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

Xexyz's page

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber. 1,018 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,018 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Kudaku wrote:

We ran smack dab into this problem in the campaign we just started, with a bladebound magus who was somewhat less than thrilled when he realized that the weapon enchantment from ABP wouldn't interact well with his black blade.

We solved it by giving the magus a gold reward equal to the bonus he would normally grant to his sword. Whenever the other party members increase the bonus of their weapon, he receives an unexpected inheritance, wins the local lottery or otherwise come into some extra cash. It's a little forced, but it solves the problem fairly well.

Yeah, one of the PCs in my game is a bladebound magus, and I was thinking of ways to compensate him. The blackblade still gets its enhancement progression faster than ABP at lower levels, so there's that.

At first I thought I'd let him add his weapon ABP to his arcane pool enhancement, but then I realized he'd be able to give his character a vorpal weapon at level 9 - the PC's current level - and I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

I'm mulling just adding the ABP weapon bonus as extra points to his character's arcane pool.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'm really interested in using the Automatic Bonus Progression; I'm mulling converting my existing campaign to use the system but I'll have to get player buy-in and then will have to adjust a bunch of NPCs.

I ran some numbers and even with WBL cut in half, PC equivalent WBL (new WBL + value of ABP stats if you bought the magic items that grant them) is in excess than standard wealth for every level past 3. The average EqvWBL over StdWBL on a level-for-level basis is about 9.5%.

Although characters are locked into when they receive their bonuses, there is one part that allows some customization not normally possible with standard stat items: At several levels when you get enhancement bonuses to your stats you have options for an uneven stat distribution. For example, at 13th level you get +4 to one physical/mental stat and +2 to another, which isn't possible using standard items. At 15th level you can divide your bonus to your mental stats as either +6/+2 or +4/+4.

One minor downside is that ABP somewhat trivializes classes with features that grant them similar bonuses, such as paladins who bond with their weapon or bladebound magi.

I think one of the biggest benefits of the ABP system are for campaigns (like mine) which make heavy use of NPC antagonists with class levels. With the regular system it's difficult to gear them up according to the WBL guidelines without inundating the PCs with magic items, the majority of which would just be sold anyway. It also makes them tougher since they'll be getting the equivalent of gear they couldn't normal afford from NPC wealth guidelines.

The one change I would probably make is to not eliminate the pure stat boosting items so that certain extreme wealthy characters (nobles, rich merchants) would be able to buy their stats higher with their money. I don't think this would be particularly game breaking since pure stat boosting items would be much rarer and PCs would be unlikely to use them anyway.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Tanis O'Connor wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
at the Catabombs of Wrath.
Wow, we missed an opportunity here.

I, I don't know what happened there...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Andrew L Klein wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
Crowe AND Seoni? How will I ever choose???
By picking Crowe, duh!

You're probably right. I played Seoni in RotR my first Wrath playthrough will have to be Crowe. I can't wait to see his card list and role cards!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Crowe AND Seoni? How will I ever choose???


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Wrath is going to tempt you with many things.

This makes me nervous. One of the players in my group will always succumb to temptation. He will always stick his hand in Melfeshnakor's Pit, he'll always do "one more explore" when he's down to two cards in hand and one of them is his explore card, and he will always say "don't worry I got this" when he has no combat in his hand and he's going exploring at the Catabombs of Wrath.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Eltacolibre wrote:
Well technically there is the monstrous mount feat.

Awesome, thanks.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Eltacolibre wrote:
Don't hesitate to give him an impressive mount, as a NPC after all, you can break some rules, if it is cooler. A Lesser Bandersnatch sounds like it would be a cool mount for your Shadan.

I was thinking about this. Are there any feats around for improving your mount/animal companion?

Edit: Looking at the mammoth rider prestige class for a 1-2 level dip.

