I always take candles. If I am looking for a secret door, the smoke from the candle can be used to outline the door's edges as it smudges the walls and it puts off less light than the torch. Plus, there are about a million things you can do with wax, including makeshift ear plugs.
I would love to see how specific cities/sites in Golorian are mirrored/twisted/refracted in the plane of Shadow. I can see a very dark, Bizzarro/Lovecraftish feel coming out of this. I also see the Kytons, with their propensity to warp flesh actively warping reality to cause these changes... Maybe there are "thin" spots where the Plane of Shadow comes through.
I had a DM who ruled that if a monster critted, something horrible would happen. If we critted, it was 2xdamage. A cleric I was playing got shot by an arrow. Natural 20. He got hit in the head, for 16 points of damage (5th level, so nowhere near killing him), however the arrow caused a traumatic brain injury, dropping his intelligence to 5 (from 14). No save, no cure as it was 2nd edition and restoration was way out of our league. Spent 6 months real game time before we got to a city big enough to find someone to cure me. Admittedly, after I got over being ticked, I had fun roleplaying the character.
Maybe it is just the old gamer in me, but as a GM I will often have the players roll a d20 when there is nothing going on, just to keep them on their toes. I don't call it initiative, but I don't think that the GM did anything wrong if he was consistent in when he called for initiative.
A question in the same vein, if you are two weapon fighting, can you use quick draw to get an off hand attack or does TWF only apply to melee weapons? I am building a fighter who specializes in throwing axes. I know it is not an optimal build but it should still be useful if he can throw two axes and then QuickDraw two more to either throw the next round or melee.
Thanks. This is just what I was looking for.
I guess I would allow it, if the characters are able to track down a wizard who isn't 1. Currently working for the local, regional, or country's government (high ranking officials are probably keeping them pretty busy and pretty rich.). 2. Aren't busy with tons of other requests from other adventure types. 3. Are willing to even talk to some peon who wants a permanent detect evil. It feels like a quest to me. Of course, I house rule that magic item creation takes a lot more time, and the wizard can't be doing anything else, so it is going to be difficult to get a wizard to find time to cast spells on others when they could be making a magical saddle for the King's horse or making staves and wands for themselves.
I guess that my opinion is that it is the GM's responsibility to draw these lines. These questions came up in 1st and 2nd edition, but because so many rules required extrapolation, GMs just went with their gut instincts. Sometimes, games got derailed... Not the end of the world.To answer your question: because the spell is called Grease? I like my players to come up with creative uses for spells. Not sure how I would adjudicate this one.
I do think that a quick fix is to make "thief" skills something that only rogues get, much like 1st Ed. It doesn't fix imbalance issues, but it gives more reasons to have a rogue be useful in the game. I do understand that the rogue is not as mechanically good as just about any other character class. My point is that a good player and a good GM fix a lot of what is wrong.
I think I am in agreement with you as to the gate thingies, but logic? Really? "I wave my hands and a ball of fire shoots out at you". Not sure where the logic is there. I like the gate idea due to the rule of "cool". RAW wise, no idea.
Marius Castille wrote:
Only succeeded once and it was because my friend was playing a Mage too. My Mage spent ten rounds casting the spell while my friend's Mage was casting walls of force to keep the Frost Giants away. Think I kept control of it for about 4 rounds till it moved too far away. Killed at least one member of the party.
Mainly because 0-75 on a d100 was long sword on the magic weapons table.
Not trying to change anyone's mind, just wanted to state that playing a character who is completely focused on thieving skills can be fun. No spells, no super powers. Kinda like playing batman when everyone else are playing supermen. There IS a challenge to it, but that can make it much more satisfying.
Honestly, I think that the rogue is only as obsolete as the player playing the rogue. If the player not only understands the character, but also is good at ROLEPLAYING the social encounters and the trap finding/disarming, and other areas in which he should shine, then the character will probably shine... Unless the GM won't let him.
