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

Tels's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 6,867 posts (6,904 including aliases). No reviews. 5 lists. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cosmo Cultist wrote:

*siiiiiiiiiigh*

*gets out the patching cement*

A real Cosmo Cultist would have praised Cosmo for the blessing/annoyance inflicted upon him.

I blame Cosmo for impostors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Numa Numa video with Gary Brolsma turns old enough to drive in the U.S.A. this year...

I blame Cosmo for aging.

[Edit] You know what, no. I blame Cosmo for my being tired and mathing wrong. (the video is 11 years old, not 16 this year doh!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo for the minor cold I've picked up resulting in a runny nose.

But I really blame Cosmo for the booger that formed deep inside my nostril and has felt like a lump and poked the inside of my nose all day, driving me crazy.

I blame Cosmo further for the booger resisting all attempts to dislodge it.

I blame Cosmo for the bloody nose I now have after wadding up a piece of toilet paper, jamming it up my nostril, applying pressure with my finger, and then rotating the toilet paper around and around under pressure, scraping the inside of my nostril until the booger was dislodge.

I also blame Cosmo for the vivid description I felt the need to provide for everyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Sleeping Beauty, because Maleficient is best depiction of evil in cinema?

yes this is my answer, but its a question too...see whut I did thar?

See, this would not surprise me at all, because I know from the "Petition for Paizo to hire Ashiel" thread that Ashiel is a big fan of Maleficent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tels wrote:

Honestly, I can't trust the PRD because it's information is inaccurate, far more so than the d20pfsrd. For example, Paizo's website policy is that it won't update the PRD with FAQs or errata until after a reprint of a book.

So, if I were to quickly reference the PRD about the Ring of Continuation, then I would think that the Ring of Continuation is the over powered item it was when published, instead of nerfed after the FAQrrata.

There's also tons of little tips on the side of the page that offer corrections to published material. Like when there is a misprint and a a huge creature has a CMB of +2 instead of +22. You'll see a [Editor's Note] off to the side explaining that there is an issue, advising to use the correct numbers, but leaving the printed stat block as it was published by Paizo.

Or, how about the feat Glorious Heat, which was originally printed in Faiths of Purity, and then both Mark Moreland and Jason Bulmahn commented about how it was too powerful... Then Paizo reprinted it in it's fully abuseable state in Inner Sea Gods.

Anyone looking up Glorious Heat on the PRD sees it in it's fully powered form without the commentary and suggested changes. In fact,the only 'official' source on the feat is in the Additional Resources bit for PFS which states the changes that d20pfsrd has suggested (grant healing equal to spell level, not caster level).

After all my experience using d20pfsrd, the PRD, and Archvies, I will recommend d20 and Archives over PRD in every situation. I cannot, in good consciousness, suggest the PRD over d20 or the Archvies when it is the less accurate and inferior resource.

In this case, accurate is not always the same as correct. I will admit that I didn't use the PRD very much before working here for exactly the reasons you describe (because it won't have the correct ruling); I use it now most often when I want to search a book to see what was written there without...

Ah, I see, you're using accurate in reference to the published words, an not necessarily the official words when using FAQs/errata or corrections. Similar to why SKR uses it instead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I can't trust the PRD because it's information is inaccurate, far more so than the d20pfsrd. For example, Paizo's website policy is that it won't update the PRD with FAQs or errata until after a reprint of a book.

So, if I were to quickly reference the PRD about the Ring of Continuation, then I would think that the Ring of Continuation is the over powered item it was when published, instead of nerfed after the FAQrrata.

There's also tons of little tips on the side of the page that offer corrections to published material. Like when there is a misprint and a a huge creature has a CMB of +2 instead of +22. You'll see a [Editor's Note] off to the side explaining that there is an issue, advising to use the correct numbers, but leaving the printed stat block as it was published by Paizo.

Or, how about the feat Glorious Heat, which was originally printed in Faiths of Purity, and then both Mark Moreland and Jason Bulmahn commented about how it was too powerful... Then Paizo reprinted it in it's fully abuseable state in Inner Sea Gods.