I know as the GM I can simply give him whatever I want, but I try to keep things RAW as much as I can - especially since a lot of NPCs I make for my game I kind of use as test-runs for PC concepts I may be interested in as a player.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Hark wrote:
Now that is a very good argument for him being a Samurai. Resolve would serve to greatly mitigate this issue. Though Samurai and Fell Rider aren't compatible, which could be an issue. Not that I would recommend Fell Rider for a strategist, so much as shock troops.

Not really. There aren't any real class features that exist which bolster concept such as being a great military commander or having political aptitude. Those are in the realm of skills: Profession (soldier) for military ability and KN: Nobility plus bluff/intimidate/diplomacy/sense motive for politics. Having a mediocre Will save isn't really an issue because enchantment/charm spells don't dictate political intrigue - especially in hobgoblin society, where arcane casters are rare.

That said, I may juggle his stats around to put more points into wisdom since profession skills are key off it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cap. Darling wrote:


I was commenting that your system rewaeds stat dumping more than even normal point buy. If you are good with your hero being a unimpressive combatant and just above normal Intelligence then there is no problem. I suggest you put his str to 18 and that will be good pehaps for dex 12.

Oh, I see your point. That's my bad; I forgot to include in the description of my system that I don't allow more than one stat to be an 8; basically PCs & NPCs are allowed to dump a single stat and only down to 8. Also good point about the Str vs. Dex; don't know why I didn't do that, especially since he wears heavy armor.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Still have no idea how overuns, charges, charge through, and other stuff related to it work.

Funny you mention this, because it's the exact issue I'm having frustrations with right now. I noticed in one of the threads that it was addressed in the FAQ, but search as I might I can't find anything.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

@Shandren - Thanks for the suggestion but I've decided that he's a fell rider cavalier.

Now I just have to figure out how to build him, since I'm still not totally sure how overrun works.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cap. Darling wrote:

Your stat generating system is terrible. Avarage 13 give him 3, 18s and 3, 8s and a magic hat to compensate for the bad mentals. You dont need half baked home made stat generating systems when you as a GM make NPCs just give him the stats you think a great general and Leader should have.

Edit: if you insist on your stat system make him a daring champion who dump str or a Spell caster that is SAD.

I don't understand what you're saying here. What do you mean, '13 give him 3, 18s and 3'? My stat system was worked just fine, so I see no reason to change it - with my system he ended up with a 16, 14, 16, 12, 10, 14 after racial modifiers. I'm certainly not going to make him a caster or dump strength, especially since I don't need to. I don't understand why you think I should; was I not clear on how the system works?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I agree something needs to be done. It's so frustrating to see a question answered in the FAQ but then be unable to find it.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Settled on the Fell Rider archetype. Now I just have to create a build to take advantage of its strengths. So far I'm thinking of using the tactician ability to allow Shadan to grant teamwork feats to his mount, since per tactician allies granted feats don't need to meet the prerequisites. Both taking Outflank and then using tactician to give the mount the Pack Flanking seems pretty tasty.

Question: When using the overrun maneuver while mounted, does the rider or the mount make the CMB check for the maneuver?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

@Hark, Tangaroa- Alright, you've sold me. I had to agonize over it because ranger is just so good but I'm gonna go with cavalier. I looked at the various orders and Order of the Lion I feel is extremely appropriate for him thematically.

Now I just have to decide upon an archetype. I like the fell rider but am not quite committed yet.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

@Eltacolibre- I forgot about that archetype, definitely gonna check that out.

@Phillip- Interesting. He's certainly a follower of Kogyr, the God of War (who's also LE) so a religious leader isn't out of the question. The only thing is that I don't see him as especially pious, so warpriest just doesn't quite fit. I'll have to think about this some more.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Unfortunately, the other core classes won't give you what you want.

He should have an awesome mount, and animal companion does that. Druidic magic gives him access to healing, buffs, and lets him nova against a foe who probably won't expect him to be popping a +8 FE bonus on demand.

Ugh, I know. Damn the ranger for being so good!

Aelryinth wrote:

Call him a Blessed Knight of the Blood Hunt, and call it done. The only thing he won't have is heavy armor, but a General doesn't need that. He can just wear glamered armor, instead.

