|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Steve Geddes wrote:
You have the right of it. It's the fact that you can claim offense even on someone else behalf, and if the subject matter is right then a bandwagon can follow causing a cascade of offense until it is silenced even if no-one was actually offended to start with.
I swear the more of your post I read and knowing you are from the same smallish state really makes me wonder if we either have played together or at least have some of the same players.
But man do they like have more than like 2 metaphysical hands?
The only requirement is that you have a hand free. A Kasatha should be able to wield a two-hander and a shield, while using spell combat.
Not to delve off into Metaphysical Hands debates. But we do have to wonder if Kasatha actually do get said ability as witnessed by the massive threads involving whether or not they can attack with all those arms.
Let's combine both shirts "You can't just Take 10 on things and hope for a better outcome'
You would think that however years of retail work have shown me people do not have that filter you believe they posses. Most yes wouldn't come in and act anything short of cordial, but a far larger percentage than you might think will come in and before you even have spoken to them are already in a-hole mode from the start simply because their day has gone awry in some way.
The Egg of Coot wrote:
I'll quote Kirth from when I asked a while back.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Been over a year and I just thought about this did we ever get that FAQ?
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Did Lazar get a ban or are you just using him as an example? Knew I hadn't seen him around the rules forum in a while.
captain yesterday wrote:
There has been a push here lately to call out the moderators in a public venue as some people believe that sending an email is simply having the mods quality check themselves. Thus they believe that the email is simply a way to make everything look shiny by deleting post and then keeping any dissension private. So more and more posters are taking to creating post or threads calling out the practice and trying to shine a light, so to speak, on a perceived corruption.
Only if everyone knows it was sentient. If I kill an awakened bear who is terrorizing the nearby village but know one knew he was sentient no one would think I am evil. Also what do we use as the measure of sentience?
Just based on a cursory reading of the email. It seems like that might be what happened someone read the discussion and was upset by it. They then flagged and possibly emailed Paizo about how it made them feel leading to its removal. Then when the post started showing back up in the website feedback thread via links, it set off the issues again.
Not really gear in this case but I just started a group on Way of the Wicked this last Saturday. They had a handout, knew they were in jail, knew they had to escape, and no one out of 6 people picks up disable device. No one asked about it from others even after I told them that they should talk about who was covering what skill rolls.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Except in this case it's completely legal just could cause you to lose grace with your god if you do it. So you are compliant and would have to retrain (if even possible) to get a new domain.
Yep if your playing a home game ask your GM to rule on it. If it's PFS I would either avoid it or bring it up at the start of the session and get a ruling from the gm.
Yep don't be passive about it if you don't want me playing something or don't like something tell your players. It's a lot better than always targeting the character because you hate it. Now it PFS suck it up buttercup if its legal you run for it even if you think Gunslingers are crapping all over your fantasy world.
I generally like the way the "Kirthfinder" houserules document handles it by making most feats scaling. TWF gets boosted to ITWF and then GTWF at the higher levels. It helps out those who have a limited number of feats not spend them all just to keep one type of combat competitive and those with feats to spare actually have room to spend them on things for flavor or diversity.
OWOD was the same other than re-rolling each round you rolled 1d10 and added any bonuses usually dex/perception if I remember and some powers could also add in or give you extra actions in a round.
Scion wasn't bad since we would each keep a dice in front of us and set it to whatever number our last action was and count it down each tick. One interesting thing about Scion was that movement could be taken every tick and didn't cost you turns so every tick (don't remember how long they were) everyone could move their base speed basically.
The 2 that stand out most to me were OWOD and Scion.
Scion worked like DND except that every action had a time cost to it and after you acted you waited that many Init. ticks before your turn came back up so faster actions could be taken more often than slower ones.
Also thinking about it Anima's was fairly straightforward in that high roll goes first type thing but your weapon choice affected your roll and if you got attacked and took damage before your turn you lost your action that round. You could avoid the loss by powering through the hit but that cut your defense in half for the round.
Archetype Stacking and Altering: What exactly counts as altering a class feature for the purpose of stacking archetypes?
In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures. This includes two bard archetypes that alter or replace different bardic performances (even though bardic performance is technically a single class feature) or two fighter archetypes that replace the weapon training gained at different levels (sometimes referred to as “weapon training I, II, III, or IV”) even though those all fall under the class feature weapon training. However, if something alters the way the parent class feature works, such as a mime archetype that makes all bardic performances completely silent, with only visual components instead of auditory, you can’t take that archetype with an archetype that alters or replaces any of the sub-features. This even applies for something as small as adding 1 extra round of bardic performance each day, adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can select, or adding an additional class skill to the class. As always, individual GMs should feel free to houserule to allow small overlaps on a case by case basis, but the underlying rule exists due to the unpredictability of combining these changes.
This is making a change to any monk feature that works off of Wis, so if your archetype is also modifying any of those including stunning fist AC bonus or such then its a no go.
Draconic Might: Any of the scaled fist’s class abilities that make calculations based on her Wisdom (including bonus feats with DCs or uses per day, such as Stunning Fist, but not Wisdom-based skills or Will saving throws) are instead based on her Charisma.
I think that's the relevant ability but without the book I can't be sure the wording is right. As long as this or any other change doesn't overlap you should be good.
Which is a player problem not a character one so that is how it needs to be addressed. And by that same token if I keep getting to do stuff but keep wasting consumables and gold on conditions that could be avoided if everyone had a min. level of competence whats the fun?
Pathfinders aren't a rec team though, they are pro's the Society isn't worried if bob the bard feels left out because the Crypt of Chikenstein was full of undead and no chance to show off his social abilities any more than they are worried that Franky the fighter was bored standing around the Duke Earlington's ball last night as long as both groups brought back the MacGuffin. This isn't the local YMCA's flag football league it's the majors and your livelihood including your actual life are on the line.