Anyone looking up Glorious Heat on the PRD sees it in it's fully powered form without the commentary and suggested changes. In fact,the only 'official' source on the feat is in the Additional Resources bit for PFS which states the changes that d20pfsrd has suggested (grant healing equal to spell level, not caster level).

After all my experience using d20pfsrd, the PRD, and Archvies, I will recommend d20 and Archives over PRD in every situation. I cannot, in good consciousness, suggest the PRD over d20 or the Archvies when it is the less accurate and inferior resource.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Tels wrote:

Favorite Disney movie?

Favorite animated movie?

Readies shovel...

Does this mean, depending on Ashiel's answer, you may, or may not be killing, and burying, someone?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Favorite Disney movie?

Favorite animated movie?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:
Tels wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
I Blame Cosmo for yet MORE!!! snow coming our way. They will be snow piles till the start of summer at this rate.
I blame Cosmo for my front yard, in Alaska, looking like this.

I Blame Cosmo for yet More snow...and more snow for the next two days...

I Blame Cosmo for my lack of ability to send this snow up to Tels front yard.

I blame Cosmo for John's inability to send snow to my front yard as well.

I blame Cosmo for my lack of ability to steal snow from John for my front yard.

I blame Cosmo for my yard looking like that since October.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Tels wrote:

Does the revelations of the Starstone mechanic (someone most sponsor you into godhood) mean that some divine being out there knows Norgorber's true form?

Do you know who 'sponsored' each of the Starstone gods? Is this a secret or can you reveal it to us?

No.

Yes. Not at this time.

*tin foil hat ACTIVATE*

Hmm... Does this mean that the being who sponsored Norgorber is dead? Or that the being no longer knows the secret? Perhaps Norgorber stole the secret from this being? Perhaps Norgorber assimilated the being? In essence, Norgorber sponsored himself?

This makes Norgorber far more interesting. Of course, it's also entirely possible Aroden sponsored Norgorber (and I suspect Aroden is the sponsor for Iomodae and Cayden as well). But that's boring. I hope his sponsor and backstory is full of far more mystery and intrigue than that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does the revelations of the Starstone mechanic (someone most sponsor you into godhood) mean that some divine being out there knows Norgorber's true form?

Do you know who 'sponsored' each of the Starstone gods? Is this a secret or can you reveal it to us?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Burnie's Journal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:
I Blame Cosmo for yet MORE!!! snow coming our way. They will be snow piles till the start of summer at this rate.

I blame Cosmo for my front yard, in Alaska, looking like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tels wrote:

Meanwhile, over at... Jeffrey's table, there is a debate over whether or not a lance gets 2-handed bonuses while charging. Because one FAQ says no, while another FAQ says yes.

At the same time, I feel that I can turn to Paizo less and less for guidance when they have FAQs out there that are blatantly incorrect (like the Invisibility Purge affects Natural Invisibility despite Bestiary 2 explicitly stating it doesn't and this has never been changed).

To focus on some of your most convincing points, I can say that I'm also uncomfortable with the inconsistent lance FAQ and the odd response on the purge vs natural invisibility FAQ. My post above is not in surprise that people might pick and choose whether to go with the FAQ solution or their own. Rather, I was trying to express happiness about all the groups in the world full of awesome players and GMs who know how their particular group dynamic works well enough to see an ambiguity, look at the proposed FAQ answer, and go another path that works best for their group. That's excellent!

I was trying to explain why non-PFS players would be upset because of FAQs, but I guess I went off on a vent.

When it comes down to it, there are a great many players out there who might as well be playing PFS without actually doing so as their GMs are playing with Paizo as the Word of God, so anything Paizo says is final.

Meanwhile, you have FAQs that lots of people vehemently disagree with (like the Crane Wing or Monk can't 2-hand flurry). And players who had SLA early access are now playing with illegal characters with GMs who may or may not allow their character to continue or be forced to rebuild.

So the argument of 'you're not in PFS, talk to you GM and house rule it' still stands, it's not always applicable as many GMs are not comfortable doing so.

Many people, after all, look at Paizo not unlike rocket scientists. Most would never dare to tell a rocket scientist how to build a rocket. Likewise, many would not feel comfortable thinking they 'know better' than professionals working at the leading company in their field.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was reading up on Pencak Silat (wikipedia link) for curiosity, and noticed the origin myth is that a woman named Rama Sukana learned to imitate animals fighting each other and taught the moves she learned to her husband and spread from there.