==Aelryinth

Not sure what you mean here. I'm not hesitant on ranger because of thematic reasons, I'm hesitant because I've just recently built a bunch of rangers and the thought of making another one doesn't bring a lot of enthusiasm to me.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Stay away from Core Fighter unless you want to do some heavy editing. You don't have the skill points or class features to do what you want.

In terms of battlefield command, I'd recommend one of the Cavaliars, specifically because their banner effects are a boost on the battlefield.

However, if you want smart and skilled, you can't do wrong with a Ranger. With the right FE (specifically, his own race of hobgoblins, and whoever the main enemies are), he can get some NICE skill bonuses against them, which helps him avoid entanglements with his own people and one-up the mere fighters among the enemy.

Go ahead, check out the skill bonuses FE gives you. The bonuses to Sense Motive alone to understand the battle plans of the enemy will be invaluable, and you've the skill points to pick up numerous side skills without gimping the character.

Or, to put it another way, you can grab Sense Motive, Intimidate, Diplomacy, and Perception, and THEN grab all the skills a fighter would.

And you can take the Guide Archetype to give you FE bonus away to those you command. Good times.

Rangers make better classic fighters then fighters do.

==Aelryinth

Yeah, the fighter archetype I was specifically thinking was the tactician, specifically for the extra skill points. Ranger is good for all the reasons you mentioned, and additionally when I imagine him the idea of him having some mean, burly, creature companion keeps popping into my mind.

I'm mostly dismissing the teamwork abilities since they're purely small scale. Shadan is the general of entire armies; his days of participating in the battles tactically are behind him. Unfortunately to my knowledge the teamwork abilities tend to have a small radius and/or only effect a limited number of allies.

My only hesitation of ranger is I've statted up a bunch of them recently and am kind of itching for something different.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'm looking for ideas to stat up an NPC. It's not an NPC I have any firm plans of using, but I find that creating NPCs can spur my imagination for creating other background and details of my homebrew world, Mythralia.

Shadan, of the House of Danesh, is the supreme commander of the western armies of the Kurmunian Empire. The Kurmunian Empire is a hobgoblin empire (specifically Gyrran Hobgoblins) that covers 60% of the continent of Gajilae, the largest continent on the planet - and therefore is the largest state in the world. Here's what I know about Shadan himself:

1. He's an accomplished warrior - therefore a martial class - who earned his position through skill and merit, eschewing the use of his house's political influence.
2. He's the most skilled battlefield commander in the entire empire in terms of use of military tactics and strategy. Every one one of his campaigns has been successful.
3. He has enough political acumen to avoid the high-level intrigues of the ruling classes of the empire.
4. As he is a hobgoblin, he's lawful evil.
5. He's not a barbarian or bloodrager.

So far I'm thinking ranger, fighter, or cavalier, but am undecided. Thoughts?

Some mechanics in case anyone's interested in statting him up:

Spoiler:
1. Shadan is 16th level with heroic NPC wealth.
2. I use a custom stat generation method. You assign values (not points) to your stats, the total of which must add up to 78 before racial modifiers, each stat must fall in the 8 - 18 range.
3. Shadan is a Gyrran Hobgoblin, which have the following racial stats - Medium size, 30ft. movement, +2Dex/+2Con, 60ft. Darkvision, Endurance feat, +4 to saves against poison & disease, +2 to saves against fear effects, proficient with warhammers & glaive-guirsames.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
ConfusedPeon wrote:

By RAW it doesn't work. Since you're creating beams to bar the door, you'd be affecting the door, not the people breaking it down. Thus it's the door that should be making the will save.

Unfortunately, objects always succeed on their save against shadow conjuration (as per the last line of the spell text), so the spell shouldn't have any effect on someone trying to break the door down.

Except for the fact that even if the save is made, the object is still 60% real. So it would seem then you have a metal bar that's 60% as strong as a real metal bar. The DC to bend an iron bar is 24, so in this case the DC to bend the shadow bar would be 14 then? Hmmm...


