is the point of trying to charge without actually attacking?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Answered in FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Natural 20 and Natural 1: On attack rolls and saving throws, a natural 20 is an automatic success and a natural 1 is an automatic failure. But should I treat them differently than other results when deciding if a roll succeeded or failed by 5 or more, when comparing two opposed attack rolls to see which is a higher result, or other similar situations?

No, unless a specific rule tells you otherwise, treat a natural 20 or natural 1 result on an attack roll or saving throw the same as any other result when comparing the total result to other numbers. For example, if a fighter rolls a natural 1 for a total of 31 against the wizard’s AC of 33, the attack misses by 5 or less and destroys one of the wizard’s mirror images.

And we have an answer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Horselord wrote:

Also, the idea of leaving the interpretation of the mechanics to the GM just doesn't work in PFS - characters either get swapped out with a disagreeable GM, or players look at the option as too subjective to be worth playing. Vague rules don't fly in PFS.

I agree wholeheartedly however once it gets an FAQ then your probably stuck that way. So do you want a rushed FAQ that makes Masterpieces effectively useless instead of table variation? Hell there are things that have sat on the FAQ for years that we all assumed were never getting an official ruling. And yes sadly the push the forums give with every ruling, (even ones that are cut and dry now turn into people trying to prove the devs wrong.) makes it so that instead of just writing a one sentence FAQ they need a paragraph triple checked and approved by deacons of Asmodeaus just to avoid the majority of that crap.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

3) They are a separate weapon that can be enchanted (Shielded Gauntlet Style and various items listed as "+1 gauntlet"). But their enchantment bonus wouldn't stack with Amulet of Mighty Fist bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

2) They are a separate weapon from Unarmed Strikes, but allow you to use your Unarmed Strikes as lethal additionally. Amulet of Mighty Fists adds to attacks with Gauntlet dealing 1d3 and Unarmed Strikes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) They can be used to enhance Unarmed Strikes and nothing more. So they deal 1d3 because that is what human non-monk Unarmed Strike deals. If your Unarmed Strike deal more than 1d3, you deal that using the Gauntlet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah the rain is getting old Cal.

My greivance for today:

Why do people love to spend there time complaining about how bad things are to the very people who enjoy them and then derogatorily talk down to them for defending their preferences. That and people who just swap to veiled insult when they don't actually have an argument. I love the rules forums but would love and ignore feature lately with all the mind readers we have suddenly developed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

How much did you miss by?

All of it

That sounds like more than 5.

If you'd rolled 5 higher on the dice, would you have hit? If so, you missed by 5 or less.

if their armor class had been five lower would you have hit? No. Then you didn't miss by 5, you missed by a completely different mechanism.

By that logic you trigger neither type of event. I have neither hit or missed by more than or less than any number.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nope I'm actually one of the more vocal against bad rulings or the constant nerfs you can check my posting history on that. But I hated post "Hands of effort" every single rules thread having someone pop up and ask "Do you have enough hands of effort for that" or "Better ask about any unwritten rules" or just "HANDSSSS!!!!!".

Unwritten rules was the biggest steaming pile of crap we have ever seen in a ruling. Hands down. But that doesn't excuse people thread crapping and derailing every other thing on the message boards. If you don't like a ruling by all means write a good post explaining your position and the rules backing it, but don't get other threads not even related to your argument locked.

As for masterpieces no one said it's unfix-able it's an issues of preserving function and balance together as so many people have pointed out in this thread. The last thing we want is a massive nerf to masterpieces that make them unusable but some of them are measured in a way that makes running them at the same time as Bardic Music unrealistic.

If you like so many others lately hate Paizo so much why remain. Is it just to thread crap every single chance you get? Have you tried emailing them or posting in a customer service thread? Or do you just exist to be a thorn in other poster's sides?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The fact that they're still putting out Bardic stuff including Masterpieces and are watching thread kinda kills the "they don't care about the Bard" thought.

Are you in PR for United Airlines, by any chance?

