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. 4,441 posts (4,549 including aliases). No reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,441 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


Listening to/watching instructional videos or speeches or things like that is painful. I almost always would rather have text, since I process it so much faster than the audio.

This a thousand times over. It pains me when I go to check the news on the internet and can only find maybe 10% of the news stories in text, the rest seeming all to be in video now. In the time it takes me to watch one 5 min clip I could be through 2-3 articles of text. Or to actually have to look up info on a video game these days. It's all lets plays and youtube tutorials. I miss text.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:


I would hope we would never have an issue with someone being forced to T10 or being forced not to just saying.

This entire discussion originated because people are being forced (by their GM) into not taking 10, via the GM disallowing it. Your hope seems.... misplaced.

I know but I'll keep up hope for the time being.


nosig wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
...

But it was only half in jest.

This non-FAQ would allow me (for example) to convert the easy/mundane skill challanges into dramatic story telling.

Rather then have players roll a bunch of survival rolls while everyone repeatedly checks ITS etc., I can check to ensure someone can T-10 and get the party past the "lost in the woods" section of the scenario. Much more "dramatic" and "in story"... Much less braking the fourth wall.

The story will be much more like a story, and less like a board game. We'll play more "the right way". More like in my home game. I can "control the pacing and tension".

I would hope we would never have an issue with someone being forced to T10 or being forced not to just saying.


I'm honestly gonna bump this once after this weekend and see if there is any further discussion on it.


Talonhawke wrote:
nosig wrote:

Repeating an old post of mine...

"I am very much in the Take 10 camp. I even "have the T-Shirt".

And I try real hard not to tell other people how to play this game of ours. When I am the judge at a table and it comes to a skill check that the players need to make - I might even say "give me a XXX check - roll or take ten, what do you get?" This is the closest I come just assuming that the PCs take 10 and telling the players the result. Even when I know that the DC is such that the PC can make it on a roll of 2 ... even when I realize that it is going to slow the game down, make it harder for the PCs, even when i KNOW it will be less fun... I let the players chose. Why do I do this? Because, you know, I'm not the player. If they want to roll the dice that's fine - perhaps they find it more fun that way.

I don't. But then, I did say "when I am the judge at a table..."

When I'm the player - and it's my choice - please don't take that away from me because you think it will be more fun. Let me play my character... the way I have fun with it.

I could try to explain why I find rolling the dice cheapens the "fun", reducing a game of imagination and skill to one of randomness and chance. But you know, if you don't see it, I don't want to force you to play it my way....

Why do people insist that I can't be having fun - when they see me doing it over and over again? Why do they insist that I "do it right - the fun way"?

sorry - this is a hot button for me, and sometimes I get carried away. I'll try to go back to lurking again..."

Looks like that doesn't apply any more.... I can just require the players to take 10 when I "want to control the pacing and tension " of the game....wow...I really CAN force people to play it my way...

Not sure if I'm up to this... I hate telling someone how to play the game "right"...

I understand the bit of satire here but lets not have people convinced we now have a camp of people trying to force players to T10.

Couldn't edit so extra post I was only talking about your next last line there I know the rest wasn't satire.


nosig wrote:

Repeating an old post of mine...

"I am very much in the Take 10 camp. I even "have the T-Shirt".

And I try real hard not to tell other people how to play this game of ours. When I am the judge at a table and it comes to a skill check that the players need to make - I might even say "give me a XXX check - roll or take ten, what do you get?" This is the closest I come just assuming that the PCs take 10 and telling the players the result. Even when I know that the DC is such that the PC can make it on a roll of 2 ... even when I realize that it is going to slow the game down, make it harder for the PCs, even when i KNOW it will be less fun... I let the players chose. Why do I do this? Because, you know, I'm not the player. If they want to roll the dice that's fine - perhaps they find it more fun that way.

I don't. But then, I did say "when I am the judge at a table..."

When I'm the player - and it's my choice - please don't take that away from me because you think it will be more fun. Let me play my character... the way I have fun with it.

