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

concerro's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,623 posts (39,469 including aliases). 3 reviews. 9 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,910 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
WHY DO YOU HATE WEALTHY MAGICIANS SO MUCH!!!
Because the universe explodes is the PCs go 1GP over the WBL...wait...no it doesn't. Why are people so clingy to this again?

It is for the safety of the group. If you go over WBL for too long some men with a purple golem on their shirts take you away, and you never come back. We are just looking out for your well being. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Armor Training is one class feature that improves over time. If a class feature is not traded out then you still have it per the rules. This is not normally a problem because many class features do not increase in steps. You either have it or you do not. Trapfinding is an example.

However with the way archetypes trade out steps of a class feature for various other features each step is treated like a class feature*, and I doubt the devs intended for you to come back around and pick up the steps later just by raising your class level.

Now if a magic item/spell/etc explicity just says you get ____ that is different, but I don't think RAI was to allow for you to trade out step Y of a class feature and then get it back by raising your level via a magical item.

*There is no rules text saying treat various steps of a class ability as a class ability when dealing with archetypes. However I think that when this FAQ is answered that it will go much like the ability scores are sources unwritten rule even though there is no written rules precedent for it. I think that will be done to avoid gaming the system in some way later on, assuming it can't be done now.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

When Paizo issues a ruling that is not liked.....

Overacting forum member: Paizo devs are morons/idiots/etc. How could they do that? They are ruining the game for everyone. Now (insert catastrophic event that is not likely to happen) will happen. Continues rant with wild exaggerations, and more insults some of them passive-aggressive.

Later on.....

Overacting forum member: Why don't those lazy Paizo devs do their jobs. Why are we not getting more FAQ's?

--------------------------------------------------

I guess they feel like Paizo devs have to put up with verbal abuse. Nobody wants to put up with that. It is possible to disagree and not be a jerk while doing so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I think Jason gave the RAI of the spell.

Maybe. Jason is awesome, but perhaps not infallible. I think he really missed the boat here. His post that was quoted above allows this example:

Mage wants to charm a NPC to kill himself so he casts Charm Person on the guy.

Mage: Kill yourself.
Guy: Haha, I trust you, friend, but I can and will disobey that request.
Mage: OK, go kill all the people in that village over there.
Guy: I don't want to.
Mage: Too bad, I am more charismatic than you are so do it!
Guy: Crap, I still don't want to so I will kill myself.
Mage: Booyah! That's what I wanted all along!

All of which completely ignores the part that the charmed guy will not do harmful things.

Sorry Jason, I think you spoke too quickly on this subject and maybe didn't consider all the ramifications for this first level spell.

wraithstrike wrote:
If you fail the check you have to follow what is wanted.

Maybe, as long as it isn't harmful. And as long as it is something that a trusted friend could talk you into without any puppet-mastery mind control

The problem here is the vague wording that allows two different parsings of this sentence:

Charm Person spell wrote:
You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.

Parsing one: You can convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do by trying to make an opposed CHA check.

Parsing two: If you try to make it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do, you must make an opposed CHA check.

Both of these parsings are perfectly valid interpretations of that sentence. the first version suggests that ANYTHING is possible if you make the check. The second version suggests that you cannot make him do anything without making the check. The first one is inclusive - all things are possible (as long as you make the check). The second one is exclusive - nothing is possible (but a check...

He has not retracted the statement, but me not liking it does not make it "not the intent". Honestly I won't follow the intent, I think we will run it the same way.

It was also supporting an "FAQ" that was issued which takes the entire PDT to discuss.

We should not confuse what we don't like or what may not make sense with what the rule is or is not.

The once upon a time ruling of not being able to flurry with a single weapon comes to mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
bookrat wrote:
It really feels like circular logic here.
It really feels like circular logic here.
So you agree? Disagree? I'm not understanding the point of your reply, here.
yes

Bookrat I am suggesting you cut sling load on this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:
Quote:
Now if you come up with something that actually compares to a gaming situation, and not being a jerk then I would tell you how I respond to game related situations.

But that's just my point, wraith - those situations I was talking about involve the DM being a jerk. Thus, it's completely irrelevant whether some Rule Zero line in the rulebook gives him whatever power he chooses.

From what I understood the GM did not know he was wrong. That is why we were saying you were wrong to hold the game up, if that was a real life situation.