Makes me wonder if there isn't or couldn't be, some sort of origin myth for the various style feats like that of Pencat Silat in Golarion. Or even origin myths for the first Dervish Dancer or something.

1) Are there any origin myths for martial arts or feats or anything like that in Golarion?

2) Do you think a myth like the above adds to, or subtracts, from campaign setting?

3) Would you want one of your past characters to be the origin of a myth in a future game you played?

4) I know that much of Varisia and Golarion is directly drawn from your own campaign setting, but are there any myths for Golarion that were created by one of your own characters?

5) If so, which ones?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

I see. Thank you! :)

Big fan of the book, by the way! I've always liked familiars, though. I saw your post a while back about the enchanter school wizard and the motivation to choose more innocuous familiars, and was very impressed by the subtle depth of design. Plus, I understand the urge to design conservative rules and let DMs house rule them away...

Thanks!

Yeah, if a player's asking for something that doesn't work without the GM making a houserule, then if you make the houserule, you're a hero who was willing to go against the rules in the player's favor, and if you don't, there's less pressure. Since GMs are the ones who have personal relationships with their players, it's probably the best for the game if the official rules wind up being the "strict parent" so to speak, as it promotes rapport more at the table, and it rankles some players if the rules allow something and the GM still bans their unkillable nycar mauler or what-have-you.

It's why I've never really understood non-PFS players who get angry when they disagree with FAQs that their group, as they mention, is not applying, as if by saying they aren't using the FAQ they hope to make the FAQ writers upset. I'm super happy that their group isn't using the FAQ when they know that the other way of ruling it works for them. They've done the analysis for their group, and they know the best choice to make for themselves. Just the fact that they're that advanced at understanding their group dynamic is awesome! Not every group can, and in many cases, the conservative baseline is best for a group that's tentative or new, so that their tentative and new GM doesn't have the added stress of having to rein things in but can instead feel free to start with what we gave her and then say "Yes" even more as she finds that things work for her group.

Because myself and others play with multiple GMs and when I introduce new players to the table, they aren't always aware of which FAQ I am or am not following.

At this point, I've made a document with a list of house rules, but I'm now thinking I have to make a document with a list of Paizo FAQs I don't agree with and am ignoring.

So if I sit down at... let's use Phillip, I like that name... Phillip's table, he may rule that Crane Wing is bad and it should feel bad and have to use the Paizo FAQ on my Lore Warden/Duelist PrC character. While over at... Anastasia's table, Crane Wing is good and she ignores the FAQratta.

Meanwhile, over at... Jeffrey's table, there is a debate over whether or not a lance gets 2-handed bonuses while charging. Because one FAQ says no, while another FAQ says yes.

Then they start asking why something was changed, "Well, it was changed because it was a problem in Pathfinder Society."

"Doesn't Pathfinder Society monitor it's own rules and change things for PFS if it's a problem"

"Why yes, they do."

"Then why did they change a rule that was a problem in PFS in such away that it affects all tables, instead of letting PFS handle it instead?"

"Because, reasons, Arnold."

At the same time, I feel that I can turn to Paizo less and less for guidance when they have FAQs out there that are blatantly incorrect (like the Invisibility Purge affects Natural Invisibility despite Bestiary 2 explicitly stating it doesn't and this has never been changed). When the FAQs keep changing stuff for seemingly arbitrary reasons, or addressing the symptoms of a problem instead of the actual problem themselves...

You begin to understand why people are growing less and less appreciative of the FAQs these days.

Like that FAQ you did awhile back buffing up those three archetypes (ecclesithurge, sniper and one other, I forget). Some people were really upset, because one of the things advertised for the ACG was that there would be 'more ways to use sneak attack at range'.

As the person who transcribed things from the podcast where this was announced, it's really annoying that no such ability was introduced (at least not that I'm aware of) and that the only ability to really use sneak attack at range, is still shoe-horned onto a magical item. Meaning the character is not a sniper, the magical item is.

....