I could try to explain why I find rolling the dice cheapens the "fun", reducing a game of imagination and skill to one of randomness and chance. But you know, if you don't see it, I don't want to force you to play it my way....

Why do people insist that I can't be having fun - when they see me doing it over and over again? Why do they insist that I "do it right - the fun way"?

sorry - this is a hot button for me, and sometimes I get carried away. I'll try to go back to lurking again..."

Looks like that doesn't apply any more.... I can just require the players to take 10 when I "want to control the pacing and tension " of the game....wow...I really CAN force people to play it my way...

Not sure if I'm up to this... I hate telling someone how to play the game "right"...

I understand the bit of satire here but lets not have people convinced we now have a camp of people trying to force players to T10.


Well as far as I understand things unless the PFS team says other wise or a faq goes against current PFS rulings then their rulings stand. Also since this technically wasn't and FAQ that means this is how the rule is believed to have functioned all along. Similar to the Monk TWF debacle of a few years back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And if I need to climb a wall with ladder in fullplate before Zombies arrive in 5mins i can Take 10.


Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If you were going to be stabbed to death in 5 minutes and 911 asked if you needed the police there immediately you would say yes.
I'd also be in combat initiative and unable to Take 10 anyway, so your example is irrelevant.

You have combat that last 50 rounds dear lord man.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

If the rule was take 5 it might be routine. But something you've got a 45% chance to flub seems a bit hard to turn into an automatic success.

Its very easy to beat the NPCs by 10 at ones favored encounter bypassing skill.

Your 45% is based off of 10 being the exact number you need to pass. Now lets say I fail only on a 1-3 I'm down to auto succeeding on something that I only fail 15% of the time. But that I could still fail while rolling.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:

I am wondering what the GMing landscape looks like for taking 10 on Stealth checks.

So,taking 10 on Stealth, OK or not?

-Matt

Generally if its important enough for me to bother making the check its because something is about to eat you. Therefore immediate danger, therefore no take 10.

What if I am stealthing through the Jungle and don't know that a beastie is also stalking me? Can i take 10 on my check in that circumstance?

Edit: do to don't


FLite wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

In response to Berinor

FLite wrote:
aboyd wrote:
John Francis wrote:
How about the basement in The Wounded Wisp?

Thank you. Exactly. I have a friend who truly believes that if a 3' jump has any risk of falling damage, then you cannot take 10, and so he has level 20 heroes falling into trivial gaps that any dull bloke in the real world would jump over without a second thought. He insists this is the correct way to run the game. He likes "gotcha" gaming, I guess.

You had a level 20 character in the wounded whisp?

aboyd wrote:


At a recent convention, I played in the Tests of Tar Kuata. During the 5th trial in that module, I was told that there is an "impossibly tall stone pillar" that my PC must climb.

Actually, this is not "distraction" This is the other half of the non-faq "where a series of identical results would be immersion breaking or nonsensical or would remove drama."

Basically, in this case, they have abstracted all the rolls for climbing the pillar into a much smaller number of rolls. (I haven't read the scenario, but it is something like 1 roll for each third of the pillar, as opposed to one roll per move action.)

In return however, they are invoking the no-take-ten the same way a GM might say "you can take ten for most of the rolls, but I am going to disallow take ten at the midpoint and the top."

Bolding Mine we already have people calling for immersion breaking and such based off of taking 10 as reason for not allowing it. Skill Mastery doesn't say you can Take 10 when its Immersion breaking or nonsensical. So I have to ask would GMs be allowed to shut down skill mastery?

Nope. General Principle, things are intended to work.

You got skill mastery so that you could do it exactly the same way, every time, no matter what is going on. Go you. Take 10 to your hearts content.

Prior to the non-faq I don't believe (and i could be wrong) that anyone would have though nonsenical or immersion breaking results were a reason to Deny T10, so skill mastery has never been up against this ruling before.


The problem with that Andrew is what is part of the check? Some people want the fear of falling to be enough. Others want whats in the pit your jumping over to be and issue. That is the disconnect here some people believe T10 is just so good it should be ban-hammered out of use.


