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

WWWW's page

663 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 663 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Source has always referred to the specific spell, feat, class/racial ability, not the some undefined broad category.
You start off admitting that there have been a small group that disagrees but then say your view is just how it has always been. A majority of people holding an incorrect view doesn't magically make that view correct. The FAQ just confirmed that the majority was wrong all along, at least with regards to PF, not that they were right and now it has changed.
I don't think this is the case. The design team has reached the conclusion that they don't intend double-dipping except when they do, but that doesn't mean that the "source" language was actually intended to mean that originally.

Eh, given such as the monk flurry ruling I wouldn't say that. Who can know what the developers intended to change in the move from 3.5. Plus with multiple people on the project there might not have even been a concrete intention. In any case, it does not seem unreasonable that they might have wanted to change the source of a bonus from the effect that grants the bonus to the appropriate ability modifier derived statistic, especially given the number in this thread that desired that when the situation had no ruling.

Anyway, that really doesn't matter. Developer intent is not necessarily the right or wrong choice to use. In this case it seems to me like an overly complicated and confusing choice for no apparent gain, and thus what I would consider a poor choice.


Rikkan wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Will there be other instances of multiple sources for a single bonus?

Is this FAQ meant to be an exception to both how to determine a source, and the stacking of untyped bonuses?

Well when I asked if level was a source too, Mark replied this on page 10 of this thread(bold is mine):

Mark Seifter wrote:
Also, to everyone looking at "level as a source" and the swashbuckler's precise strike deed. Agnostic of whether level might become a source (we didn't say it was), the deed say it doubles the bonus, so it's a multiplier and would work regardless. Anyway, there is not some further scope that this FAQ is currently intended to reach. It's more that there's a discipline about reducing (or not increasing) bonus types that I didn't know about. Given the confusion with the sources explanation, we shall see if there might be a consensus that this time it's worth it.

Huh, that seems rather confusing unless one has read that particular clarification in this thread.


Mark Seifter wrote:
I prefer "Nothing has changed. However, the text involved was complicated and not at all obvious, so it is no fault of yours whether you saw it or not." I would honestly rather see people posting in anger about something I worked on (which obviously I don't enjoy) than see people posting the whole "It should have been obvious to you" thing, even if it's in support of something I worked on. It wasn't obvious, or there wouldn't have been need for an FAQ. There's no need to draw lines in the sand or pick sides and be "against" each other here. We're all people who enjoy playing Pathfinder, and we just want to have a great time in our games and figure out how the game works together.

Well, that's not really compatible, is it. If one side thinks that this is a rule change then we're not really figuring out how the game works so much as figuring out how the developers want the game to work and then making it work that way. But that's neither here nor there. Pathfinder is its own game and depending on the unwritten circumstances in play it may actually have worked a particular way the whole life of the game. What's really important is whether the benefit of the more complicated method is worth the complication. As I can see little to no benefit then it seems like needless complication.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, so what the faq really means is that "bonuses do not stack if they come from the same source." should be changed to "bonuses that have one or more of their sources in common do not stack (typed bonuses and untyped bonuses that do not reference an ability modifier have only one source, an untyped bonus that references an ability modifier has two sources, one of which is that same ability modifier)."

Eh, randomly changing from the old one source method seems needlessly complicated for little to no benefit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not imbalance really. Rather it is when the game material doesn't give people what they need to make well informed decisions and not really a problem when it does. For example, the rules don't present NPC classes as equal to the other classes so nobody cares that they are worse then their counterparts.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Charender wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:


So a passive counter to teleport could easily start at 2nd-3rd level. Think about it - creating a passive ward with a single function that may or may not need to come into play - an insurance spell if you will.
While the teleport spell is an aggressive, convenient, fast and low risk method of possibly attacking a foe/infiltrating his base. Large area/more reliable counter raises the level of the counter-teleport.