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Secane wrote:

"Shadow conjurations are only one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things"

So I guess it would be a metal beam with only 1/5 a real metal beam's hp, hardness...etc?

Hmm, I guess that would be correct (although 60% in this case per GSC). So what about question #2 then? Do the people on the other side of the door who are trying to get in automatically count as disbelieving? Or if they realize the door is barred to they count as believing until they get a chance to interact with the bar, per the normal illusion rules?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Consider the following scenario: A an arcane caster is fleeing from enemies and runs through a pair of doors. She looks to bar the doors behind her but has nothing to bar them with. Thinking quickly, she casts greater shadow conjuration to create a metal beam via the spell major creation. What happens?

1. Can she even pick up the metal beam she created, or - since she cast the spell and knows the beam isn't completely real - only have a 60% chance of actually interacting with it?

2. Suppose instead she conjures the beam right into the door's baring mounts (the doors open inward and there are a pair of mounts on either side for a baring beam). Does this actually work when the enemies try to get through the door? The enemies on the other side have no idea there's even an effect in place since it's on the other side of the door. Does the shadow beam keep the door shut, does it fail, or does it have a 60% chance of working?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Nonononono see the core rogue sucks because—

*Last bit of oxygen is used up by arguing*
*Dies*

*Loots KC's corpse.*

Anyone want some free stuff? It's not in the best condition.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I haven't thought of doing anything mechanically to improve the bastard sword (one of my favorite weapons aesthetically) but in my homebrew game you can pick up proficiency with it from a trait.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

But with no training, you can't add that kind of story even if you want to.

Which basically cuts free a whole genre of adventures. Being able to find a master who can teach you in a great secret is at the heart of SO many stories.

Irrelevant in PF.

==Aelryinth

That's the point. If I wanted to tell that kind of story I'd have training requirements. I don't want to tell that story, so they're not there. And if I at some point decide I do want to incorporate those types of stories, training will then become a thing. See how simple that was?

Sorry if I'm not playing the game the way you think I should be playing, but I'm not going to change it just because in your view I'm having wrongbadfun with my existing game.

Aelryinth wrote:

Those arguments come down to DM Fiat and changing existing rules.

===Aelryinth

So what? You speak as though GM fiat is some horrible thing to be avoided at all costs. You seem way too hung up on this notion that for training to be a legitimate thing it has to be officially supported by some Paizo product or supplement. Either that or you think because you like training that it should be codified in the rules as a way of saying that your preferred playstyle is the correct one and people who prefer something else are playing the game wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

And yet, the whole idea that you've mastered basic skills enough that you can finally learn more advanced stuff is part and parcel of the whole heroic journey, student to master paradigm that has been used in stories basically forever.

Finding great masters to teach you, while fighting on the way to them to 'level up' and get the xp to finally learn from them, is a time honored trope in literature and film. Immersion breaking? It's downright NECCESSARY.

Many manga institute 'training breaks' just to reflect this paradigm. The characters have gotten X powerful, now they find teachers to take them to the next stage. In popular manga, both Fairy Tail and One Piece did it. The quality of your teachers is a huge impact on your development.
For the One Piece crew: Luffy trains under Gold Roger's right hand man in Haki:
ZOro trains under the best swordsman on the planet;
Robin trains under the head of the Revolutionary Army;
Franky ends up in the lab of the greatest scientific genius on the planet;
Nami trains under the greatest masters of weather on the world;
Chopper trains in what turns out to be one of the greatest lorehouses of medical and herblore on the planet;
Usopp trains in sniping on an island where EVERYTHING tries to eat you;
Sanji trains under the #2 of the Revolutionary Army, and the Grandmaster of a Fighting Art, learning, among other things, how to run on air.
Brooke becomes a superstar magician who can literally enthrall thousands with his songs, the only one to do it alone...and the fact is, he's probably his own master...