In response to Berinor

FLite wrote:
aboyd wrote:
John Francis wrote:
How about the basement in The Wounded Wisp?

Thank you. Exactly. I have a friend who truly believes that if a 3' jump has any risk of falling damage, then you cannot take 10, and so he has level 20 heroes falling into trivial gaps that any dull bloke in the real world would jump over without a second thought. He insists this is the correct way to run the game. He likes "gotcha" gaming, I guess.

You had a level 20 character in the wounded whisp?

aboyd wrote:


At a recent convention, I played in the Tests of Tar Kuata. During the 5th trial in that module, I was told that there is an "impossibly tall stone pillar" that my PC must climb.

Actually, this is not "distraction" This is the other half of the non-faq "where a series of identical results would be immersion breaking or nonsensical or would remove drama."

Basically, in this case, they have abstracted all the rolls for climbing the pillar into a much smaller number of rolls. (I haven't read the scenario, but it is something like 1 roll for each third of the pillar, as opposed to one roll per move action.)

In return however, they are invoking the no-take-ten the same way a GM might say "you can take ten for most of the rolls, but I am going to disallow take ten at the midpoint and the top."

Bolding Mine we already have people calling for immersion breaking and such based off of taking 10 as reason for not allowingit. Skill Mastery doesn't say you can Take 10 when its Immersion breaking or nonsensical. So I have to ask would GMs be allowed to shut down skill mastery?


Well then I have a separate question as far as pacing and Drama go? How does Skill mastery function in regards to a check not allowing T10 with pacing and drama issues such as having a series of checks that the same result multiple times would be against the narrative?


I feel the issue will come down the line when people start discussing adventures and a handful of people who had deaths, or a chunk of resources burned on a skill check that wasn't allowed T10. Then someone else simply ask why they didn't take 10 and find out there GM decided that a climbing a cliff was significantly distracting. I'm fine with a GM deciding that rain or mud that's listed might be an issue. But all people really are wondering is if simply climbing a rope on the side of cliff can keep you from T10.


I don't the actual question asked was that big of an issue. Does the task being preformed count as a distraction to preforming it. Period that's all people wanted to know. Without knowing that you can't accurately judge when you might be able to T10 at all from a players perspective.

And honestly I would have thought it was a no since one of the reasons listed to use T10 was to avoid failure. But if failure is an a show stopper then whats the point in having it? If its the direct consequences of failure then we still have a wide variance when it comes to if and when so much so that once again players simply by merit of their GM could have 2 drastically different experiences with the same scenario.


The issue there Andrew is that was the specific question they sorta answered was if the action being preformed counted as a distraction. They left it wide open so now a GM could decide that he would rather see the drama of player failure even on non-heroic situations.


Yes but player agency made that choice players choose what they are going to play for the most part. If the party that got sent failed to have anyone with a CHA higher than 10 that's their fault.


BNW the issue arises when party A uses T10 as was previously deemed normal for a risky task and does just fine, but then Party B hits the same task is told they can't and end up losing hp/death and use up resources that would not have been used otherwise.


Posting the relevant text below and then asking a question in the hopes of reduced table variation.

PDT wrote:

No FAQ Required:

The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.

With this sorta of clarification could we possibly see a PFS specific ruling regarding whether or not the task being preformed is counted as distracting enough to prevent the character from taking 10 on a check.


Table variation in PFS is one of the problems of rules being a GM choice? Right now In PFS if 3 mostly identical partys with 3 GMs run the same scenario the players could reasonably have a talk about how it went with fairly no real changes in story.

Now lets add in a 80ft cliff DC 20 with no winds or enemies and a 3rd level party.

GM 1 runs take 10 as the task can't be the distraction. Guy with the highest climb can easily make it up and tie off a rope for everyone else everyone makes it even the 9 str wizard.

GM 2 decides that the fall would distract a climber after 60 feet so climb guy only has to make one check and is fairly confident he can do so party climbs the Dc 5 rope fairly easily since they only need one roll to succeed.

Gm 3 decides its too risky for anyone to T10. Climb guy probably makes it the other party members should make it but the wizard has a 25% of not moving each check and a 5% chance of falling and if its on the last check dieing.