Sorry for venting so much on you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo for being pleased with bringing social media nonsense into the Ask James Jacbos thread. I'm fairly certain I made several people scoff in annoyance and this makes me smile.

Cosmo is tainting me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Mark. Does that mean the kineticists damage isn't multiplied on critical hits any longer? o.O
No, it totally is still multiplied on a crit. It was an explanation of why I wouldn't be using Heladriel's suggestion (well that and the class is already to the editors, so it's past the point of no return in most regards, but that's the difference between an explanation and a reason, and I prefer an explanation).

Let's focus on the important bits.

Mark Seifter wrote:
...the class is already to the editors, so it's past the point of no return in most regards...

This would mean, in my eyes, that further suggestions on the class are kind of pointless. Unless someone finds some game breaking combo with the Kineticist that Mark already hadn't been made aware of (though his knowledge or elsewhere), then I doubt there will be any further changes to the class.

That means like class abilities, including Wild Talents, are already in their final form. So I won't say stop suggesting new abilities for the class, but you have to know it's probably edging on the side of futility.

However, I don't know how Paizo does their archetype design, but I would imagine the archetype writers would get a complete copy of the class before starting on their archetypes.

So... if Mark hasn't already finalized what archetypes he has ordered, it might not be too late to keep coming up with ideas of archetypes. Though how much use that will be is unknown as we don't know who the writers are of if they are still reading this thread, or even if they have ever read this thread.

With all of the above in mind... what archetypes would you guys like to see?

Here's my personal list of desires:
Melee Kineticist can also double as KinetiMonk.
Unarmed Kineticist (KinetiMonk) can also double as Melee Kineticist.
Spirit Detective ala Yu Yu Hakusho, though this could be an archetype for the Monk giving Kineticist like powers.
Primal Kineticist focuses heavily on taking the forms of elementals.
Dual-Kineticist As vanilla Kineticist, but gaining early access to another element, but can never take another element.
Kinetic Healer better able to use healing wild talents and can do more than just heal hp.

Special note: Single Element Focused Kineticist - focuses on a single element to the exclusion of all others.
Aether limited dabbling in other kineticist power, such as being able to raise and lower earth or control and direct fires, but nowhere near on the scale of even a vanilla geo/pyrokinetic.
Aero capable of more party buffs, espionage and travel (think haste, invisibility and even teleportation).
Geo capable of altering landscapes on large scales; possibly even causing earthquakes or waking volcanoes, even raising mountains
Hydro capable of bloodbending and plant bending plus more powers over ice/fog.
Pyro hotter more intense burns, capable of burning even those immune to fire, also even more capable of burning away magic and other supernatural forces i.e. flames can act as banishment/dismissal and possibly even rendering an area void of magic for short a short time or even burning through planar boundaries.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:

I Blame Cosmo for having to go play a D&D Next game tonight...sigh...

Well I guess it could be worse.

Could be 4E...

Or F.A.T.A.L.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Head Transplants/Body Transplants could become a thing.

1) Does this feel right out of a horror movie?
2) Likewise, a science fiction movie?
3) Would you want a new body?
4) Do you think a villain that swaps his head with other bodies would be creepy to go against?
5) How would you regulate special abilities of such a villain? Like Darkvision, or Spell-like Abilities, or Fast Healing?
6) Would this, perhaps, be better as a unique encounter, rather than trying to nail down rules for it? Anyone who does this is custom built, for example.

Any other thoughts you have on this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fricka... fracka *grumble grumble*

Blasted UPS delivered my package to someone else in my neighborhood and I haven't the foggiest whom it is that received it!

I've been sitting at home all day waiting for my package and this is what you do to me Cosmo!

Jerk...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also blame Cosmo for the constant 'refresh' that I keep hitting on my tracking number for my own Reaper minis (due to be delivered tomorrow).

Watching my delivery being scanned on delivery and departure is like a weird sort of miniforeplay and I'm with every update on the tracker, I get closer and closer to a nerdgasm.

I've been riding the edge since last Wednesday and I'm fairly certain I'm going to explode with delight once my package arrives.

In the meantime, I blame Cosmo for the jitters my body goes through while my senses prepare to be overloaded.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo that the professional all weather delivery guys of Alaska haven't trained people elsewhere on how to deliver packages.

