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. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Mesa. 26,461 posts (34,584 including aliases). 14 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 16 Pathfinder Society characters. 38 aliases.


1 to 50 of 5,617 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dmchucky69 wrote:
Tis true. I am a fanboi through and through.

See, I was trying to be nice instead of calling out the brigade. :)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think anyone doubts the fervor of Paizo fans.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Meh. If it's news, it ain't on Facebook.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Why is level implied as a source bonus? The only thing this FAQ addresses was untyped stat bonuses. nothing about level. If you guys keep this up you'll derail this and people will get confused. I can understand if you're upset at the ruling, I don't like it, I felt double dipping was fine. But there's no reason to say that this makes a rule that it doesn't talk about at all. Up until they say level is a source or a type it's not.

This is a good point. The FAQ question specifically addresses ability bonuses, not other bonuses. Of course, it is reasonable to consider other bonuses also falling under this ruling, as there is little distinction between them.

I do note that Challenge says it causes extra damage equal to the cavalier's level, where as Precise Strike says it adds level to damage. Is this distinction important? Well, I can't say.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

This "type changes source" thing just does not sit well with me, as nothing prior to this FAQ, even implies such a thing.

Is it in the "unwritten rules"?

NO! there are no unwritten rules in the game that are rules players need to follow. If it's not a written rule it's not a rule

The "unwritten rules" are indeed not meant for players. They are the guidelines that the developers follow to inform their rule decisions. That is what the PDT is trying to accomplish with this FAQ.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Somebody talking about me?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

No. Reporting is intended to be the same as the GM 101 and 201 products. 4 one hour sessions equal one table.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

wat

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Liranys wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
Liranys wrote:
A rogue. Wielding a Greatsword. This does not compute. Yeah, I'd say that beats the rogue-trying-to-be-a-fighter hands down.
Greataxe wielding rogue has been a tradition since 1st edition!
Because it's so very easy to be sneaky while wielding a freaking great big ax?

Do you know how much more a greataxe hurts when you don't see it coming?

Spoiler:
1d6 per 2 levels.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Mesa aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Haller wrote:
Cheating needs to be shameful. It really needs to be harshly punished, but the nature of PFS makes that challenging (it's hard to really ban someone from play, for example).

No, it is actually quite easy. We've banned people here in Phoenix before.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes. That's why I change the rules to suit me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
Want some popcorn?

Don't mind if I do NOM NOM NOM

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Mesa aka TriOmegaZero

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The ability to compartmentalize player and character knowledge and only act on the latter is a required skill in organized play, where replay and GMs as players is a reality. So long as this responsibility is understood and respected, you should not have a problem with a player having read the scenario. As soon as the player begins using his knowledge of the scenario to inform his characters actions, he has broken that trust and acted irresponsibly.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do so love when someone looks down on 'munchkin' play...

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liranys wrote:
Yeah. I.. Wow.. nope. I've DM's for unvetted TEENAGERS and not had this kind of an issue. Of course, I never DM online, only in person and people seem to behave better in person because it's not as "anonymous" as posting online.

Be very glad you haven't run into people like these in person, that suck the life from the group and the game.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did someone say puppies?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Liranys wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
With a decent bluff, and feats or a flanking buddy and a feat, or a mage and a spell our rogue can get SA almost all the time.
Exactly my point. It's possible if feats and skills are taken full advantage of. If the rogue is still not sneak attacking, then the DM isn't understanding the rules for the Rogue abilities or is being a total dick.

This isn't a thread about the Rogue class specifically, so I'll say my piece and be done.

I have to actually build and play my characters specifically to support the rogue. Otherwise, I find that flank opportunities don't come up enough, and when they do other characters kill the enemy before the Rogue can attack. And when he does attack, he still has to hit, which is a rare occasion.

So I disagree that the DM is at fault for a Rogue not getting sneak attack. Much of the blame is on the class itself.

Andoran

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
voska66 wrote:
So as GM feel free to add negatives or increase the DC for factors that affect the use of the skill. The base DC is just where it starts. Some skills have these modifiers already for certain situation, use them as guide. They book can't tell you every circumstance that may effect a skill. As character gets to be high level they should be able to pull off skill rolls they'd never be able to at lower level.

I think the problem here is that most people are seeing this as 'the GM is making things harder because I have a high skill'. And some people here have admitted that is their reasoning.

Good GMs will only adjust circumstances where it is warranted, while allowing players to auto-succeed on the checks that aren't extraordinary. If every situation is your speed metal concert example, it will wear thin very quickly.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Dark_Mistress wrote:
IMHO everyone having their moment to shine has more to do with the GM than the game rules.

I disagree. The more the rules support everyone getting their moment, the less I have to work on it as a GM, leaving me more time and energy to work on things the system cannot help me with, like personalities and plots.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dark_Mistress wrote:
Balance is over rated and subjective. As long as everyone has their moments to shine and are having fun.