So bring this question back around "What percentage of my health constitutes being to scared of a fall to T10?"

50% 75% 80% Some other number.

Do we look at Min damage or max or average?

Do i have to be a certain height?

What if that first level character has a good acrobatics and can reasonably land without damage?

Does having Feather fall prepped or known allow me to T10 when climbing?


If the failure itself is enough to prevent the T10 then why have the rule at all? If I can't fail the check then I don't need T10. If its only for Non-threatening issues then why not just rule auto-pass on those checks?

Again I ask what is the point of the rule if its not to be used?


I'll See if i can dig up some post but over the years i have seen DM's complain about how T10 is too easy and that they wish that they could decide that more tension was needed. I n PFS especially that could go from a DC 12 climb that with gear everyone could have taken 10 on to possibly a character death because of failure at the top.


Go on vacation come back to turtles........Pizza for dinner it is.


And that's the issue I don't believe for a second the Dev team meant for GM's to have blanket T10 Immunity. If that was the point then just say it. As is we went from having some kind of breakdown on what allows it to now anytime for any reason a GM can just say nope.

It might be that the party is progressing to fast, or maybe he feels that failing is to big of a distraction.

The only silver lining from this is at least Rogues with Skill mastery should be safe and can now shine on those skills. Wait no now we have a new question.

New question will start a new thread if needed. "Does skill mastery allow the character to Take 10 regardless or Can a GM still claim DRAMA and prevent the usage?"


Not precisly they don't mean a GM can say no to taking 10 to jump over a 5ft rug in your house that you playfully leap over everyday. Without anything changint that is a T10 Issue.


The issue is that there are GM's who will take this as the DEV team saying the only take 10 is allowed by GMs at their whimsical choices about pacing and drama.


It's not about rules lawyering, its about taking a from the book skill where its stated that you want to avoid failure by using and then based on failure now being a distraction or now because the GM thinks the game doesn't have the right feel without having people fail at non-heroic task.


What I'm saying is after a player plays with GM after GM who doesn't allow it for anything useful the player will stop asking. Eventually it stops becoming worth the time to bog the game down with another "why can't i T10" conversation.


Name some situations where T10 would be useful to use that might not have a fear of chance of failure = DRAMA might not come up.

Climb check: Depends on how high but eventually DRAMA.

Balance check: Sure if you not balancing over anything dangerous.

Swim Check: nah chance of drowning might come up.

Acrobatics: Might be the only one and thats only if the gm doesn't decide a pit trap = DRAMA

Diplomacy: Nah having a chance of pissing off the king sounds better.

Bluff: nope getting caught in a lie would be bad so its a distraction.

Perception: no go actually having to roll means you might miss something and thus DRAMA.

This choice of wording basically allows a GM to ban T10 for any reason they want with Dev team backing. I mean I guess I could take ten to jump over a pit of fluffy pillows since there is no worries about failure hurting me but not much else.

EDIT: and yes I'm taking this to an extreme. But I have seen people complain about not being able to take 10 on most skills on these boards over all kinds of "check related" reasons.


So this leads me back to my off asked question of when your allowed to actually take 10 without having to worry about variation. Since we now know "Drama" is a thing that could stop it are their any situations where one would bother even asking if you could take 10?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk**head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk**head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk**head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk* *head desk*


Jacob Saltband wrote:

BillyJoeJimBob the player is a gregarious out-going person who is confident in social situations.

Heff is the character BillyJoeJimBob is playing. Heff comes from a rural back woods area and is more comfortable with animals then the ‘civilized’ races, especially females of the ‘civilized’ races. No skill points, traits or feats were spent on social skills and Heff has a negative CHA mod.

The party enters a fairly big sized upper scale tavern. They are trying to find Jillian a female of the ‘civilized’ races who is might have some important info. The party except for Heff heads to the bar to talk with the bartender. Heff, being a highly perceptive person, saw someone at a far table who fits Jillian’s description. BillyJoeJimBob tells the GM that Heff walks over to Jillian and starts a conversation.
The rest of the party , after receiving directions from the bartender, head towards the far table where Heff talking to Jillian. The GM and BillyJoeJimBob have a witty back and forth dialogue between Heff and Jillian. As the rest of the party arrive at the table Jillian hands Heff 2 pieces of paper. The first paper has the need info and the second is the equivalent of Jillians’ phone number.