Even if he is being stubborn about a game it is not on the same level as breaking personal property.

And this is not even about rule 0 to me. That is different from the GM having the final say. That is just how the game works. Once the GM has made up his mind there is no point in arguing anymore. If this was the only time the GM ever did this I would just talk to him after the game, and try to find a solution. If this is a constant thing with him never admitting a mistake I find a new group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Jason gave the RAI of the spell. If you fail the check you have to follow what is wanted. My problem with the spell is that if you are "convinced" to do something then you would do that, and not kill yourself instead, so the cha check should be to "convince them to do things they really do not want to do subject to GM discretion". Of course now you have to depend on your GM to be fair, but that is another topic altogether, but with dominate person they just do what they are told. Well they might get another save, but that is also another topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally hate RP'ing shopping. I don't want to haggle. I don't want to have a conversation with shop keeper 9F. Unless he is plot relevant I won't even try to remember his name. Actually I won't even ask. I want to mark X amount of gold off my character sheet, write down item Y, and get back to adventuring.

Now I am aware that everyone does not have that stance, but a factor in how well this goes over depends on how your players feel about shopping, and other game interactions. Even if everyone here said it was a great idea the players may not enjoy it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Do you memorize everything you read, and understand the often contradictory and bizarrely placed and cross referenced rules and how they interact with each other? Something as straitforward as the druid requires having the druid page , the monster they're turning into, and the beast shape spell, as well as the polymorph section of the magic chapter all pinging off of each other.

If it's something I'm playing, then yes, I do repeatedly reread the section on that class. I also print out the pages on anything I'm using and take it with me to the game. If the GM can do enough homework to put an entire game together, I can be bothered to learn how to play a character.

And if a druid is too hard, don't play a druid. I don't care if your entire character concept hinges on being a druid - man/woman up and do some studying, or change your concept. The rest of the table shouldn't have to wait while you fumble through the books to double check an ability that is a cornerstone of your class, nor should we have to take time to interject what you're doing wrong and ourselves look up and reference the GM to correct your lack of knowledge caused by laziness.

Again, newbies get a pass, but about a year in you should have no excuses.

I don't let people play druids unless they are willing to do their homework and work out their favorite shapes, pre-adjusted with all templates, attributes, etc. Same thing for summon spells, martial versatility, or any other complex ability.

If you can't handle it, don't play it.

Yeah I am with you on the summoned animals things. I understand if you hardly ever summon anything, but if you always summon things then have the stats ready. At least tell me in advance. I will just set up the monster for you while I am prepping the game. No, I am not prepping every possible monster, but I will do a select few.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

If every player bothered to actually try and learn the rules for what they're playing and the general chapter on combat, there wouldn't be such a thing as "rules lawyers".

Newbies get a pass - there's a lot to take in at once. But if you've been gaming for over a year and haven't bothered to sit down and try to learn how it works, well, you're lazy. I thought about finding a nicer way to say that, I really did, but a year is a long frickin time. Lazy.

The CRB has 575 pages. 4 pages are table of contents and credits and that kind of stuff, 4 are indexes, 2 are lists of inspired reading appendices, 14 are gamemastering, 10 are creating NPCs...All of which the player never needs to know.

That's 541 pages absolute maximum to read. That's less than two pages a day to get it done in a year. For everything. But if you're playing a certain race, class, and using only certain items, that can cut it down by About 75%. Heck, the magic items chapter alone is 96 pages, most of which you can ignore. Spells are about 150, which if you're a martial you can skip entirely, and a caster need only know what he or she casts. That boils down to a page every other day.

Reading four pages a week is not a lot of work. It's not. I'm pretty sure it's less than five minutes work per page to really soak it in. Most people spend hours at a time on their hobbies, and not even on the fun parts, but tabletop gamers can't be expected to spend just under a half an hour a week learning theirs? And maybe I'm generalizing, but just about everyone I've played with has called themselves a reader, or at least casually enjoyed reading.

It just annoys me that considering all the work a GM goes through how lazy so many players can be.

Some people are just a lot better at learning the rules than others are. Now I do expect for them to know which dice to roll, and other basic things. I also like for them to know their character. I get more annoyed by people who don't level up between sessions. Unless someone is a caster and they have to choose spells, it should not take long.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:

Humour me with a question, wraithstrike.

I am your GM. I come to your house to play. Mid-session, I stand up, walk over to your cupboard, and smash three of your glasses.