Maybe if travel to and from Alaska wasn't so expensive, this wouldn't be an issue. This is also Cosmo's fault.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Katina Mathieson wrote:
Lissa: Because there would nothing like getting a call, getting the oscar meyer weiner song as your ring tone, and then saying "Hold on, I need to answer my hot dog" and pulling a hot dog out of your purse and answering it.

This needs to be a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:

Unless you get cha to saves dumping wisdom is unplayably bad.

8 wisdom and the ggs are going out imo

Don't worry, he took his last level in Fighter and picked up bravery. It's all good now. /sarcasm


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Game Master Scotty wrote:

I blame Cosmo for needing to go into the er for bronchitis several weeks ago.

Then being told to get a follow up for "other" problems.

Causing me to have major stress, breathing issues, and chest pains.

And having my chest x-rayed, not a tumor.

And an ekg, nope heart looks fine, but need to to a specialist, just incase.

And blood work (all doctors are vampires), nope fine there.

Conclusion, possible high level stress causing anxiety/panic? attacks.

So, the hardware is just fine.

But the software sucks.

Shiny...

I blame Cosmo for Game Master Scotty not including the above link.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sara Marie wrote:

robot chris: it’s almost been 4 years guys

robot chris: when do I turn into a pumpkin?

sara marie: the twist is...you already ARE a pumpkin
sara marie: you just have to find out on your own

robot chris: D:

sara marie: you were a pumpkin all along chris

robot chris: OH MY GOURD

sara marie: squash any feelings that tell you otherwise

Proof Sara Marie is the best Empress of the Galactic Empire.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to wonder if this FAQ wasn't changed to make something in Occult Mysteries look better, or to make it so something in Occult Mysteries doesn't break something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame Cosmo for someone on a Pathfinder RPG Facebook Group asking advice on which in which AP it would be best to run a party in which everyone plays a Pony...

Honestly Cosmo, at this point, I wish you would be banished into a realm in which everyone loves and adores you and seeks to fulfill your every desire.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:
Tels wrote:
kinevon wrote:
137ben wrote:

Hey, guys, does Weapon Focus apply when attacking a magical beast?

The actual text says
Weapon Focus wrote:
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

It does say "all attack rolls", and there is no text restricting you to only being able to attack humanoids. However, there is also no next explicitly granting you the ability to use it when attacking nonhumanoids. So, it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't"! To be safe, it's better to assume that the intent was that weapon focus only applies when attacking humanoids. After all, you can just use common sense: if the designers intended for it to apply to attack rolls made against magical beasts, they would have put that in the feat text. They didn't, so obviously it is only intended to work against humanoids.

It's the same thing as this argument over spells. You can read into restrictions that aren't there, but you have to directly contradict what the text actually says

No, Ben, you don't. Really, if you read the item, nowhere does it say you can take a spell that isn't from your own class's spell list.

It says you can add a cantrip or orison, it doesn't say you can add ANY cantrip or orison.

There is a way to get it to work, by the way, but it requires spending a trait as well as buying the item, and there are still cheaper ways to do it.

Does it say I can add an orison? Yes.

Does it say I can add a cantrip? Yes.
Does it say I can only add an orison if I have the orison class feature? No.
Does it say I can only add a cantrip if I have the cantrip class feature? No.

And, if you did that in my games, even before this FAQ, it wouldn't have worked, because it doesn't make any sense.

If it worked in your home games, you can still rule that it works, no matter how nonsensical it seems to other people.

But, RAW, it never said you could cast the spell if it wasn't...

The RAW is quite clear, it allows the spell access. The FAQratta changing the rules doesn't change the RAW. It just changes the rules as to how it's being applied.

I mean, here, look at this one. This is what the Bestiary 2 has to say on the Natural Invisibility ability.

Natural Invisibility (Ex or Su)

This ability is constant—the creature remains invisible at all times, even when attacking. As this ability is inherent, it is not subject to the invisibility purge spell.

Format: natural invisibility; Location: Defensive Abilities.

This is what the FAQ has to say on Natural Invisibility.

FAQ wrote:

Invisibility Purge: Does this work on creatures that are naturally invisible?