No dice were rolled. Was an example of ‘good character interaction’?

I know this isn’t a very good post but I’d like to see what people have to say.

If the roleplay was good and reflected the characters stats sure. Especially if there was a low/no DC to get the info. Now if Jillian were hesitant or unwilling to hand over the papers lets say dc25 then Heff should have rolled possibly with bonuses based on what was said or other information he might have had. If you simply ignore his stats based how a good conversation then expect that a guy picking a lock who knows how to do it will want to auto succeed based on his in-depth player ability/knowledge.


To bring in an example from a popular game.

DM: To recap last session the party has just escaped execution and a dragon attack in the village of Helgen. You spoke at length with Alvor the blacksmith and he has asked you to bring news of the dragon to the Jarl of Riverwood. We stopped just short of the city last time as you approach the gate a Guard steps forward hand on his Sword "Hold there," he says "the city is closed due to rumors of dragon attacks."

Which of these examples would you accept and why not the others?

EX 1) I explain to the guard about what transpired at Helgan and our conversation with Alvor to try to get him to let us pass.

EX 2) I tell the guard that Helgan was attacked by a dragon and that it was seen flying this way from Riverwood. I press upon him the importance of speaking to the Jarl about this matter as some of his hold's citizens are worried.

EX 3) I approach the guard hands up speaking calmly and concisly "Sir we have seen the dragon these rumors are about. I attacked the town of Helgan and flew off this direction. Alvor the blacksmith of the town of Riverwood has asked us to come and speak with Jarl Balgruf about the danger it may present.

EDIT: Do understand that I purposefully left out examples such as "I roll Diplomacy to get in the gate.


Party cleric fell off of a bridge got knocked out and due to some house rules had a broken arm. Barbarian jumps down rolls and untrained heal with a 12 Wis. Rolls a 1 party rogue starts screaming "Lefty loosey righty tighty"


Also apologies no offense was meant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just checking if BBT has shown up to Scream hands or debate the unwritten rules on this yet........Nope I'll be back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like I said earlier asking for a basic outline isn't and issue. From my understanding of the OP the roll doesn't matter He is having to come up with the entirety of his argument or speech and that is the sole determiner of the outcome, or a major influence on the roll.


BigDTBone wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Look a particular groups social contract is important. Important enough that if a new player is joining said group or a new person is taking over a role they have never filled before and the rules aren't going to be run as the game lays them out they need to be told. Being told after play has started about any house-rules that negatively affect your character sucks regardless if they are affecting social skills or combat or spell-casting finding out after you decided to play the affected character and after you finished making it sucks. Even more so if don't get told till it comes up that it doesn't work that way.
It does suck, and in a perfect world people would know exactly what to say up front to help you make your choice. Human interactions are imperfect. That doesn't change the fact that for many tables the fun of the game is the social play. Those groups don't have to accommodate players who aren't looking for the same things.

I wouldn't expect them to accomodate the player if thats how the group plays. But I would expect them to let someone know. If I'm going to play a bard and I let the group know that I'll handle social skills someone should say "hey heads up we really like those to be played out more than just a roll", just as much as if I said I was going to play a spell caster and the group uses a rule that casting in combat is considered distracting and requires a concentration check accordingly.


Look a particular groups social contract is important. Important enough that if a new player is joining said group or a new person is taking over a role they have never filled before and the rules aren't going to be run as the game lays them out they need to be told. Being told after play has started about any house-rules that negatively affect your character sucks regardless if they are affecting social skills or combat or spell-casting finding out after you decided to play the affected character and after you finished making it sucks. Even more so if don't get told till it comes up that it doesn't work that way.