You then make a scene about what the hells I am doing, while I kindly ask you to continue the game.

Who of us is to blame for holding up the game?

Sorry I am just seeing this.

I would not make a scene I would just kick you out of the house.

Now if you come up with something that actually compares to a gaming situation, and not being a jerk then I would tell you how I respond to game related situations.

As an example if I as the GM yell at you, for you correcting me on a rule then that is a more of a me being a jerk than a gaming issue because I should not be yelling at another person. So if you respond by walking out of the game because you feel disrespected that is fine.

My example of you ending the game as a player is more comparable to you breaking my personal property because we both have issues with the way the other behaved that was not good, and not entirely game related.

At no point should a person be disrespected, and accidentally killing your character is not being disrespectful.

PS: Just to be clear I am not calling you a jerk. I was saying the breaking of personal property is jerkish behavior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marco Polaris wrote:
Oh man, that thread. The worst part is, even as you're complaining about his arguments being flanderized, there are people in that thread saying the same rules are exactly true. Clowns to the left of you, jokers to the right.

Yeah I saw some of those, and I am sure he will see those and miss the others that don't agree, thinking "See MOST of you do exactly like I said".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that per RAW/RAI it works, but to me that is the domain of dominate person.

Charm person should only go as far as what someone might do for a best friend/family member.

In my games--> The +5 DC makes you more convinced, but it still has limits. As an example you(an NPC) might, depending on your level of loyalty let the PC's in through a secret opening into the castle and that may lead to the king being killed, but you might not directly assist in the killing because that is way beyond your event horizon.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I weigh this class and find it lacking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just got reminded of another meme. People who go on rants about things, as if they were common board truths, when the rant is very inaccurate.

Examples: The policy of healing should not happen in combat... is taken as "Don't heal in combat ever".

Example: You should take power attack was changed to "You must always take power attack even if you are using TWF with a rogue".


5 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:


5) Rogues are terrible, you should never play them ever. If you do, you're stupid.

I am not going to say that nobody ever said that because someone probably has, but that is not the general message. You have every right to vent, but do so accurately.

Quote:
It's true, with the advent of the investigator, the rogue has a lot of wind taken out of her sail, but they are still useful characters. Can they run around consistently breaking 300 damage a round at level 10? No. But I don't think pathfinder characters were ever meant to do that. People don't like rogues because they are not as good at staying alive as fighters, and they don't deal their redonkulous damage consistently.

300 is not a realistic barrier. I dont know if you were being facetious or not.

Quote:
But here's the thing. Rogues don't have to. A lot of people slot rogues into the 'melee' class because they need to be in melee to get flanking, and that's were a lot of their sneak attack comes from, and then they compare them to fighters, paladins, etc. Of course they are going to come up short to pure melee classes. They aren't a pure melee class

Nobody has ever said they were a pure melee class build, and if that is what you are getting out of all the rogue threads then you need to reread them.

Quote:


Rogues exceed at skills and utility. Finding traps, disabling traps (traps that can instant-kill you, by the way, not all traps 'just drain charges from a wand of Cure light wounds.') Rogues are fast-talkers, are good at stealth. With proper buffs from a wizard or clerics, Rogues can end an encounter without ever getting into combat. Are they the best class in the game? No. Are they super broken? No.

I think this is true. The common opinion is that other classes do this better, and also fight better.

Quote:
Could they be made better? Yes. Are they viable? Also yes.

Whether or not they are viable is a point of contention since "viable" varies by game table. The common baseline is does the GM have to help you out, and can you meaningfully contribute against stock monsters, which is actually a low baseline, but a fair one. Some people report having trouble with stock(straight out of the book with no adjustment) monsters in combat. Now we do have the sap master, but it still relies on sneak attacks and flanking which is hard to set up depending on how tactical the GM is.

Quote:


4) If you are a wizard, you'd better be a conjurations specialist, or you are the dumbest mage on the planet. Universalist wizard? Doubly so.

Once again you are misreading things. The idea is that the conjuration route is the best or at least one of the better ones. Nobody is complaining if you go Universalist as long as you play it well. At the same time if you play a conjuration wizard badly they might complain.

You are starting to look like one of those people who only sees the extreme end of arguments. Don't be that guy.

Quote:


3) Do you ever plan on attacking with a melee weapon? You need power attack.