Using the spell creation rules, you could make a spell that functions exactly like Hallow, but limited in that it only allows you to attach a spell to an area for a year(the other 3 effects of Hallow are removed). Since the spell is basically a weakened version of Hallow, that would put it at a level 4 spell. Combine with diminsional anchor, and you can ward an area for a year the cost of 2 4th level spells. A level 7 wizard could ward quite a large area in a month's time.

Which is great - problem is since it didn't come already written in core or splat any DM who writes up such a spell is resorting to GM fiat and arbitrarily trying to "screw the caster".

At least that's the mentality directed towards people who want to reign in power or eliminating win buttons.

Now now, if the DM is just as lenient with regards to the wizard player gaming the spell creation system it seems fair. I mean, simulacrum copies a bunch of stuff from the target creature that is not really necessary. Why not cut those out to save some spell levels.


Diego Rossi wrote:
I.e.: by living as a soldier in enemy territory. Exactly my point.

Well, if by living as a soldier in enemy territory you mean, having the amenities of home if so desired, the ability to do just about whatever you want, no real fear of reprisal from the population or government, etc. then yes I suppose so.


Diego Rossi wrote:
WWWW wrote:
They are level 15+. If they want a drink they can probably just teleport off to the the beer making capital of the world or something.

Whit a 3% chance of ending somewhere else. I love how people hand wave away that little factor.

Sure, they can use greater teleport and be 2 7th spell short every time they want a beer, get clean clothing and so on. And the US troop in Afghanistan can hop a plane and go to a allied state for a nookie.
Still usually they don't do that and instead try to keep the local population happy.

Or they could just, you know, cast the spell again. And really, what kind of high level adventures don't have some sort of way to store large amounts of things. If it matters that much one can just bring back a portable hole full of beer or something. Seriously none of this seems like much of an inconvenience. Dirty clothes was solved at level 1 by a cantrip, food can be handled by create food and water or ranks in the survival skill or even a bag of holding full of rations, etc.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Your characters would really like to live as foreign troops at Mombasa or in Afghanistan?

It the city really hate you you can't go to a tavern to drink something, you have no one willing to sell you food, do your laundry or even speak with you.
The characters can destroy the town, but if they have to live in it making every citizen hate you isn't a good move.

They are level 15+. If they want a drink they can probably just teleport off to the the beer making capital of the world or something.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Speaking as someone deeply involved in natural farming methods, using the term 'organic' to describe something which occurs naturally is a bit of a misnomer.

Organic can either mean 'meets organic certifications' (which is usually still incredibly forced, artificially structured agriculture) or 'contains carbon' neither of which genuinely describe a natural process.

/endrant

I suppose that if you took it to mean organic as in food or organic as in chemistry then it would not work as well. Personally I was assuming that people were using the definition "characteristic of, relating to, or derived from living matter/living organisms" when they said organic.


zagnabbit wrote:
WWWW wrote:
swoosh wrote:
I'm not quite sure how it's more organic. Simpler, sure, since you just roll a few dice. Frustrating, possibly, if you're looking to play a monk but only roll over twelve once. But organic? I don't really see it.

It's more organic in the way that in real life you get a random assortment of ability and some people are just better at things then others. So, like real life, you may be unsuited for the jobs you like and thus are either forced to take one you dislike or suck at the one you like. This more accurately represents the drudgery and desperation that we organic beings experience.

Plus if you throw together 3d6 in order with stat requirements on certain classes and old school meat grinder campaigns you get something more organic in that it is kind of like natural selection.

In modern D&D, character death is viewed as a failure on the part of the DM. Very different than the old days where surviving to "Name Level" was actually a big deal.

I think Organic is an apt term in that rolling stats is the beginning of character creation instead of having a concept as the beginning and generating stats is like buying equipment.

Yeah, the choice of term is reasonably apt in framing the idea of organic growth versus planned construction, natural versus artificial, etc.


swoosh wrote:
I'm not quite sure how it's more organic. Simpler, sure, since you just roll a few dice. Frustrating, possibly, if you're looking to play a monk but only roll over twelve once. But organic? I don't really see it.