So what? Those aren't the only types of stories. All I know is that I can't run the game I want to run if I have to contrive of rationalizations to stop all of the events in the campaign in order to allow the PCs to run off and do extra training in order to level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I find the idea that the PCs can't level until they take time to stop adventuring and train to be both cumbersome and immersion breaking. It's cumbersome because it eliminates campaigns where time is a factor; certain stories just don't work as well (or at all) when game considerations dictate that the story be put on hold every so often so the PCs can go and train up their levels.

I also see that it breaks immersion because of the way I conceptualize gaining levels and experience. There are 24 hours in the day. The PCs generally spend 8-10 hours sleeping and some variable number of hours adventuring. Usually there's at least 4-8 hours of downtime per day. It's this downtime that I imagine the PCs using to train. For example, I imagine my two-weapon fighter spending downtime practicing feats he eventually wants to take. He'll practice, practice, practice, gradually incorporating what he's trying to learn into the fights he participates in while he's adventuring. Eventually he gets enough practical experience & practice under his belt that he's mastered the technique and can now use it at his pleasure - represented mechanically by getting enough XP to level and selecting the feat.

The idea that you accumulate the necessary XP to level and then go off to train seems disconnected to me, and subtracts from my immersion.

Raising skills, on the other hand, I think should be divorced from leveling - it just seems weird that the wizard who spent the last month killing monsters in a variety of dungeons is all of the sudden now better at swimming. I wish there was a good system for raising skills outside of leveling.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Does that include the style strike? How does your Unchained Monk do with elbow smash or hammerblow on the first attack?

Elbow smash? Hammerblow? Flying Kick? Does the unchained monk also get an attack/damage bonus for going off the top turnbuckle? What about entrance music for a morale bonus?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:

My guess is because, somehow, one can actually ascertain an items true value based on what you can do with it. In D&D/Pathfinder, a diamond that is worth a certain amount of gold pieces can be used as a material component while a lesser valued diamond cannot.

In the same sense, if you pay 20,000 gp for a 15,000 gp diamond, you'll definitely know you got ripped off when you try to use it to cast spells requiring 20,000 gp worth of diamonds. Or use that diamond as part of the materials to make a magic item (as gems are frequently used in the creation of magical doodads).

I think you're probably right, but if you are then your original scenario doesn't work. If diamonds truly are trade goods then you can't take a 5000gp diamond and use fabricate to create a 15000gp diamond; that would mean you somehow ended up with 200% more diamond, which is obviously outside of the scope of the spell. If your assumption is that you've used fabricate to increase the value by giving it a more valuable cut then by definition diamonds cease to be trade goods.

I think we can both agree that diamonds & gems are one of those fuzzy areas in the game it's best not to think about because of the conflict over how gems are valued in real life and how gems are valued for the purposes of spell components.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
However, if you were playing a Kingmaker-style campaign with years of downtime, and one of your players attempted to use the spell in a way that would by RAW give him an income of 500,000gp a year, you would probably want to either house-rule the spell or house-rule the economy.

Actually, I'd do neither - I'd tell the player to simply not do that, and if he persisted in trying I'd kick him out of the game. Here's why: The economy in pathfinder is sufficiently broken that simply changing the fabricate spell would be a band-aid fix at best. Doubtless the player would find some other spell or rule to exploit in order to make unlimited money. It's simply not worth the effort changing/fixing every spell, rule, guideline, and system in order to prevent a player from exploiting the loopholes in the game.

Regarding the fabricate spell, in the context in which we're discussing spells here, I remain unconvinced. It still seems to me the arguments for its brokenness are being constructed by selectively choosing which real-world/'logical' actions/principles to apply in order to make their case.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Because they have no reason not to collude.
Matthew Downie wrote:
If Bob isn't an idiot he'd see that any price cut he made would be matched by Alice almost immediately, reducing both their profits and not increasing his sales at all.

Ok, so let's go in the other direction. Why don't Alice & Bob then collude to sell their fabricated diamonds for 20,000gp then? If we're going to pretend supply and demand don't exist.