In general, yes--nothing in the spell description says it only works on spells or other magical sources of invisibility.
However, note that the invisible stalker's natural invisibility specifically says that it is not subject to invisibility purge. Thus, will-o'-wisps and pixies become visible, but invisible stalkers do not.

Invisible Stalker has Natural Invisibility (Ex)

Will-o'-wisps have Natural Invisibility (Ex)
Pixies have Invisibility (Su)

The RAW is undeniably clear and straight up tells you that Invisibility Purge doesn't work on Natural Invisibility. The FAQ tells you that Invisibility Purge does work on Natural Invisibility.

It's worth noting that Bestiary 2 came out in 2010, while the FAQ on Natural Invisibility came out in 2011.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:
137ben wrote:

Hey, guys, does Weapon Focus apply when attacking a magical beast?

The actual text says
Weapon Focus wrote:
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

It does say "all attack rolls", and there is no text restricting you to only being able to attack humanoids. However, there is also no next explicitly granting you the ability to use it when attacking nonhumanoids. So, it's a case of "the rules don't say you can" vs "the rules don't say you can't"! To be safe, it's better to assume that the intent was that weapon focus only applies when attacking humanoids. After all, you can just use common sense: if the designers intended for it to apply to attack rolls made against magical beasts, they would have put that in the feat text. They didn't, so obviously it is only intended to work against humanoids.

It's the same thing as this argument over spells. You can read into restrictions that aren't there, but you have to directly contradict what the text actually says

No, Ben, you don't. Really, if you read the item, nowhere does it say you can take a spell that isn't from your own class's spell list.

It says you can add a cantrip or orison, it doesn't say you can add ANY cantrip or orison.

There is a way to get it to work, by the way, but it requires spending a trait as well as buying the item, and there are still cheaper ways to do it.

Does it say I can add an orison? Yes.

Does it say I can add a cantrip? Yes.
Does it say I can only add an orison if I have the orison class feature? No.
Does it say I can only add a cantrip if I have the cantrip class feature? No.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
My only problem is from a mechanics standpoint there is no reason to not allow the SLA rules. They aren't mechanically superior to other options available (they are better than their non-early entry equivalents obviously). Whenever this issue is brought up the other side of the argument almost always falls into 'I just don't like it.' or 'It FEELS cheesy.'
Of course there is. Some races benefit form it while others do not, that is an imbalance.

Wait, so it's imbalanced for a magical race with inborn magical abilities capable of casting spells simply because they were born... to be better or faster at certain areas of magic than other, non-magical, races?

Well then, the real world is imbalanced cause them damned chimpanzees aren't using a proper point buy. They are clearly stronger and more agile than I am (probably have high HP too). It's easier for them to get Power Attack than me.

Paizo please nerf Chimpanzees.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do you think there is a room for a class that 'builds combos' off itself? I've been playing Dragon Age: Iinquisition's multiplayer and I keep remembering back to Mass Effect 3's multiplayer and combat system.

In case you aren't aware, certain powers were able to 'Set' an enemy up for a combination, while other powers would 'Detonate' them and have special effects based off what type of power was used to Set the enemy up.

For example, if you set them up with a Fire power, and detonated it, it would release a small AoE blast of fire damage and light the enemy on fire for a short time. (it also dealt lots of damage to enemy Armor, a type of defense in the game)

A 'Cold' power that froze an enemy could be shattered, a 'Tech' would cause an electric explosion and deal massive damage to enemy shields.

A Biotic combo was special as it deal lots of damage to enemy Armor and enemy Barriers (magic force field as opposed to technologic force field)

I'm curious as to whether or not a 'combo' character could be built for Pathfinder. Like possibly a weird take on a Kineticist/Witch hybrid or something. It would have weaker powers that could be used in a combo to cause more damage plus debuffs (like entangled, fatigued, vulnerability to an element etc.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Why can't they handle encounters intended for their level?
Because they are effectively not equal to their level.

All of the same statements could be made about any multi-class character who has some martial and some magic, but they are all over the place and seem to work fine in the game. Why are PrCs sooooo much worse that people are saying that they are "garbage" and such?

Are people really unable to handle level appropriate encounters with PrC characters? Does having to do a couple levels of some casting class instead of picking a drow or whatever really ruin your ability to participate at an adequate level in the game?