Then we only disagree on the point that 'Pathfinder allows everyone to have their moments to shine'.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
you misunderstood, that was the whole campaign.

What a boring campaign.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am very confused.

Shadow Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
(I will now be interrupted by an even older codger, who will say that there used to be TWO faction missions per adventure, so half the party would do that and then leave before killing the bad guy)

What kind of self-respecting murderhobos would leave an enemy unmolested?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I used to have to argue with my creepy neighbor. Now it doesn't matter how creepy you are!

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

So even levels can be XP proxies?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Malakav wrote:
PD For the peolpe WHO STILL LIKE PATH, this in NO WAY affects you, if you like the system good for you, i just changed opinion that is all

Thank you for your opinion. I hope you enjoy your gaming, whatever system you settle on.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Edit: Fair enough DrD.

Kthulhu wrote:
Probably because you aren't pimping TOZfinder.

Yeah, but I pimped Kirthfinder just as much as he did. Just wondering why the double-standard.

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it's so strange he responded to the request for an alternative to Pathfinder with the alternative he wrote. People usually don't promote their own work after all.

What class did you develop again? I've forgotten. :)

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
... now I'm curious if the Toz in the comments is our TOZ.

...oh s$&+, I think it is!

Andoran

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Eltacolibre wrote:
Frankly, I don't think that everything should be balanced to be viable at the same scale of power all the time but that's just my opinion.

The thing is, everything being balanced doesn't affect you, but things being imbalanced affect me.

So it makes more sense to work on achieving the former rather than settle for the latter.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Huh, never really thought about habits formed from other media. I always thought exploring dungeons fully was just a wise precaution against surprises. I guess it depends on the group, as some might reason it to be getting that 100% Clear achievement. :)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Ah, DeviantArt. The Facebook for artists.
you take that back, you!

Search your feelings. You know it to be true!

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Aranna wrote:

Yes the characters remain perfectly balanced against each other in a no XP game. No effort needed by the GM or Player.

Where is BMX Bandit when you need him?

I don't think we agree about perfectly. Class differences, player skill, and random die rolls mean even characters with equal levels aren't balanced against each other.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
You know I have been searching for an analogy for the no XP style and I think I have it. It is like putting training wheels on a bicycle. It KEEPS you perfectly balanced regardless of the skill of the rider.

No, it really doesn't. You can certainly play that way, but as Aux has pointed out running identical challenges over and over will cause people to lose interest. But using XP or not doesn't force you to play that way.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah, DeviantArt. The Facebook for artists.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I've always felt that backstories are written at the table, not before.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
There is a massive difference between 'GM decides that the players are definitely going to win' and 'GM tries to make fair and balanced encounters'.

And that difference has nothing to do with the underlying state of the game.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Mark Moreland wrote:
Obviously I don't work for Paizo,

I love how the forum software updates post headers and leads to amusing situations like this post. :)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Somehow I imagine Freehold doing this.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Dungeon Master Zack wrote:
It's strange to me that Paizo is so known for their adventure paths and yet their rules system is not really suited for it- since it's based on D&D. D&D (and therefore Pathfinder) is at it's core basically still a wargame. I like that, but it kind of gets in the way of trying to tell a story about a group of heroes on and epic quest, since there is always the possibly of the story coming to a screeching halt because of a TPK or other problems like- say a failed Survival roll to track the baddies to there lair. Yet Pathfinder still has been and might still be the most popular rpg in the world when there are many games who theoretically do what it's trying to do better.

Better doesn't matter if you can't get a group together.

And the APs are not routes, their road maps. You can arrive at the same destination multiple ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
TOZ, you need to share with Kirth that contingency/wish that notifies you when your name is mentioned.

He doesn't have the mojo to afford it.

Andoran

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Well, when you have to get your internet through the mail....

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Auxmaulous wrote:
I guess we do look at it differently then.

It's a philosophical thing. The game is no different, you're just looking at it from different perspectives.

But it is why I can't take the view that experience is earned seriously, or feel that players need to earn their character levels.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
You're...a book?

He doesn't write house rules, he reproduces them.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Auxmaulous wrote:
So for all the padding a GM may apply, if you roll in the open and drop that hammer then you are not running a "GM lets you" game.

I absolutely am. Because it has everything to do with allowing you to win, not allowing you to fail.

I can make the PCs fail every time. I have to allow them to win. And I allow that before I even begin the game.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Auxmaulous wrote:

It isn't a case of: A + B + C + D series of encounters, which all designed to be level appropriate/winnable, thus why bother even giving xp.

In some cases a few of those encounters are designed way above the PCs head, beyond their ability or even foreshadowing encounters - you can still give them some xp for running away/avoiding it. At least till they get higher level/x item to come back and trounce it.

But in both cases, the GM is allowing the PCs to win/escape. When someone has absolute control of the game, you only succeed at their whim.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Mesa aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The PaizoCon play test did not have the final act of the scenario. If you played it at GenCon or after, then everything after the throne room fight was the twist.

1 to 50 of 5,617 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.