Or, let's take this in a totally different direction. The argument is that fabricate is overpowered. From my perspective in order for something to be overpowered it has to have a negative effect on my game such that I find the need to change/nerf it. So far none of my players have expressed any interest in learning fabricate, and even if they did I'm willing to bet they'd want to use it for adventuring purposes since they want to play a heroic fantasy game, not Simulationfinder.

So, given the above, please explain to me how fabricate is broken and is ruining my game.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:

Yea, it says wind environmental factors, without specifying mundane or magical. So it defaults to both.

Yeah, I was wondering if WW & FW counted as environmental factors because they're magic effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
CWheezy wrote:

What if wizards were not total idiots?

So far the only solutions as to why the world of golarion is not very different is MURDER(???) and "Well they would undercut each other because"(???)

These are not compelling reasons imo

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. Do you understand how competition works? How is Bob an idiot if, seeing that Alice is trying to sell her fabricated diamonds for 15k sells his for 14k? Since they're both the same, his are going to sell because why would anyone buy a diamond from Alice when they can get the exact same diamond from Bob for 1000gp less?

If you want to argue that they both sell their diamonds for 15k because there's an unlimited demand whose price is static you're only proving my point - it's the economy of Pathfinder that's broken, not the fabricate spell.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

There's a new ranged weapon enchant from the Ranged Tactics Toolbox called cyclonic:

Quote:

Price +2 bonus; Aura faint conjuration; CL 12th

DESCRIPTION

This special ability can be placed only on ranged weapons or ammunition.

A cyclonic weapon or piece of ammunition feels as though it were surrounded by gentle winds pulling it in all directions. When the wielder makes a ranged attack with a cyclonic weapon, a sheath of whirling air surrounds the weapon or the ammunition fired and prevents the attack from being impaired by wind, water, and other liquid or gaseous environmental factors.

CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

Cost +2 bonus; Feats Craft Magic Arms and Armor; Spells air bubble

So the question is in the title. Would a cyclonic weapon's projectiles still be affected by wind wall or fickle winds? I want to say no, but I think they still would because the enchant doesn't state it defeats magical environmental effects. Thoughts?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Avadriel wrote:

for bows

+5 interfering and + 4 cyclonic nimble.

Wow, I didn't know about these enchants. I wonder; does cyclonic defeat wind wall/fickle winds?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

You're a high level archer who gets word that your rich Uncle Pennybags has left you part of his inheritance. Per his will, his wizard friend will craft you three magical bows, each with a full +10 total enchantment, plus adaptive & impervious (of course).

Your greedy eyes sparkle with glee. What do you ask for on each of your bows?

Alternatively: You're a greatsword wielding martial. What do you want on your three greatswords?

Go!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:


2. You're succeeding at the check, but it doesn't have the required traits, so it's not defeated.

But you're still allowed to gather your dice pool and all that entails, right? So Damiel can still use his power to add a d6 + the fire trait to the check - thus meeting the fire trait requirement for permanent defeat - before he plays the PotO, right?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
The physical stuff doesn't bother me because it's trivial to imagine and justify cosmetic stuff. Any craftsman can put her own unique touches on a sword or what have you.

Can they? How far can they deviate before it's not the same weapon? If I put a cool spike on the end of my sword, like the Uruk-hai in the Lord of the Rings movies, is it no longer a longsword (even if the spike is purely decorative)?

Quote:
Magic is different, since it has no mundane or contextual reference.

Why is magic different, exactly? The fact there is no reference to exactly what magic looks like or how it works only implies that there should be even more variation. You're dealing with an intangible thing. There is no tangible standard that you can compare it to.

It doesn't matter if the fireball is blue, green, orange, black, or white. It doesn't matter if when you cast lightning bolt a phantom image of a blue dragon's head appears around your hand for the short instance of the spell. It doesn't matter if the cone of cold spell looks like a winter's blizzard or sub-zero's ice from Mortal Kombat or a flood of frozen-spirits sweeping over the cone's area. What matters is each spell deals X d6 damage in Y area with a DC Z reflex save for half. >_>

Quote:
If one wizard's fireball is orange and another's is green, why? Do they know slightly different versions of the same spell? Are the spells exactly the same, but cast slightly different? Is it something inherent to the wizards themselves? What about spontaneous spellcasters?