BigDTBone wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

For those who seem to be fairly rooted in the belief that the player needs to have some breakdown of how and what they are saying, does a acrobatics check require a player to tell you how they move to get past an opponent or does a simple I tumble past the orc to avoid AoO suffice?

Do Blacksmiths have to tell you what temp they forge a sword at. Do mages have to detail out their Somatic and Verbal componets in order to cast those spells?

Yes its a role-playing game but if a 15 year old can have a 26 str half -orc barbarian and sunder a table in half with dice. Then someone who isn't a speaker can still attempt diplomacy.

This isn't directed at those who might say you need basics. Simply I roll diplomacy might not cut it. But a statement of I try to secure us some additional rewards from the mayor, I rolled a 18 Diplomacy should.

If that's the game you want to play then sure. Many people don't want to play that game. For many people part of THE FUN OF GHE GAME comes from those social interactions. Your example is the exact same example as in the OP, and it ignores the fact that it isn't about a logical argument, it is about how people choose to play the game. It's about how people have fun.

If you don't have fun that way then no hard feelings but you may decide to look for another group or play a character that isn't the face.

And fun should be had by everyone at the table. I don't know the OP's specific situation so I can't give a deep example here but did the GM inform players up front that Cha based skills were to be roleplayed and that dice wouldn't effect the outcome? Does he allow an example like my post or would he ask for specifics such as "Well that's fine but what do you say to convince him? At the end of the day it is about a logical argument why follow the rules at all with skill checks if those checks are useless? I'm not advocating for a simple "I roll Diplomacy" But if those skills have no purpose for the person making the check then why even have them on the sheet?

If I were to go play at a PFS table I would expect that my bard would be able to succed on a Bluff/diplomacy/perform check even if I was incapable of comprehending the "how" of my wording as long as the "what" of the wording and goal were clear and I rolled high enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those who seem to be fairly rooted in the belief that the player needs to have some breakdown of how and what they are saying, does a acrobatics check require a player to tell you how they move to get past an opponent or does a simple I tumble past the orc to avoid AoO suffice?

Do Blacksmiths have to tell you what temp they forge a sword at. Do mages have to detail out their Somatic and Verbal componets in order to cast those spells?

Yes its a role-playing game but if a 15 year old can have a 26 str half -orc barbarian and sunder a table in half with dice. Then someone who isn't a speaker can still attempt diplomacy.

This isn't directed at those who might say you need basics. Simply I roll diplomacy might not cut it. But a statement of I try to secure us some additional rewards from the mayor, I rolled a 18 Diplomacy should.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Leftover 40 Clove chicken with roasted potatoes and 4 cheese macaroni.


Hey I understand I get that way about burgers. I just stare when someone tells me a burger recipe and it requires and equal or higher weight of ingredients that aren't the meat for the patties.


Jiggy wrote:
Meat wrote:
BBQ Chicken Pizza with Lemonade.
Meat wrote:
BBQ Chicken Pizza
Meat wrote:
BBQ Pizza
Meat wrote:
BBQ Pizza
Meat wrote:
BBQ Pizza

BLASPHEMY!!!

*throatpunch*

Nope a good pulled pork spread over a tomato heavy BBQ sauce covered in high quality Colby Longhorn Cheddar and Monterrey Jack cheeses on a rustic wheat crust and then grilled and smoked over hickory chips is nowhere near blasphemy.


AAAANNNNNDDDD Scene!


Mark Seifter wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Mark stresses that he does not give official answers, and that his answers are for his own games or what he suspects.

RAW, it's an untyped bonus.

There is an argument to be made that it may be intended to be morale bonus, given the class ability indomitable will, but there's a pretty good argument that the indomitable will text was just a mistake given that it's mostly copied over from the original barbarian.

I do not give official answers. However, it's not typed in the text, and it was for sure intended to be untyped (if it was morale, it would fail to stack with like a bunch of common buffs, like heroism).

Wait so since it wasn't typed its untyped as well as being untyped since it has no type.......I honestly just noticed that.


Burgers cooked at work(forgot it was customer appreacation day again.) And lays. Tomorrow garlic chili chicken....and the the World.

1 to 50 of 4,441 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.