Okay, power attack is a great feat, especially when paired with a weapon that is two-handed. However, it is not the ONLY feat. It is also not the only feat to increase your damage. It also costs you to hit, and a character suffering massive penalties to hit is not going to be doing any damage.

Wrong wrong wrong. Nobody who is half-way competent is saying always take power attack. Also if you are two-handing a weapon you attack bonus can be so high that even with power attack you only miss on 5's or less, and the penalties are nowhere near "massive". Stop exaggerating.

Quote:


Listen, power attack is great, but a rogue who is two-weapon fighting doesn't need to start off the day with a -3/-3 to hit with his 3/4s BaB.

An example of when not to take power attack. I am sure you wont find most of us saying combine power attack and two weapon fighting. I think I just found my next meme to add to that other thread. Thanks.

Quote:


2) Pathfinder rewards hyperspecilization.

It does(to an extent), but once again nobody who is competent is saying do 1 thing and only one thing well, such as hit things hard. Being good at only one thing in this regard is why people look down on the fighter, so if that is what you learned you were listening to the wrong people or did not understand the message.

Quote:


1) Healers are useless, you don't need healers, never, EVER heal in combat.

I actually had a thread on this to clarify that most of us are NOT saying NEVER EVER heal. Some do hold that stance.

The common stance is that you are not being efficient by focusing around building* because being proactive is better than being reactive, and by being proactive you can actually make it less likely to have to heal.

If you need a link to the thread let me know.

*I am aware that there may be some builds that heal really well, but barring those every few builds you should be trying to make sure the damage is never dealt, and even those build should not stand around twiddling their thumbs if nobody is hurt.

Basically you just ranted about things that are minority issues on the board. I am glad I could clear things up for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:

The rules can declare the Gamemaster to be the supreme god of the universe for all I care. That still does not make it his game at the table, but our game. The GM is on the same team. There is no player versus gamemaster. He is as much responsible for the fun at the table as everyone else, and his role as a gamemaster does not give him any leeway in behaviour.

We're not talking rules here, we are talking social interaction - and that can't be regulated in a rulebook.

Quote:
And once that comes, you're done. You have the choice to prolong the inevitable by arguing, accept it and move on, or accept it and quit.
You seem to be quite hung up that the only choice is for the player to move on or quit - as opposed to the GM getting his act together before the party decides they need a new GM. Or, of course, the GM walks away because he can't cope with whatever it is his players are doing.

You being correct(about the rule) does not mean you get to hold up everyone else's fun. So you are wrong in that(holding up the game) regard. It is not about shifting the blame, but you handling the situation improperly. The GM may have screwed up your fun, but when you keep arguing you are now messing up everyone's fun. So no matter how wrong the GM is, you are still not justified in your behavior. Sometimes life and the game is not fair. This would be one of those times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
baconwing wrote:

I've just did a search of the forums for examples of fun uses of charm person, and all I can find are stories of people either wanting to know why their GM wont treat this spell as basically dominate person, or GMs complaining about players trying to basically make this spell dominate person.

I have a bard, and I want to try and use this spell in interesting ways, even bordering on some interesting ways to start combat to our groups advantage. like infiltrating a cult of demon worshipers using disguise skill and looted cultist outfits along with a charm person at the first introduction to the cultists. In conjunction with a silent image to make one of the cultists look like they had a holy symbol of iomedae hidden up their sleeve. followed by an opposed charisma check to make charmed person openly accuse their fellow cultist of heresy. who knows if this would actually cause the other cultists to kill one of these two, either the accuser or the accused. using another player to make bluff checks to distract the other cultists so they dont see my bard casting, or my own bluff check to hide behind another player to mask my casting.

In my opinion, as a player if I go through that much trouble to set up what I consider to be a good strategy, I dont see anything wrong with this resulting in the death of a cultist, and even my group getting a surprise round out of the deal after they've dealt with their own. but some people seem to think that stuff like this is abusing first level spells.

whats with all the charm person hate, this seems like a way more fun way to start combat than "we draw our weapons and attack, everyone roll initiative."

It is not hate at all, but different people have different views on the line between charm person and dominate person. That causes arguments as I am sure you have seen during your research.