Person sitting in the ruins of his house after a hurricane "Why has god forsaken me!?"

Rysky: "The fact that god is still sending rain and is watching everything you do proves he still loves you."

Great, but couldn't Paizo show that love with gentler rains and an explanation of or apology for the past hurricanes?

I'm gonna step in for a moment here. I have seen the figurative S@#$storms that come with high publicity FAQs. Every time they write one you have an upset vocal group the bigger the issue the bigger the group. And the more things in that ruling that don't quite make sense or sound off if it was rushed the more likely we end up with another flurry or "Meta-physical hands" situation where every thread that comes up has it brought up and argued there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

How much did you miss by?

All of it

That sounds like more than 5.

How much did you succeed by on your bullrush?

All of it

Sounds like the tarrasque is on the moon god rest there souls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So then I don't get knocked prone or drop my weapons if I roll a one for Trip or Disarm even if I would on a 2? Since its if your attack fails by and not compare to CMD?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I could see treating 1s and 20s differently. Do the math for a 20, but treat a 1 on the die as a 1 total and calculate from there.
Why? Why complicate things further?

Clearly ones need to be a fumble of some sort can't have people still being competent when they hit their forced 5% miss.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So like asked before what about Shocking Image? I mean seriously is it well 2d6 might drop you so yep it pops an image but nah you have 180 hp nothing happens to the image?

Your making it way more than it actually is nothing about a Nat. 1 suggest its some sort of cosmic botch. It's there so that there is a chance of failure for attacks and skills regardless of actual bonuses not to be Schrodinger's dice roll where we have to check what the outcome of both sides of the roll would be vs all situations to figure out what the worse thing would be. It's real simply it missed it can still pop an image it can still trigger upsetting strike it can force a fort save vs jarring armor it can end your crane wing bonus all depending on modifiers what can it not do "hit".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What's funny I would be willing to put money down that if the first question asked had been about Jarring armor and not mirror image the question would have been an overwhelming yes you have to make the save vs sickened. But since the original question was a benefit to the attacker people started coming up with weird logic to make it work the way they wanted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Enchanter Tim wrote:
I think there's an implicit thought that a natural roll of a 1 should never benefit the attacker. Likewise, a natural roll of 20 should never hinder the attacker. The idea that a natural 1 would help by destroying an image is antithetical to these ideals.

But in the case of certain feats and weapon properties rolling a 1 in this case would be more beneficial than a 2 since you would avoid AoOs and such by not checking the AC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope for more than "Working as intended" since that just leaves both sides assuming they are right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know right, their whole arugment seems to hinge on the fact that since no amount of raising your total to hit could hit with a roll of a 1 then it can't trigger.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


if you hit with a natural 20, by how much you have beaten the target AC?
The example used in that thread was Bull rush, but probably there are other situations where your margin of success matter.

This one is easy. 20+CMB -CMD. There are no rules or even implications within the rules that rolling a 20 increases the effective result of a CMB. The rules for CMB tells us clearly that:

CRB, combat manoeuvres wrote:
Rolling a natural 20 while attempting a combat maneuver is always a success (except when attempting to escape from bonds), while rolling a natural 1 is always a failure.
I am not aware of anything else that would even hint at a contrary answer.

The issues with the other thread is it's being stated that a nat.1 or 20 is never compared to the targets AC/CMB and there for doesn't trigger such effects.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

It just dawned on me, the Bladed Brush and Gauntlet is more similar that I realized.

Both rules elements have segmented players with firm immovable interpretations that the rules text can't sway the other side.

In gauntlets case:

  • If you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you get little benefit other than material DR overcoming in exchange for (your enchantment bonuses and your increased unarmed strike damage). In other words DR cut through for doing only 1d3.
  • If you lack IUS, it's a cheap upgrade to lethal unarmed strike. You still provoke (because you are attacking unarmed).
  • Monks with Amulet of Mighty Fists will retain their enchantment bonus as gauntlets are still unarmed attacks.