Actually, yes, there is in fact evidence that it is just that. See, knowing a spell doesn't mean you even know or use the same words as the next guy using a spell. Just because your Sorcerer knows Fireball and has vocal and somatic components and such doesn't mean he gets to recognize that somebody else (including another sorcerer) is casting fireball). For that, he must make a successful Spellcraft check.

In the same...

I don't know what to say. Maybe it isn't completely logical or I just can't explain it. But I don't want to have to deal with the headache/annoyance of custom spell effects. Thankfully, none of my players have ever asked.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

No, Matthew has the right of it. Fabricate only 'breaks' the economy because the economy is already broken to begin with. Trying to make the argument that fabricate breaks [the economy] and therefore the spell is broken is disingenuous.

Take Ashiel's scenario for example. If we're trying to argue using realistic economic principles it fails because as soon as Alice the 9th level wizard tries to profit from turning a 5000gp gem into a 15,000gp gem she fails because Bob the wizard undercuts her by selling it for 14,000gp. And then Charlie the wizard undercuts them both by selling it for 13,000gp. And so on and so forth. In the end the price of the '15,000gp' diamond will settle at 5000gp plus whatever the cost of casting fabricate is.

Saying "wizards don't use fabricate that way" is not merely GM fiat. The entire structure of the game requires necessary compromises in order to function as a narrative device and gaming framework. If you're going to start demanding real-world logic in every aspect the entire thing falls apart.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:

That must be really rough. As a GM, I refluff descriptions of stuff constantly. It keeps the game fresh and interesting. It's often a rather efficient way to add a little indirect personality to certain characters.

For example, the goblin sorcerer Grex "Jum-Jum", who's summoned riding horse via the mount spell looked like a rainbow-colored donkey. Or a drow wizard whose empowered fireball threw blue and orange flames. None of these things affect the game mechanically in any way, shape, or form, beyond just making the game more fun and/or cool.

In your game do all longswords look the exact same too? How do you reconcile the extreme amount of OCD-irritation that occurs from seeing Pathfinder art depicting things like staffs and swords differently, even though they all share the same statistics?

Why has your head not exploded yet over the way armor looks? (o-O)

The physical stuff doesn't bother me because it's trivial to imagine and justify cosmetic stuff. Any craftsman can put her own unique touches on a sword or what have you.

Magic is different, since it has no mundane or contextual reference. If one wizard's fireball is orange and another's is green, why? Do they know slightly different versions of the same spell? Are the spells exactly the same, but cast slightly different? Is it something inherent to the wizards themselves? What about spontaneous spellcasters?

Next, how does that affect spellcraft checks to recognize spells? Is it the same, or should it be different, and why?

It's just more effort than it's worth.

Your armor comment scares me. Is there something wrong with the way armor looks? Should my head explode?


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Dire Mongoose wrote:

Honestly in general I think the spells that bypass spell resistance are too good, not just that one. Disable Construct doesn't exactly bother me because there's an opportunity cost to picking it -- you just might not run into a construct that day if you're a prepared caster, or you sacrificed a slot for it if you're spontaneous. But, like, Glitterdust? That's good for almost everything.

In the groups that I play with, the casters just naturally gravitate towards loading heavy on spells (when they pick something offensive) like Glitterdust and Create Pit. It's totally common for the party to encounter a golem or something with atrocious SR and just not even notice, because there are a ton of SR: No spells that are also just plain great for their level besides it.

I think most of the SR: No spells should probably be a level or two higher than current, so there's actually a tough choice to make more often between the most effective spell of your level or something that's a hedge against SR.