Also fun is subjective, as well as what is "ok".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I suggest if you want to get better is to play under different GM's, and play with more groups. The exposure will allow you to see various ways to play the game. The best way to get better is to keep GM'ing however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If I was Paizo I would not say anything. As a company it is sometimes best to stay out of fights that don't require you to speak up. Since Gencon is very important for RPG companies going against them would be a bad business decision, and in this case it would make Paizo look "fake" since they have openly had homosexual characters in AP's. IIRC they may have had a transexual character also. Not looking genuine is never good. <---- They don't need a PR person to figure that out

They have had a transexual character. They also have various LGBTQ people working there. I can not imagine they wouldn't back GenCon on this.

Whether they feel the need to make a separate statement in support or not is a different question of course.

I think they do support them, but companies making official statements when it serves little to no purpose is not generally a good idea. At best people will stay where they are since Paizo is positive on this topic so far. Of course something could always be taken out of context and it can back fire on them. Then they have to try to explain their way of out the situation, and hope nothing else is taken out of context. The ability of people to intentionally and accidentally read between the lines when there is nothing there, is astounding.

PS: I am sure we agree. I was just using your post. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Sounds like you would stop the game until you win the argument or left. Is this a fair assessment?

I took it as he would keep going until everyone said let it go, assuming a character death was at risk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:

I'm not avoiding the question. It is merely completely irrelevant to the argument I made in the first place - namely that I'm going to insist checking the rules first in such situations, and that a GM does not have free reign to change rules on the fly just because he feels like it.

But fine, if it actually gets to that point where rules were checked and subsequently ignored, I'd keep arguing up until I had clear indication that it's completely fruitless - at which point it'd come down to the people and the specific situation in question (and how it was specifically handled) whether I'd approach it again after the session, or if the group loses a player, possibly immediately.

I don't see the relevance of the question considering Kain constructed that scenario entirely in his head, but there you go.

It is relevant because in a discussion we often need to know how someone may handle a situation, and while it may have been in Kain's head it is an event that takes place in real life. Had it been something that has never happened, and/or is likely to never happen that would have been different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I was Paizo I would not say anything. As a company it is sometimes best to stay out of fights that don't require you to speak up. Since Gencon is very important for RPG companies going against them would be a bad business decision, and in this case it would make Paizo look "fake" since they have openly had homosexual characters in AP's. IIRC they may have had a transexual character also. Not looking genuine is never good. <---- They don't need a PR person to figure that out


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes you are avoiding the question. If your group was not willing to stand with you or if they thought the GM was correct would you still argue or back down, even if YOU knew that you were right?<---The question simplified.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:
Quote:
I'm saying that once you've spent that time, however much you get, making your case, and the DM has ruled, it's time to move on. Whether that means to a new character, a new game or a new hobby is going to vary from person to person.

Ah.

That would depend on the rule and ruling. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

If the rules are obviously different from the GM's ruling, or at least subject to a questionable interpretation, I'd still not shut up - and not have to worry about stopping any other player's fun, because the people I usually play with would be standing right beside me.

So, no. It's not time to move on. If a DM is being an idiot, he's being an idiot, and it's not somehow my job as a player to make that less obvious by shutting up about it when him being that idiot becomes a significant detriment to the game.

He is making a general statement, and using you as an example. In your group it may be ok to do that, but in most groups it would not be ok. He does not know your group so he was not dictating how they would respond.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I am wondering is why there is a need(see *) to sign a contract to hold a convention, and what does Gencon(the company) get out of it?

*I understand that it might not be a "need", but more of a business arrangement for the company and the state, but I am still curious.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Death_Keeper wrote:
I agree that the spell may be marked as /evil/ by its descriptor, but I also disagree with it. Also, who cares if it is /evil/?

Well the GM may care, and depending on the setting and your class the deity may care. The nation you are in may care, and throw you in jail even if you have sound arguments that the law is wrong. So the answer to your question depends on various factors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

A bad rules lawyer generally does one of two things.

Only argues rules so that they work in their own favor and

Makes the assumption of perfection: that is that if they see a way "Raw says this!" then other instances of "Raw says the complete opposite!" must be wrong because

So outside of PFS, whats the argument that a druid can't take improved natural attack?

I don't want to derail this with a rules debate, and there is already an open thread on this. Basically it depends on whether or not a GM thinks you need something all of the time, or whether he thinks "Access at will" should suffice.

TLDR:The rules are silent in either direction.
Would I allow it? Most likely I would, but I tend to be rather lax when I am GM'ing.