Why would you still provoke?...........Oh dear god I see it gauntlets let you do lethal but lack language stating your attack is now "Armed." Why in the 9 hells do we have to hate on unarmed fighting so much.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Gonna be honest that example is more an issues with the GM.
1. He didn't say he was rushing.
2. While acrobatics might be the right check the ground would have needed to be more than a little loose to force a check to go tumbling in.
3. No reflex allowed to catch yourself?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a good example of not being able to follow thought processes is the monk.

We were told the reason fist like weapons that said they used unarmed damage didn't use monk unarmed damage because a monk was a martial artist and was strikning with multiple body parts and they didn't want monks just getting one brass knuckle and then flurrying with full enchanted unarmed damage with one hand.

But then we were told in an "FAQ" that monks can't use just one weapon in a flurry because it was just TWF with bonus to hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kileanna wrote:

I have cancelled my WotW campaign. I had 4 players but we were having a hard time to find gaming days, and when one came another didn't. In the end, we had so few sessions that when we managed to do one we spent so many time remembering where we were and telling the missing players from the last session what happened. So it had slowed down a lot.

My WotW group was great but we now have difficulties finding gaming days (a lot of times because of my job) so we're going to replace it for some short stories with some connection between them, which suits my gaming group better at this time.

I'm going to keep GMing WotW for Dalindra on solo anyway, as I don't want to cut the story unfinished. But I'm a bit disappointed on having to cancel.

I think book two is cursed as we have been over 2 months without being able to start ours as well.

My actual grievance for today is that there is no real way to deal with people being overly stubborn and asinine in rules arguments even when they just keep going with incorrect beliefs and then don't want to talk about intent only exactly what is written even when people like Mark or SKR had given probable intent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dark Midian wrote:
The ə! wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
The people who are really "hard core" believers in the Mandela Effect, blame the CERN Large Hadron Collider and Quantum computers for punching holes in the fabric of reality.
At this point, it's much more likely to be the CW's Barry Allen and/or Rip Hunter.
Nah, it's Superboy Prime punching reality so hard he changes the universe. :v

What if we are all just characters in a novel and the Mandala effect is simply the Author re-writing some of the backstory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

Either way the player said from the door not an area

"I'll take a moment from the doorway to look around more. Anything of note in the room? What junk is on the table? anything hanging on the wall, under the bed?"

What does that even mean? You can search an area before you enter it.

Why is your GM being so hostile? The player clearly asked to make as many Perception checks as necessary to adequately search the room.

So then your saying I can enter a room and from the door notice a trap across the room but only after enough time has passed that I would get to the area the trap is in to search it? Do I need to declare which section of the room i am starting in and which way my eyes move go to determine how long it takes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tweedle-Dum wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
graystone wrote:
I'm not the one that forces the game to either slow to a 10'/rd grid search or you auto-trigger traps [even ones that SHOULD be easy to see]. And remember 'if you call it a trap, it's requires a search action to find'. The GAME determined that the bear trap was in fact a trap. That item has NO conditions for it to be continue to BE a trap. Unless destroyed, it's a trap. Traps can't be found unless you search. Same with open pits being immune to passive perception.

It is you being deliberately obtuse, conflating a mechanical device (the bear trap)with a deliberately placed and concealed obstacle intended to harm or hinder.

The word "trap" is being used in two difference contexts and, while being deliberately obtuse, you are attempting to combine both contexts into a single concept instead of applying common sense.

Except that your common sense breaks down in a game with uncommon abilities.

Sure, we all agree that a DC0 bear 'trap' on a table should obviously be detectable without an active search.

And yet, that DC20 tripwire stretched across the path is just as easy to see for my high level character with a +30 perception as that bear trap is for a 'normal' person. But I've been told, common sense aside, that I can't see that tripwire unless I'm actively searching for it.

So, what's the difference between that bear trap on the table and the wire across the path which makes one 'obvious' and the other 'invisible'?