Multi-class characters can indeed be weaker than single class characters. Prestige classes are also weaker than base classes.

So a Prestige Class more often than not requires multiclassing to enter.

So now you have multiclass (weaker option) with Prestige classes (weaker option) meaning it's a double weakness.

Oh, but wait! There's more! Fairly often the multiclass and prestige class require spread out stat requirements without compensating for it. So you end up with lower stats all around, and this means that if one of your classes is a caster, you have lower DCs on your spells and lower spells available.

So weaker stats, weaker multiclass, weaker prestige class. Very often this tends to mean that your character will feel overshadowed and/or inconsequential in encounters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ian Bell wrote:
It's disingenuous to say that people who weren't playing affected characters weren't affected by the FAQ (in either incarnation). It's a cooperative game and anything that any player at the table does affects everyone else to an extent (especially the GM.)

Unless you are using the previous ruling, you remain unaffected by it. Period.

Why does an SLA qualify and not an Extraordinary? Because an Extraordinary isn't magical.

What about Supernatural? Nope, doesn't mimic a spell.

With the previous ruling, using an SLA allowed you to craft magical items, take prestige classes, use magical feats (like Arcane Strike) etc. The only time a SLA wasn't a spell, seemed to be in the 'dispel/counter' option for readied actions. You can't ready an action to dispel/counter a spell like ability because they weren't spells, but likewise, you can't use a spell like ability to dispel/counter a spell either.

Option A removes fun, flavorful, but not super powerful abilities from the game.

Option B keeps the fun, flavorful but not super powerful abilities in the game.

Camp 1 is unaffected by either option. Camp 2 doesn't use Option B but likes Option A however their characters won't really be affected by either ruling. Camp 3 likes Option B and uses Option B because it's fun.

Let's go with Option A and make the people who play with the option, upset, the people who don't play with the option, mildly appreciative, and remove magical options from the none casters.

Paizo Publishing: "Martials, HA! Filthy peasants."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
Sarcasm Elemental wrote:
Tels wrote:
Every time I see a FAQ like this, I come closer and closer to declaring Paizo unfit to issue rulings on their products.
Declare all you want, it amounts to nothing more than whale farts.
I share Tels's sentiments here, and I think it shows that people who like this game aren't happy with the way it's being handled.

Some people, yes.

Others are fine with it.

Reddit seems just as split about it as this forum, and since reddit is the generally-more-even-keeled forum for pathfinder, I'd have to say that it's just divisive - a third like it, a third hate it, and a third doesn't care 'cause it doesn't affect 'em.

A third don't care as it doesn't affect them - a third like it, but doesn't really affect them - and a third hate it as it affects them because their characters are now illegal and don't function.

Congratulations on changing the rules to suit the whims of people who were unaffected by the previous rules!!!

In other news, Paizo Publishing has proposed a bill to Congress that would make it illegal for people to use electricity because the Amish don't like it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Every time I see a FAQ like this, I come closer and closer to declaring Paizo unfit to issue rulings on their products.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Endoralis wrote:
I dunno if I agree with Vital Strike not working with Melee kineticist. The feat over all this time is basically useless (Or requires somewhere around SIX feat to not be) to most Martial characters and the ones who CAN do it rely on Magic (Druids Im looking at you), while this ONE class makes it worth it and doesnt have to jump through hoops to do so. What is the issue with that? Oh it allows the Melee to be stronger? Well then you can stay ranged blasting as far as an archer or heck just use a Conductive Bow.

It really is a fairly odd ruling and one that will break immersion.

"So... I can swing this sword and make a single powerful blow with this new feat... But I can't swing this melee blast into a single powerful blow with this feat. This melee blast functions like a weapon in every other way and can be used as a weapon in every other single scenario... except this one?"

Wouldn't be the first immersion breaking restriction I've seen. For example, you can't cast create water on top of someone, you have to cast it into a container and then dump the container on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
How hot is Kyra?