My last comment on it in this thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

With that aside a fair GM will bring you back to life once he finds out he is wrong. And as a player you should not hold the game hostage, even though I understand you being upset. I would however point out the rule between sessions. If the GM does not admit or know he is wrong then you have a decision to make.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:

Well, you have the right to be wrong. The very definition of the GM includes rule 0, which none of the player entitlement crowd seems to remember.

As a GM I will say that rule is about your ability to make the rules. It is not rule 0 when you just have no idea what you are talking about.

Rule 0: If you are wet fireball does 3 less dice of damage. <--Intentional rule change.

GM is just wrong: If you are wet fireball does 3 less dice of damage. <--GM actually thinks that is how the rules work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that with the elemental his mind is not attached to the golem. The golem is just leeching of off the elemental's life force. If the caster had a domination type affect over the elemental then I could see the golem always being intelligent.

From a flavor point of view as a GM a golem going beserk should be able to use some intelligence, since he is somewhat free from the golem, just not 100% free. To explain the creature being out of control it is so filled with rage it attacks anything it sees unless the creator is there, and in that case he gets priority. I might use that. :)

For undead some are are direct transformations, and some are just bodies animated with negative energy.

In either event I would say the soul is somewhat bound since you can't raise someone whose body is currently in undead form. <---Not a rule completely, but it makes sense to because by the rules you cant bring an undead creature back to life.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My better GM's were good people. You don't have to be great at GM'ing to provide a good time, but it helps. However you will get better at that, but players won't enjoy your games as much if the GM is a jerk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avarna wrote:

I don't remember the exact book, but it was mentioned in 3.5, that neutral necromancers generally cause wandering updead. They animated a corpse, because they needed a hole dug then released control of it when it was no longer needed....

It really depends on your view of Necromancy. I've thought about this over the years and have thought of things two different ways. And ultimately it depends on what makes necromancy work...

If your just using magic to animate a corpse, as was mentioned its not that different from a golem. and this wouldn't really be evil.

If on the other hand, Your forcing the soul back into its body and binding it to your will. Then yes, this is evil necromancy.

Some say that intent also matters, and how you handle the situation. undead(specifically zombies) left to their own devices tend to attack people, so animating an undead not destroying it seems evil to me since you know what will happen. Also if you happen to die then you have put others at risk, so at the least a necromancer should keep his undead locked away, so as to protect others, if he wants to avoid the evil tag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alynthar42 wrote:
Thank you, Divinitus. You seem to see what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about the RAW so much as whether the RAW is actually right. I feel like animating a body is no different than animating a mud golem. There's no soul in the body anymore, and it may as well be used to kill some bad guys, rather than just sit there.

Actually if you want to go away from the rules animating golems should be evil in my opinion. It from a non-rules POV is worse than animating undead at times.

rules wrote:
The process of creating a golem binds the spirit to the artificial body, merging it with this specially prepared vessel and subjecting it to the will of the golem's creator.

Note this is not voluntary, and is no better than binding the soul of a person to something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alynthar42 wrote:
Is it possible to play a good character who practices necromancy, or is the act of raising the dead evil in and of itself? I would argue that no magic is evil unless the casting of the spell required an inherently evil act, such as murder of an innocent.

Not all necromancers raise dead. Some just focus on negative energy based spells, but if you are raising dead, many GM's will consider it to be evil. In Golarion it is definitely evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Little Kobold you have had way too much to drink.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Just curious about how other people handle their temporary/permanent bonuses and if it ever matters. I suppose if you want to keep your permanent bonuses, you have to bathe, sleep, have coitus all the while never taking off your belts or headband.

I can just imagine a girl who normally has a 6 in her charisma score, some how got a hold of a Headband of Alluring Charisma +8, ending up with a +14 Charisma. She finds a Fabio, and after a while of courting, they begin the ritual of coitus. He gets his long flowing hair stuck in the headband and as he pulls away, the headband comes off and is confronted with an ugly smelly hickbilly girl. He tries to get away but unfortunately for him she never took off the belt of giant strength. She rides him down for hours.

I don't have an official house rule saying the 24 hour period is ignored. I just turn a blind eye to it unless someone find and tries to use a way to swap stat boosting items in an abusive(yes I know this is subjective) manner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are some spells magic items that require the spell to be cast by the crafter.