I told myself not to post on this thread... but I missed my will save...sorry! feel free to ignore my peanut gallery comment...

actually, the "DC0 bear 'trap' on a table" is not noticed - as long as the GM does not mention it. If it is not mentioned by the GM, it's not noticed unless you ask the GM what's on the table and/or he includes it in the "more in-depth" room description.

Judge: "The inside of the old trappers shack is dusty, gloomy and filled with...

Noting about going 10x10 tweedle dum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Either way the player said from the door not an area

"I'll take a moment from the doorway to look around more. Anything of note in the room? What junk is on the table? anything hanging on the wall, under the bed?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Like noticing the details of the slight bending in the air an invisible creature or the blades of grass he is standing on that make is so that its only a +40 to stealth for someone looking across a room? Those kind of details that a invisible creature gets noticed for but not any reasoning on the traps?

Training. We've already covered the distinction between invisible creatures and deliberately disguised traps.

Note that noticing a invisible thing over there is different than knowing what kind of invisible thing over there is a humane vs an elf.

Realizing there is an invsible thing over there doesn't tell you what that thing is.

So we know traps exist but we don't train to notice them? Even with trapfinding?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like noticing the details of the slight bending in the air an invisible creature or the blades of grass he is standing on that make is so that its only a +40 to stealth for someone looking across a room? Those kind of details that a invisible creature gets noticed for but not any reasoning on the traps?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Kinda like trying to conflate weapon and Improvised weapon as the same thing?

Improvised weapon is a subset of weapon with specific penalties attached.

There are weapons on the weapon table with the improvised property.

And pit traps with a DC 0 are still traps and on the trap list.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:


So.
many.
feats.
that.
ruin.
creativity.

This is my concern with every new book that gets published. In an attempt to keep up with a slew of new options for martials without overpowering them to the point of complaints every new feat runs the risk of taking an option out of the players hands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:

Going back to the "overskilled" subject, I've felt it, in both Perception an Knowledge.

Perception example: I am extremely sensitive to smells. I've barely been able to pay attention in class because the person beside me is using strongly scented deodorant.

Knowledge example: At one point, I was in a trivia competition with my school's Classics Club. The question pertained to the gladius, so I buzzed in and provided lots of information, including some interesting etymology. The other team got that question by stating that it was a short sword used for stabbing, which I had neglected to mention because I had assumed that, as a shortsword's primary function, it was self-explanatory.

But the skill system doesn't represent that type of situation at it's baseline. When I'm looking at field with things hiding in it a +50 is better than a +5 even if the barbarian next to me has horrible B.O. And when looking at a monster I'm not going to forget that trolls are weak to fire and acid simply because I have more ranks in the skill than less.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:

Huh? Nobody says a high perception gives you X-ray vision, but you are ignoring the fact that a high perception affects all of your senses, not just sight, not just hearing.

Again, try to rationalize how a person can hear a whispered conversation through several closed doors, and over a hundred feet away with any real world experience. You can't. Because perception modifiers that allow you to do that surpass human ability just as much as casting a fireball. Therefore, trying to restrict other senses along a similar 'well, that wouldn't make sense for a normal human' ignores what it means to have a high perception. It is quite literally super-human.

Maybe they smell the faint odor of poison, maybe they notice a slight discoloration around a lock where the poison fumes slightly corroded the metal. Coming up with an in game reason to justify high perception mechanics is nearly impossible because we just don't have an adequate reference point, and more importantly, many of us falsely believe that we do.

I think you may have hit the crux of the argument in the bold area whether people realize it or not. No magic is in play. It's a Ramvord* situation. There is no magic involved so people limit it to what they believe reality should allow regardless of the lack of those same defining constructs on the Player characters as on a normal Joe.

*RAMVORD:
Rules as my Views of Reality Dictate. Also known as the theory of martial characters can't have nice things because reality only ceases to exist in relation not to your actual level but only in relation to how many levels of caster you can possible manage. The audacity of some to think that it is broken that a well built fighter can go through door with a sword that ignores its hardness while next to him the mage is making a tunnel through the solid stone wall in a fraction of the time pains me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Tabernero wrote:
Don't you know? Living is EVIL because you have to kill stuff in order to eat it. Only plants can survive without growing into sadistic monsters of evil incarnate!
Or fruitatarians.