It's more organic in the way that in real life you get a random assortment of ability and some people are just better at things then others. So, like real life, you may be unsuited for the jobs you like and thus are either forced to take one you dislike or suck at the one you like. This more accurately represents the drudgery and desperation that we organic beings experience.

Plus if you throw together 3d6 in order with stat requirements on certain classes and old school meat grinder campaigns you get something more organic in that it is kind of like natural selection.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
EDIT: also, I am seriously starting to want UMD removed from the game. It's kind of an interesting option, but at this point everybody's just waving it around saying 'I can use magic too I don't need real class features' and it's getting really f*+!ing old.

Yeah, that's why we had the commoner test back in the day. Admittedly "commoner test" is somewhat of a misnomer given the way class skills shook out but it's a sufficiently evocative name that one generally forgives the imprecision.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
EDIT 2: am I the only one whose starting to get the impression some of the people posting in these threads want UMD as a skill removed from the game and to let anybody use wands/scrolls freely? So many posters seem to assume burning skill points in UMD is automatic.

Well you can hardly blame them. Spells are just so good that everyone wants spells, even the "non-magic" classes.


Khrysaor wrote:
Justin Sane wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

Gate (Lvl 9*)

Planar Ally (Lvl 6)
Planar Ally, Greater (Lvl 8)
Planar Ally, Lesser (Lvl 4)
Planar Binding (Lvl 6*)
Planar Binding, Greater (Lvl 8*)
Planar Binding, Lesser (Lvl 5*)
If you can't harm an enemy caster with any of these, you're doing something incredibly wrong.
So why didn't the wizard that threw up the AMF not use one of those spells long before using a strategy to stop other casters from affecting him? Why is one side supposed to be so smart that they can use some spells and the guy who cast the AMF just standing there doing nothing because he had no intelligence to think up this strategy? Everyone loves to argue for the stupid guy standing in the AMF waiting to die.

Because antimagic field uses the same level slots as planar binding?


Right, so I am going to say that you should stick with the system that you know best. Familiarity allows you to spend less time trying not to forget the minor differences and what not and more time on playing the game. Also the more familiar system will probably lend itself to better improvising which can be very important at times. If there is anything from the other game that you like the systems are similar enough that you can probably modify it over.


shallowsoul wrote:
WWWW wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

And?

Resource consumption is made into the design of the game. You are expected to use resources, you don't get anything extra by saving resources.

Nah, of course you get something extra by saving resources. If you are using refreshing resources you get extra encounters in a day or whatever the refresh period is. If you are using non-refreshing consumables you get extra gold or whatever currency you used to acquire the consumables.

LOL!

Not really because in order for these other classes to be viable in a standard adventuring day, they need the 5 minute work day.

As opposed to the 4 minute work day that occurs when the one party member consumes more resources. I think you will find that the former situation has an extra minute which would fall under the "anything extra" that you get.


shallowsoul wrote:

And?

Resource consumption is made into the design of the game. You are expected to use resources, you don't get anything extra by saving resources.

Nah, of course you get something extra by saving resources. If you are using refreshing resources you get extra encounters in a day or whatever the refresh period is. If you are using non-refreshing consumables you get extra gold or whatever currency you used to acquire the consumables.


Karyouonigami wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.
That seems like it is just reinforcing the argument against the fighter in favor of the paladin, ranger, or barbarian.
I am all for debating the value of Fighters vs Barbarians just not Fighter vs. All spellcasters. It's getting silly that every time I point out the weaknesses of classes we come back to spellcasters vs. fighters

No, that was a complete list and thus does not contain any of the spell casting classes that are not the paladin and ranger. If I was unclear and that has led you to mistakenly take paladin and ranger to mean all spellcasting classes in the game then I apologize.


Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.