On a scale of 1 to 10, is she a 20?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly? This FAQ right here is why I can never play nor GM for PFS. Too many FAQs that I don't agree with and that I would blatantly ignore at tables I ran. Crane Wing nerf? Yeah know, we use original Crane Wing, this FAQ? Ignored. Before the Monk 'clarification' was changed, that was another thing I ignored as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Tels wrote:
When will we get "50 Shades of Alain?"
You mean like "Hi, I'm Alain, I have Dish TV. " "Hi, I'm Flunked out of my Cavalier Order Alain, and I have cable." ?

I was thinking more of a book about Alain writing 50 times he was both sexy and awesome (in his mind).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I'm gather from this, is that Wes is a great target for a domination spell to take control of the rules teams.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic JMD031 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Chyrone wrote:
I haven't read the thread that far back, maybe too Rysky for my eyes to fathom.

*pinches nose*

JMD031, do you still have that counter going?

I blame Cosmo (1) that Rysky can't handle a little punishment.
A POX ON ALL YOUR HOUSES!

Now you feel my pain. No, I gave up on that counter a long time ago due to the amount of puns that were posted everyday...but the thread persists.

I blame Cosmo (2) for the existence of puns. If I have already blamed Cosmo (3) for this, then I blame Cosmo (4) for anyone who points this out. I also blame Cosmo (5) for anyone in the future who makes a pun in relation to this post.

I also also blame Cosmo (6) for JK not appreciating his education in the ways of blaming Cosmo (7).

I also also also blame Cosmo (8) for the amount of times I've used the word Cosmo (9) in this post. Seven is the number.

I count 9 Cosmos (Ah-ah-ah), but even if we only count the ones that you yourself added, that is stil 8 cosmos.

I blame Cosmo because even Mythic JMD031 can't count. How is he supposed to have a counter to keep track of all the puns people use if the creator himself can't count?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Caineach wrote:
I just noticed RWBY on Netflix last night.
I saw that too. They've (very cogently) made each "volume" of the first season into a single episode - meaning that they're essentially presented as two movie-length features.
Awe, but that means you don't get to sit through the awesome intro song until it is stuck in your head :(

You speak as if though it isn't already...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Master Pugwampi wrote:

*peaks into thread*

*checks to see the coast is clear*

I Blame Cosmo for no gremlins in this years RPG Superstar monster round! Nar-Voth is a great place for pranks and the destruction of those lousy mites! What is wrong with you designers?!? Are you cowards or...

*thinks he hears the sounds of an approaching succubus*

...oops, sorry, can't hang about!

*fades out of the thread using a new trick he just picked up*

*sniffs air*

Anybody else smell some adorableness? No? Just me?

There is a hint of 'cuddlyness' in the air...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic JMD031 wrote:
I blame Cosmo for JK's inability to understand how blaming Cosmo works.

I blame Cosmo for JM blaming Cosmo for something I already blamed Cosmo for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:

I Blame Cosmo for probably the lack of any romance this Valentine's Day.:(

I will confirm this later....don't want to unjustly blame him after all.

Cosmo is never unjustly blamed for anything. Even good things are Cosmo's fault, because he wants to make us happy before ripping the happiness away to make our suffering all the more intense.

I blame Cosmo for John's lack of enlightenment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

Kabriri, Demon Lord of Ghouls (and cannibalism) and Wendigos are both things, though.

Intent and circumstances seem to be critical.

E.g., there's is a difference between a lizardfolk eating the honored dead and a goblin seeking to roast himself up some babies.

There's also a demon lord of lust, and one of secrets, and one of wind, but none of those are evil either.

Just because a demon lord holds sway over an ideal, doesn't mean the idea is evil.

Goblins roasting babies is evil because the babies have to be killed first. However, if the babies were dead due to some other reason (like still birth), it's not evil. Lord knows those goblins probably butchered a birthing center to do it though :P

Snicker, I would probably classify what you did as evil, because it seems your first instinct was to eat the person, instead of diffuse the threat. You say the fey was casting spells and being annoying, but were they harming anyone? Were they posing an actual threat at the time?

I mean, fey often take the form of pranksters, admittedly, some of their pranks can be more deadly than others...

Still, if a pixie were to cast silent image and make a scary face jump out of the trees just to shock you... I don't think eating her alive is the correct response there.

1 to 50 of 1,383 << 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.