True story about me: I started with dungeons and dragons with 1st edition in 1977. I was 8 years old and I played with three friends my age. It took me over a year before I understood how to give experience points. Characters stayed 1st level with 8hps but had all kinds of magic items and artifacts. Lol. Mostly we liked looking at the Monster Manual.
Can I say thank you to everyone on this thread. I have spent far too much time on a couple of threads about a recent FAQ that was beginning to make me not think well about people who play Pathfinder. Your back and forth suggestions and willingness to help someone new was just the prescription I needed.
Actually it means that a whole bunch of people are having the same question at different times and have different levels of threadfu. Not sure how starting a new thread hurt anyone.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Really? Wow. If this FAQ (which we asked for) which covers such an insignificant portion of Pathfinder is "folly" then i guess i wonder what would really tick some people off. Is this a real issue to you Or are you just trolling? I really haven't seen anything that the Devs have clarified that makes me think that the game is somehow more broken today than it was yesterday. You know why? Because I can house rule anything I want. Some people are so worried about "secret rules" (which don't exist and are just a method of ginning up anger) that they forget a written rule, that has been in every edition of the game: change what you don't like. The argument about this rule is understandable. The nastiness is not.
Ok, I'm done. It took a while but I realize now that I am just as much to blame as the people who are crying that the sky is falling over this FAQ. My participation has undoubtedly helped some people keep their anger going. If you believe that the Devs are sitting back and working from a manual of secret rules that they refuse to share with us cause they want you to hate their game, there is nothing I, or anyone else can say that will change your mind. If you think this rule clarification is going to ruin Pathfinder, nothing anyone can say will change your mind. I don't think it is all that big of a deal. We disagree and we aren't doing anything constructive arguing about it. Some of you think I should be upset by this ruling. I think some people should get over it and enjoy their game. Seems like an impasse to me.
Is it a dead horse??
Beaten to death like a rug. It won't change anything. You can still run your game the way you want to. We asked the Devs to clarify the rule in their game. They clarified it. Some people don't like the ruling. Doesn't change my game, and honestly, shouldn't change anyone else's, as they can house rule it. It changes less than 1/1000th of the game as far as organized play goes. Again, not that deep.
The unwritten rules never allowed it, is what you mean.
C'mon man. This is a straw man argument and you know it. It is based on one unfortunate comment by a Dev that was trying to explain that there are guiding principles to the game design. You don't like the ruling. Ok. You don't agree with the ruling. Ok. I just don't understand why this ruling has brought out so many vehement attacks on the game system and the designers as if they are trying to take your fun away. You don't like it, house rule it and move on. It ain't that deep.
This +1000000000000I ran a campaign that was fairly low magic and I wanted a grittier feel, kinda Glen Cook without some of the Gonzo elements. I removed fly, teleport, and ressuection spells from the spell lists and made them legendary spells that the characters uncovered during the course of the campaign. It doesn't mean these spells are broken, just that they would have broken the feel of my campaign.
I run by the rule of cool. I won't penalize the players for not being eloquent, but I will give bonuses for eloquence or inspired social strategies. I will penalize or even auto fail someone for saying or doing something that is horribly inappropriate to the situation. Opposite is also true. If the player does or says something truly inspired in a social setting, they will succeed. I feel like this allows the players that want to role play more to role play more without worrying t punishing the players who want to just role dice.
I can respect that opinion. I think that all the different choices must have something going for them though, cause there are a lot of people playing rogues, monks, cavaliers, and ninjas.
I guess I have a general question about choices... Why is it bad that one fighting style or archetype or weapon is notas strong mechanically as other choices? Doesn't the cool flavor of using something different weigh into what you play? Do you only pick the mechanically best choice? Not trying to be rude at all, but genuinely want to know how people play. I love the rogue and enjoy playing him. There are a lot of things the rogue can do well, but it is not a terrific in combat. Still play one that TWFs throwing axes. Love the versatility and the flavor. The damage is not great, but good enough that I have fun.
Ok, I have complained several times about the tone and the pointlessness of this thread's length, and then I check back and people are playing nice and having a pretty cool conversation.