That seems like it is just reinforcing the argument against the fighter in favor of the paladin, ranger, or barbarian.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
So, lets assume that the mouse-cord thing wasn't a joke and move on to the rest of the point. They didn't take anything away from high level martials. They took away something from a cord that any 0 level commoner had access to. Gunslingers can still TWF with double-barreled pistols, they just need a Glove of Storing or the Gun Twirling feat now. The weapon cord errata literally had nothing to do with high level martials, it had to do with the relative expedience of leather cords.

Wasn't the whole thing originally about gunslingers and free action reloading.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I think it would be helpful if the game actually told you, "the best-trained human person on Earth would be level X, and anything beyond that is superhuman beyond what any real person in Earth's history has attained."

Yeah, that would probably help since it strikes at the heart of the matter. You know, the whole unrealistic abilities measure that is more restrictive then the rules themselves are. If you can remove that aforementioned preconceived notion then it would seem like one could make good extraordinary abilities without as much backlash so the Ex/Su divide wouldn't really be a big deal.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

With all due respect to Sean's stated goal here, I suspect that his proposal would only make things worse with respect to giving martials "nice things." Maybe I'm being too cynical, but here's my logic:

If we're dealing with designers who state that "Martial-caster disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas." Sedentary designers who wrap a mouse cord around their arm, drop the mouse, try to catch it on the bounce, and declare, "The use of weapon cords by highly-skilled martials is totally unrealistic." Designers who, in describing their home games, describe casters very pointedly NOT using 90% of the narrative power the rules grant them. These people are NOT going to start giving fighters meaningful class features based on the lack of a descriptor tag.

That leaves us with 3rd party designers and players. As it stands, people like me will say, "You know, if a fighter had enough tactical awareness and experience, he should be able to deduce which mirror image is the real caster, and which enemies are illusory, and where an invisible opponent is actually located and how to be sure to hit said opponent. Let's make it a fighter-only feat, Tactical Acumen, and give it an {Ex} tag." People might or might not accept it, but there's a certain kind of logic to it. Get rid of the tag, and people look at it and say, "That's true seeing. It's magic. Fighters shouldn't be able to do that." And there goes a perfectly useful ability.

I would have to agree that removing the distinction could quite reasonably make things worse. While people will still probably claim that "it's magic" based on the whole "realism" standard, even when something is classed as an extraordinary ability, at least in that case you can point at the definition of extraordinary abilities. With the distinction removed there is not even that. So if anything I would say you are not being cynical enough.


DrDeth wrote:

Roos, you know I respect your views. But there's 18 classes now, more very soon. Why not ONE with no magical abilities? Just one? In our RotRL campaign, @ 13th level, the straight fighter is far and away the most dangerous. Many, many players like and want a straight vanilla fighter. Leave that one class alone, but yes- MOAR supernatural stuff as options for the rest! Even flight. Even Dimension Door.

Trogdar- I agree, a "anti-magic/blank" fighter archetype is sorely needed. One who is very resistant to magic.

Right, when you say no magical abilities do you mean no magical abilities or no unrealistic abilities as those are rather not the same thing?


137ben wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Wait, huh. You know, that's a change I had not actually noticed that pathfinder made. In 3.5 extraordinary abilities, "do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics." So there wasn't really anything keeping EX abilities from doing whatever; tome of battle or what have you.

That's still in pathfinder

CRB wrote:
Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.

Well, I guess that's what I get for going just by people's quotes instead of checking the sources.

Anyway, that seems to mean the real problem is that people have a preconceived standard that is even more limiting then what is actually allowed in the rules. What you probably need is to change that preconception as removing the distinction between Ex and Su doesn't really give characters permission to do more things then extraordinary abilities already do on their own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, huh. You know, that's a change I had not actually noticed that pathfinder made. In 3.5 extraordinary abilities, "do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics." So there wasn't really anything keeping EX abilities from doing whatever; tome of battle or what have you.