Can you get all you need to grow that way? I mean you might live but will you really grow?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Next time on "Alignment and You!" we will quibble with such questions as "Do paladins fall if they slaughter an animal for food?", "How much collateral damage is 'too much'?", and "Can a paladin even actually kill a villian?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

ALL HAIL LORD WRAITHSTRIKE!!!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Muse. wrote:
graystone wrote:
Muse. wrote:

graystone wrote:... "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ...

so, where do I get the "some (less than "most") Perception checks are passive."? ? from the line from graystone's post that I quoted.

It's from the perception skill, under action. it's a DIRECT quote. "Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action." So it's not some but MOST.

sigh...

CRB: "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus."

greystone: "So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ... "

Muse.: "some (less than "most") Perception checks are passive."

Reactive =/= Passive. (IMHO)

Edit: this post is coming out to snarky. Sorry. If we are both at a gaming table we will need to work this out. WHEN do/can I as a player perform Perception checks. That's all that really matters. Just tell me when, and we can play, we'll go with whatever the judge/GM says... sounds good to me.

Once again in this case both reactive and passive mean no action is being taken to make the roll. Not that the words are synonymous. What graystone and others are sayings is that a reactive or passive perception check is the same thing from a standpoint of being not an action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Tabernero wrote:

Dig a hole in order to build a well... Anyone can see it without effort...

Dig the exactly same hole in the exactly same location under the exactly same conditions, but with the intention of using it as a pit trap... And suddenly no one can see it unless they're specifically looking for it! Don't even need to cover it up with leaves or anything!

What a great rule... Makes complete sense and creates the super-fun necessity of saying "I look for traps!" every 10 seconds.

And just think of those times when you have a huge area to search and have a real world time limit like PFS. Well we know the BBEG is at the end of the 200' Hall do we want to check every 10' or chance it since we only have 30 mins left.

Well, in fairness, it really doesn't take much real time. Tell the GM you're searching and he'll tell you how long it took. Easiest if you take 10.

Otherwise, just roll for the actual traps, just like you would if it was a passive check. Or, if you're concerned about metagaming bases on bad rolls, preroll a bunch of checks.

I agree but keep in mind we have seen enough issues with allowing vs disallowing T10 that you can't count on it to have you covered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

AFAIR that is the case for Golarion which is why Pharasma is so opposed to undead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For that I can recommend a cheat sheet. I use one myself and have had several players want me to make them one with their different attack setups and damages broken down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terminalmancer wrote:
Replacing the d20 with 3d6 is a thing for a reason. (Need to rework the crit ranges though)

Check the 3.0/3.5 Unearthed Arcana if you have it, there was a section on doing that.

As to the OP my Kender rogue walked into a room that was full of various statues, holes in the walls, and other standard trap looking things. Rolls a 1 on his search check, now even though this isn't an auto failure I'm dubious as the the statement of "you find no traps". My Kender however proudly announces a trap free room and barely manages to reflex and tumble his way to safety with a cry of "I might have been wrong!"

EDIT: Here is a link to the Bell curve rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Firewarrior44 wrote:
Can I tie a string to it and call it a yo-yo?

I'll allow it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sadie wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:

Not sure how in demand it would be, but if your taking suggestions.... It seems like we've been running across a LOT of monsters lately that damage your weapons and armor... and EVERY time we have to look up the Hardness and Hit points of the various weapons.

Might be nice to have that marked somewhere on the weapon stuff?

Really? I've literally never touched those rules. They're on the pile of "stuff our group doesn't care about", along with keeping track of the random collection of feathers, little statues, miniature shovels, butter, stones, bones, leather bits and mouse blood that wizards are supposed to use for casting spells.

You don't know if your party has butter? Outrageous how do you know if you can make toast then?

1 to 50 of 601 << 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 customer.service@paizo.com 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.