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

TriOmegaZero's page

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Mesa. 29,558 posts (38,631 including aliases). 13 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 22 Pathfinder Society characters. 42 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
9mm wrote:
...and lets face it, if they did this thread wouldn't exist.

Bad logic is bad.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There really IS a spell for everything.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

By the rules, the fighter is flanked. Being invisible does not prevent a creature from threatening. Not attacking does not prevent you from threatening. If you are threatening, you provide a flank.

Flanking wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

There is no language about awareness in the flanking rules.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

I'm not sure that identity is going to work out, even with the Vigilante class.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber
Samy wrote:
Well, my apologies for misunderstanding you then.

Apology accepted. Philosophical differences make misunderstandings entirely understandable.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

If you're unable to see that war is evil while those who fight it aren't, I can't help you.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber
DSXMachina wrote:
Best form of self-defence is fleeing, especially for a mount ;)

Got it, all mounts retreat from battle.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

That doesn't prevent them from being a valuable member of the team. It just makes it harder to value them.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
TOZ wrote:
This is the most asinine twisting of rules to accomplish a goal I have ever seen.
Is this more asinine than the huge number of other "omg I found another broken combo, Paizo you fools" rules manipulations out there?

Yes.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is the most asinine twisting of rules to accomplish a goal I have ever seen.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

Yeah, I write whatever alignment needed and do what I was going to do anyway.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like this thread is a digital version of that note passed in class with yes and no check blocks.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Mesa aka TriOmegaZero

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The collector in me wants to volunteer for HQ just so I can get those orange shirts...

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

Yep. Works according to the rules. Certainly wasn't intended. GM should veto the combo as soon as it is suggested.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

I play Pathfinder because it's popular.

But it is based on 3.5, so yeah I like it too. Warts and all.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber
Chris Lambertz wrote:

- Let's assume the PRD is a blank slate and we can have any unicorn we want, how would you invision errata being notated here?

- Are versioned PDFs a thing you'd use and want?

Versioned PDFs would be excellent. (As a VO it would be great to have every version of the Guide to Organized Play as reference for how the campaign has evolved.)

I also like the idea mentioned upthread about having an option to view previous versions on the PRD, with the current version being default and a toggle to adjust between printings for each individual book.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Nobody said its not meant to be played but it isn't supported. Not supported means not intended.

False.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bigrig107 wrote:
Well, besides PFS. But you kinda sign up for that.

Boy did I ever.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:

There is no "if" in this case. Even the organized play ends normally at level 12. There are a handful of special modules past that point.

Look at the Adventure Paths. Notice what levels they end at.

They include higher level content for those who want it but you notice those higher levels are rarely supported.

You obviously haven't paid attention to the 3PP offerings and support. Paizo doesn't make high-level stuff specifically because it doesn't sell as well as low-level stuff. Not because high-level is not meant to be played.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rynjin: I think Chris has tackled this.
I don't think so, since similar things have been said in the past and little has come of those promises as of yet except more promises to do the thing they promised to do a while back.

Sometimes the answer doesn't change because the problems are still there.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Maneuvermoose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'd almost like to go back to 3.5, as that was a system I knew, and it certainly wouldn't be changing unless I deemed it necessary.
Yessssss. Come back to ussssss!

And THEN I would patch in all the PF rules that I thought worked better, constructing a Frankenstienian monstrosity of core and house rules! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
So you can play the game as not intended all you like, and it isn't doing it wrong by any means, but you also can't complain that the game breaks down at some point under its own weight.

You can say it wasn't intended to be played that way, but the fact remains that we did it and never saw it break down. We saw more breakdown between spellcasters and warriors than actual underpinnings of the game mechanics.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

I'd almost like to go back to 3.5, as that was a system I knew, and it certainly wouldn't be changing unless I deemed it necessary.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
You pick up a fresh sheet you pick a class and you write a 1 next to it and you begin again.

That might be what you do. Me, I've gone to level 30, and would do it again. Anything to avoid retreading that same beaten path of 1st level again.

Shadow Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, but you're hardly a normal case RD.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

Thanks for trying to answer what you can, Chris.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

I believe you are conflating the barbarian class with the barbarian stereotype.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not the most impressive feat of necromancy we've seen, but quite despicable anyway.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

Let me know how that works for you.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

wat

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber
Just a Guess wrote:
He states that the balance was done assuming that the wizard is strong as long as he has spells and weak after that while the fighter is always at half strength. But that actually no one keeps on adventuring while the wizard is weak so in the end you have always strong wizards and always mediocre fighters. ( recounted in my words)

I wish I could have bought him a drink at PaizoCon.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
If you like the klunky, dumb, or broken rule, do you really wish they don't notice it and make it more clear so it has lees incorrect interpretations?

Clarifications remove the GMs ability to creatively interpret the rules to suit their table, especially in organized play.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Mesa aka TriOmegaZero

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And? I'm just killing time until Mike or John respond.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Mesa aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regardless of what track your character is on, the adventure still grants a Chronicle sheet and 1 XP. How much your character earns does not affect that.

Shadow Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll have what he's having.

Grand Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

I find having a solid ruleset leaves me more time for cooperative roleplay as I don't have to spend time working around the rules instead of with them.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Mesa aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
That's sort of shady, though, if the GM is ready to run CORE and you dump Normal on them?

This is why you let the GM know at muster that you are looking to switch from Core to Normal. It doesn't require any further prep on his part.

Grand Lodge ***** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Mesa aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My personal sheet.
Phoenix's public sheet.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
It clearly is badly designed. Terribly, in fact.

Nope. You just didn't like it.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
forger03 wrote:
Divine Protetion was a decidedly fun and enjoyable power feat that worked great according to all those I know. Now it's... a feat I don't think anyone I know would ever bother taking. Including myself.

Hahahaha. Hah. No.

Worst designed feat ever. The people who were responsible for the original release should have worn hubcaps of shame until they fixed this. The fix may be a bit overzealous, but this feat should never have been published in the first place.

Hahahahahano. At least it actually DID something.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Julie Iaccarino wrote:
I ate too many tacos.

I don't understand.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

Honestly, the problem with Divine Protection is that it's just Moar Numbers. It doesn't make the game any more interesting, it just adds another way to try not to fail a save.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber
Cort Odekirk wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Cort is my hero.
You just covet my bedazzled ban hammer of justice (+4)

Hardly. I'm more covetous of your prodigious mustache. All I can manage is a fuzzy caterpillar on my upper lip.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Class Decks, Modules Subscriber

Most of my posting history is intended solely to be entertainment.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cort is my hero.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Is Paizo sending a clear message that they're in such a hurry to rush a new book to market and make the quick buck that playtesting and rule balance is now pushed off to post-release, or ignored all together?

Tell me what you think the answer is when Occult Adventures is out for perusal.

1 to 50 of 7,166 << 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.