Taube wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
There can never be a weakest class because I'll ban hammer anyone who infringes on the weaklings roles! Sounds like some quality DMing.

Let me ask you a simple question: If I ask you to not bring any non-kosher food to my place when gaming, would you comply to my request or not?

In the same vain, if I ask you to not ruin another players fun, why should that be any different?

See, where I come from, there´s a term in common use by gamers: "Barbie Gaming". That means: You can think about your characters options, play through riddles and solutions, fantasize about what could be possible.
And then leave all that garbade at home when you head to the gaming table and respect what the guys there want to play and how to play it.

Honestly, this is really more of an argument against the rogue class being perfectly fine then anything. If a class is so weak that by its very existence it leads to ruining people's fun, rogue players or otherwise, that sounds like a problem.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:

I think the point of it being so good is that a natural 1 on UMD means you can't attempt with items like wands for 24 hours now.

Hmm, after checking it would seem that one must both roll a natural 1 and fail to activate the device. If we are talking about +19 on UMD versus a DC 20 wand then that isn't really a problem since a roll of 1 succeeds.


Yeah, bad choice of words on my part. Less "where is this coming from" as in book title and page number and more as in if Marthkus considers this the core competence of the rogue class playstyle then why was more of a point not made about it earlier.


Hmm, wheres this skill mastery thing coming from. If this is such an integral part of the rogue then it needs to be taken into account with regards to the playstyle differences. It would make me think that rather then the rogue being just about less bookkeeping it is about doing less things at the table.


Marthkus wrote:
The all day factor is important to play style, but is of less important to effectiveness.

Hmm, so how does the all day factor playstyle take into account the other party members. Are we considering a party that will fight all day all day, will go through as may encounters as the wizard has relevant spells, or some other measure.

And then, once we know what the all day factor is, the all day factor can be important to effectiveness. It will determine whether or not we have to consider changes in effectiveness for those characters using daily refreshing resources versus those that expend no resources in some cases and use not refreshing gold in others depending on the number and difficulty of the encounters.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
If there is anything else that you mean by the analogy I'm not catching onto it so you're probably going to have to point it out to me.
If you understand how those two classes play differently then you know why these two classes play differently.

Are we still ignoring the all day factor? If we are then is it just that rogues take less bookkeeping? It looks to me like it boils down to that from the transferable points of the analogy I outlined but perhaps there is some other factor I am missing.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:

Eh, it really doesn't outline the difference in play that well to me. All I've got is that the rogue can burn not refreshing gold in cases where other characters can use refreshing resources.

Well, now that I think about it, there is one other possible thing that occurs. That the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, is also matched or out performed by the paladin, and thus the other classes by analogy, due to the fact that they use daily resources. Normally I would assume that this would supposedly be balanced out by the fact that the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, can go all day long, but you seemed to dismiss the all day factor earlier. However that second point does not seem like a point in favor of fighters, and thus the rogue by analogy, so I am not sure if that is what you mean.

If you really don't get what I am saying, then you are stating that you think Paladins and fighters play the same way, but the paladin just does it better.

No, of course paladins and fighters don't play the same way. Paladins and fighters differ in many specifics, such as the bonuses they get to saves. However since the paladin and fighter are not the focus of the discussion I am ignoring the specifics of the classes and trying to find those more broad parts of the analogy that are transferable to the classes being discussed.

The three things that stand out to me as analogous are that one can go all day while the other can not, that one can burn not refreshing gold while the other burns daily refreshing resources, and that one can not use resources in certain areas while the other can use daily refreshing resources to meet or exceed the other in those areas. The first point I have dismissed due to previous statements you made but I can add it back into the consideration if you want.

If there is anything else that you mean by the analogy I'm not catching onto it so you're probably going to have to point it out to me.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

I'll try to draw an analogy that doesn't completely apply.