An FAQ if it has not been linked to yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Some Guy again wrote:

Hello everyone,

I believe myself to be a pretty inclusive guy concerning pathfinder material, and prefer to say yes to my players, within reason. I allow 3rd party content from time to time as long as I have time to review it and I even include 3 party base classes. I'm largely in favor of just about anything but there is a few things that rube me the wrong way, specifically the the Slayer.

Now I know I'm sticking a bloody hand in a tank full of great whites by voicing my distaste for the class, but I wish to expand my knowledge pool.

So, I would like to hear from my esteemed colleagues in the art of the pathfinder rpg why the slayer is good, should be allowed to freely participate in reindeer games with everyone else, not broken, and or why you like this class.

My reasons are my own for not liking the class and I'm not looking for someone to tell me why I am wrong, I just want to know why you like the slayer?

If we dont know why you dont like it is more difficult to help. Many times someone not liking the class is based on misconceptions and a wrong idea of how the rules work, or they read something online and thought it was true.

I like the slayer because it fills the ninja/assassin/fighty-skill position well, and the assassin PrC sucks, and I don't care for the actual ninja class. He also does it without relying on magic.

He fights well in combat, and he does skills well so I am never just twiddling my thumbs during a combat or non-combat scene. Some people just dont like the name, and I feel like fluff is mutable. I dont see what is not to like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By the rules free actions can not be taken when it is not your turn unless it is called out as an exception so no on the AoO, even though many GM's might allow it.

For a readied action it you would get to use grab, and the barbarian can not attack with that two-handed weapon.

If the barbarian was using a move action and not charging he might be able use another weapon depending on how the readied action was worded.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Admittedly I have not seen this on in a hwile:

Poster 1 completely misreads a rule.

Poster 2 responds along the lines of "That is not even remotely possible".

Poster 1 "My idea is just as valid because all ideas are equally valid"
-----------------------------------------------------
No no no. All people can equally express their idea, and you have the right to your opinion, but if your idea is 100% categorically wrong, then it is not valid.

Just to be clear they were using valid as in "might possibly be correct", on a factual issue, not some corner case not covered in the book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know you from any other forums that talk about Pathfinder such as Enworld or RPG.net, so I really dont know how familiar you are with the system. I also noticed this is the only post you have here. You might want to do some research by reading various topics, and if you are sure that you still want to do this then you will need tough skin. The Paizo devs do a good job with the game now, they still have a tough time keeping us happy. Collectively I think we are a good forum, but many of us are also highly opinionated so be ready for whatever comes your way when you post here.

This is my last post unless you make another comment or someone directly responds to this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now that I have taken the time to read over this in detail I am not liking any of these changes. I fail to see the benefit of why I should use them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did not know sex before marriage as a bad thing was really being pushed all that hard. I know many consider it a sin, but nobody I have met, barring 1 or 2 people waited, or talk about it like you have done some great wrong. Yeah I realize I could have just met people that did not care that much, so to me it seems strange.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it is really good to have. Many times the party has to stop adventuring because they have gotten beat up and the cleric is out of cure spells(adventuring day extenders). With fast healing he can use less on cure spells, and channel less. Alternately he can use the other types of channeling for more options. Fast healing is not just about the healing, but the other options it opens up which allows you to make problems into non-problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am TN with NG tendencies because I go out of my way to help people, but I won't risk my life to save people.

On the forums I would say LN or NG.

Yeah I know I just broke a rule. Sometimes the chaos takes over.

Kthulhu maybe I have not read enough of your post but you seem to be LN on the boards. <----I don't know if that is breaking a rule or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingmanHighborn wrote:


3. Andoran based For Liberty!

I like the idea of an adventure based here also.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to see the kytons get an AP. They really need more attention IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OP, if you are still here part of your problem is that there is a ceiling on what non-magic is allowed to do, while magic basically has no limits. If you have a car that can go 1,000,000 mph it still won't match a car that can go any speed the driver wants.<---Simplification of the issue, but accurate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rycaut wrote:
One further note - depending on your God's specific Paladin Code and/or oaths you take as a paladin you may have further restrictions (i.e. some gods aren't big fans of any form of servitude/slavery and familiars might be interpreted as being forced service - those Paladins probably also don't take the mount form of Divine Bond.

I have never seen this. If someone told you this tell them to show it to you in a book and then let us know about it.

1 to 50 of 1,910 << 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.