For me it's more about internal consistency than pure spell power. For example, Create Pit is something I think logically would ignore SR, after all you're not actually targeting a creature with it. Furthermore, if it was subject to SR how would you adjudicate it? A creature whose SR you fail to penetrate just floats above the pit?

There are spells besides Disable Construct that shouldn't ignore SR that do, in my opinion, but then again if I were to start making wholesale changes to the spell list I'd be doing more than just changing which spells are affected by SR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I've banned three spells outright in the game I'm running:

Blood Money - for obvious reasons.

Snowball - shouldn't exist.

Disable Construct - really shouldn't exist.

Though Snowball and Disable Construct aren't necessarily overpowered, they're spells that have been deliberately designed to get around intended limitations and drawbacks for spells.

Snowball is an elemental damage spell with evocation spell scaling that was made as a conjuration spell solely to get around spell resistance. It specifically contradicts the spell creation guidelines in Ultimate Magic.

Disable Construct is an even worse offender. It is, to my knowledge, the only enchantment school spell that targets an opponent that doesn't allow spell resistance. There's no justification for having this spell bypass spell resistance, and in fact the only reason it does is so that it can target golems.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Why do you not let your players have green lightning and red fireballs anyway? I mean, do you really care so much that that requires a feat?
I wouldn't let them either. We're not playing a video game.

How do you connect green lightning to "we're playing a video game?"

I know that personally, "green lightning" makes me think primarily of Luke Skywalker at the end of the Vong War (that would be a book, not a video game; we've never gotten any sort of game of that era) and to a much lesser extent the villains of the Bazil Broketail series (that would, again, be books).

Because I'm OCD. If I let a player do something like that, it means I need to think about that kind of stuff for every NPC I make from then on out. Furthermore, I'd feel compelled to come up with systems, guidelines, and justifications for that kind of personalization.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Why do you not let your players have green lightning and red fireballs anyway? I mean, do you really care so much that that requires a feat?

I wouldn't let them either. We're not playing a video game.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
The assassin PrC sucks at its job, even if the slayer and rogue do not exist. There are a few threads that go into detail on that topic.

It's like Tacticslion said; it's only usable as an NPC as an actual assassin, and not as an adventurer. (And like you said, still worse at it than other classes.)

The funny thing is that if I were to actually make an NPC with the Assassin PrC and wanted to maximize its effectiveness I'd use wizard as an entry class. Maxed Int for Death Attack and wizard, with spells to provide great assistance for carrying out assassinations.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

93. Player: "I'm going to put this artifact in my Bag of Holding so it can stay safe and nothing bad will happen to it."

GM: "Well, that's fantastic, a really smart decision! I'll just mark it down on my sheet over here that you have your artifact in that Bag of Holding so it doesn't draw attention-AAAAND it's gone.

Player: "...What?"

GM: "The artifact in your Bag of Holding, it didn't do too well, it's gone."

Player: "What do you mean, I have the artifact!"

GM: "Not anymore you don't. Poof!"

If I was the player I'd take that bag and start an artifact disposal service.

"Got an artifact you can't seem to get rid of? For a mere 50,000 gold I'll let you put it on my special Bag of Holding and it'll disappear for ever! Guaranteed!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

86. "The good news is I rolled a 2. The bad news is - what's your AC again? Yup, that's still a hit."

87. "I need to know what buffs everyone has up right now."

88. "Say, did you all get separate rooms or did you just get one room?"

89. "Let me know as soon as any of you eat any of the food. I'll need you to make a perception check."

90. "Did you use any protection?"


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I swear if my precious Kyra gets nerfed because of this I'M NEVER POSTING AGAIN!


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
andreww wrote:
Xexyz wrote:
I wonder what the melee vs. archery effectiveness graph would look like across 20 levels.
It depends on which you are comparing it to. Level 1 pouncing summoners, level 4 pouncing druids, level 10 pouncing barbarians or straight fighter, rogue or monk types?

Mostly thinking same-class melee vs. archer comparison. So a melee fighter would be compared against an archer fighter, and so on.

1 to 50 of 1,018 << 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.