Picture a fighter. Weapon training doesn't require resources to use.
Now picture a Paladin. Paladin has to use smite or spells to keep up with the fighter and his weapon training with gloves of dueling.

The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
The fighter uses potions to heal.

They both play differently.

Right, so before I start considering your analogy, in what way does it not apply so that I know what parts to ignore.

For example I could take that analogy to mean that the difference is between daily refreshing resources and burning gold on consumables, which would match the previous examples of extracts versus burning gold on consumables. However that may not be what you meant.

Yes so for that the UMD comes with other advantages that isn't always wasting gold.

For example using the wizards staves for him doesn't burn any gold, since staves are renewable. Using the items that drop that no one else can use doesn't explicitly use up resources either. It allow the party to use those resources when they couldn't.

The analogy doesn't completely apply because it is too simple to fully express everything, but should outline the fundamental difference in play.

Eh, it really doesn't outline the difference in play that well to me. All I've got is that the rogue can burn not refreshing gold in cases where other characters can use refreshing resources.

Well, now that I think about it, there is one other possible thing that occurs. That the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, is also matched or out performed by the paladin, and thus the other classes by analogy, due to the fact that they use daily resources. Normally I would assume that this would supposedly be balanced out by the fact that the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, can go all day long, but you seemed to dismiss the all day factor earlier. However that second point does not seem like a point in favor of fighters, and thus the rogue by analogy, so I am not sure if that is what you mean.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Sorry, but despite my rereading I still do not understand the specifics of one style versus the other. I am afraid that my questions must remain the same, as I can not really discuss the differences between two things when I do not actually know how they are different.

I'll try to draw an analogy that doesn't completely apply.

Picture a fighter. Weapon training doesn't require resources to use.
Now picture a Paladin. Paladin has to use smite or spells to keep up with the fighter and his weapon training with gloves of dueling.

The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
The fighter uses potions to heal.

They both play differently.

Right, so before I start considering your analogy, in what way does it not apply so that I know what parts to ignore.

For example I could take that analogy to mean that the difference is between daily refreshing resources and burning gold on consumables, which would match the previous examples of extracts versus burning gold on consumables. However that may not be what you meant.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
I am talking about the same play style. There is a difference between being able to use resources and needing to.
Ah, so you mean you actually didn't need to use any of those consumables at all in your previous example. In that case you really should have been more specific about the fact that it was just pointless wasting of gold.

The difficulties of encounters fluctuate.

I don't think you are arguing in good faith.

I am not really sure what that has to do with anything. Either you do need to use resources or you don't. If that is the strict divide between playstyles then that detail is kind of super important since it, you know, actually allows for the two playstyles to be differentiated.


Marthkus wrote:
I am talking about the same play style. There is a difference between being able to use resources and needing to.

Ah, so you mean you actually didn't need to use any of those consumables at all in your previous example. In that case you really should have been more specific about the fact that it was just pointless wasting of gold and so forth.


Marthkus wrote:

I don't really consider going all day a rogue advantage either.

I was just pointed out how the alchemist had to burn resources to keep up, which is a different play style.

Oh, you mean that you are talking about a different playstyle then the previous example of a rogue using consumable items. Sorry, I was assuming that you were talking about one single playstyle and not several mutually exclusive ones.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Now now, I am sure that some DMs do include an unexplained precipitous drop in the difficulty of their encounters that just so happens to coincide with the spellcasters running low. That way the party can go all day without being TPKed as they normally would be with the heavy hitters out of action. The whole thing does kind of strain suspension of disbelief a very little bit though.
In all of my time playing RPGs I'd never seen the world stop for the PCs to catch a breath. NEVER.

I don't really see that either, but the can go all day with half the party out of spells thing has to come from somewhere.

Edit: Well unless you mean that your groups can never regain spell slots because they never are able to carve out a sufficiently long time for the spellcasters. But I don't really see that either.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
You really have to use that alchemy to make use of the sneak attack since you lack skill mastery.

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill of difference, and ignoring dozens of way in which the rogue is outclassed here.

You're relying on appeals to vague, meaningless an ephemeral unprovable concepts like "style" so that you can't be disproved. Its evading a conversation, not having one.

Quote:

Really, without skill mastery, you can't mimic a high level rogue's play style without a loose interpretation of the taking 10 rules.

who cares if you can take 10 when the alchemist has a +20?

The importance of not spending resources is a myth. It doesn't matter if you can go all day, every day. As soon as the cleric or wizard are out of resources, EVERYONE is stopping.

Now now, I am sure that some DMs do include an unexplained precipitous drop in the difficulty of their encounters that just so happens to coincide with the spellcasters running low. That way the party can go all day without being TPKed as they normally would be with the heavy hitters out of action. The whole thing does kind of strain suspension of disbelief a very little bit though.


Marthkus wrote:
I'm sorry but isn't the stealth check and the perception DC the EXACT SAME THING.

Nah, the DC for a task can be modified by conditions. For example perception DCs have +1 per 10 feet of distance which would give a different number then the aforementioned stealth check. The idea that the DC of the perception check can never be modified is not really that good of an argument.


Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
It does bring up the good point that it's the summon monster line and the like that should be the real TPK machines. It summons creatures and makes them fight for you for free; you can't even offer a more favorable deal like asking for help assaulting a bastion of evil/good or going 1 for 2 on the wishes or something. But, worst of all, you can't just kill off the creature later since it is summoned. If it dies that just makes things worse since now it takes an extra 24 hours to reform which would only make it more angry.

Summons are temporary a instants of an existing monster. The actual monster is not affected by the spell.

At least that is how JJ runs it.

Uh, good for him I guess, but that doesn't really resolve things for anyone else.


Anzyr wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Considering the caster is telling it what to do and then killing it off as an effortless afterthought.... going to have to go with the caster is controlling the power.

That's what all sith think.

EDIT: Killing off that which comes back. Oh no, you gave the demon/devil a vacation!

Not how calling works Marthkus, please read the rules.

It does bring up the good point that it's the summon monster line and the like that should be the real TPK machines. It summons creatures and makes them fight for you for free; you can't even offer a more favorable deal like asking for help assaulting a bastion of evil/good or going 1 for 2 on the wishes or something. But, worst of all, you can't just kill off the creature later since it is summoned. If it dies that just makes things worse since now it takes an extra 24 hours to reform which would only make it more angry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

@andreww: CRB devil? I suppose you mean Bestiary I devils?

It only takes 1 lawyer to let 7 other devils in.

---

Don't get me wrong. Planar Binding is a powerful spell, with the potential to hand you temporary minions with "stuff you're not supposed to have" according to your current level.

But if you start drawing the attention of unsavoury planes, you have no right to cry foul if that makes your life more "interesting".

I love XP and treasure that comes to me. Where do I sign up? Free +5 Inherent bonus to stats as a sign up bonus, oh wow what a bargain.

Nah, don't be silly. As we all know, whenever an adventuring party bothers any outsider (planar bound or otherwise) the DM is obligated to TPK the party with an appropriately themed encounter. I mean, what kind of self respecting outsider is going to let live adventurers that have wrecked years of work when they slaughtered a cult or something.


Blakmane wrote:
shadowkras wrote:
I wont let a spell trump a skill rule. Skills > specific spells.

It's a condition, not a spell. That's like saying if you have a climb speed you still have to take climb checks.

Bill Dunn wrote:
The mistake you are making is adding the invisibility bonus twice

Invisibility works independently from stealth. Let's put it this way. What is the perception DC to notice an invisible, mobile wizard who isn't trying to stealth? By your interpretation that's DC 0.

It is a fair assumption to make that the +20 mentioned in the stealth rules takes into account the 'stealth +20' part of the table. That's still an explicit modifier to the base DC 20 perception. You're reading it as setting the DC to 20 + stealth... which makes no sense given the broader context of the table.

Hmm, let me see if I understand you. Your argument is that a modifier to the DC of a perception check is very much not the same thing as a bonus on a stealth check. Thus invisibility grants an effective +40/60 since the stealth rules apply +20/40 to the check and the perception rules apply a separate +20 modifier to the DC when trying to look at invisible creatures or objects. Is that about what you mean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Uh, that creature is very dead. What exactly is it going to do? Or are you going with "It doesn't say Dead creatures can't take actions"?

I assume he means that it will anger the dead creature's friends who will then kill you. Clearly in his games the party can not kill, injure, capture, or otherwise hinder any creature without performing a thorough background check. Whoops, that guard you just killed was actually the Lich Lord's great grandson; you die. Oh no, that kobold was the Dragon King's favorite chess partner; you die. Dang, that rat was the escaped pet of the high priestess's daughter; you die.


chaoseffect wrote:
anlashok wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

Wait... that term seems kinda familiar. Don't we usually use that to describe strategies that wizards and other casters employ in order to conquer an encounter through a crippling status effect rather than direct damage? Hmm.

No no this is completely different. Antagonize is only single target.

Quote:
The antagonize feat used to allow someone like a Barbarian to lock a wizard into charging him for two rounds. That's two rounds the Wizard wasn't doing anything constructive. He runs up to the Barbarian, and takes a swing. Guess what? It's now the Barbarians turn and here comes the RAGESMASHSMASHSMASH *Dead Wizard*
I'm just not sure why that's so much worse than the wizard doing the same thing.
Probably because skill DCs are trivial for anyone who even tries to focus on them, and it completely shuts down an enemy.

Yeah skill checks are rather boostable such that if not for the fact that it would totally be a TPK I might have considered an encounter with that feat on some slightly focused minions to ping pong the whole party around a big room for a while or something. But, you know, party wipes aren't preferable.


chaoseffect wrote:
WWWW wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
But if you remove the alignment system restrictions and a strict adherence to the "class name and paragraph say this so that is what it must be" mindset you are pretty much there. If you see the classes as nothing but flavorless build platforms (which some people may disagree with, but I've always been in the "flavor is up to you" camp) then there is no issue besides you as a player deciding if your concept is feasible based on the mechanics of the platform you chose.
Ah, I see what you mean. When you say classless system you mean that the classes are the points that you use to build your character. But that works with or without the alignment system so I don't see how the two are related.
The issue is that flavor aside, the rules still arbitrarily restrict some classes behind an alignment wall. I really have no issue with the concept of having an alignment system, but when it interferes with mechanical choices for no good reason it annoys me.

You could just as easily use an alignment wall to restrict some skills, or paths, or professions, or whatever you want to call the things you spend points on in your classless system.


chaoseffect wrote:
But if you remove the alignment system restrictions and a strict adherence to the "class name and paragraph say this so that is what it must be" mindset you are pretty much there. If you see the classes as nothing but flavorless build platforms (which some people may disagree with, but I've always been in the "flavor is up to you" camp) then there is no issue besides you as a player deciding if your concept is feasible based on the mechanics of the platform you chose.

Ah, I see what you mean. When you say classless system you mean that the classes are the points that you use to build your character. But that works with or without the alignment system so I don't see how the two are related.


pres man wrote:
WWWW wrote:
How do you go from alignment being really bad to classless system. I suppose I could have been missing the alignment restriction on wizard and rogue all these years but that seems unlikely.
chaoseffect was describing a desire to play a non-lawful rogue like character but with paladin like abilities. Obviously the easiest way to do something like that is to have a system where players choose what abilities best suit their character concept instead of playing a system where those choices have been made by the game designers. Just removing alignments isn't going to make the paladin class a good "Robin Hood" build platform.

And barbarian works better. Well I suppose you are right, the barbarian has 2 more skill points per level.

1 to 50 of 663 << 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.