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 Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,631 posts (43,474 including aliases). 3 reviews. 9 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.

1 to 50 of 2,731 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also they might need to modify the rule to something like:
"You can not die due to hit point damage as long as regeneration is functioning...
"...Effects that do not cause death via hit point damage such as drowning or death effects kill the creature, and regeneration can not be used to bring that creature back to life unless otherwise stated in that creature's entry."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are speaking as if there is a 0% chance this is not an error. Maybe that is not what you meant to do, but that is how it comes across. To say there is a high chance they intended it is one thing. To speak as if there is no way there didn't get past the editors when so many other things have just makes no sense at all especially since the books are not written with the precision of a technical manual, and the number of FAQ's and erratas that have been done, to include the ones that need to be done right now.

I will admit that it could be possible, but to say "this can't not be an error because they didnt' do it this way with any other traits" is not something that makes sense to me. That is like saying they will never miss anything when it comes to a trait bonus, not even if they write 1000000000 books.

Also the wording the book could be read as:
"most bonus will be "trait bonuses" which equates to the bonus may or may not be a trait bonus.

It could also be read as:
"the function provided most of the time will be to give a trait bonus", which equates to "sometimes we will give you a trait bonus, but other times we may give you something else besides a trait bonus."
As an example there is a trait raises your CL when casting a certain spell. It is not a "bonus" though. Another example is the trait which lowers the cost of using metamagic when using a specific spell. This is also not a bonus.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:

As I wrote in the spawning thread:...

Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a "trait" bonus.
We know many bonus types: enhancement, circumstance, inherent, and so on. The bonus given by many of these are a new kind called "trait". There is no changing of the rule that a bonus that does not list a type is untyped....

If the rule was unlisted became "trait", then why list "trait" in so many of them? That does not make sense, so the premise must be wrong.

We all know this. The point of the thread is to know if not mentioning it is on purpose or an editing error. If they say ____ is the default then we know it was an error. If they say "trait" has to be mentioned then we know it was not an error, and that future traits that don't mention the "trait bonus" are also not an error.

Considering the many errors and unclear rules in the game it is not logical to assume the premise must be wrong...

edit: If that logic held then haste would not have been errata'd to no longer say "held weapons" which by that wording meant it was not meant for natural attacks when it actually was.
Another example of this is that most rings that use command words say "on command", but the ring of invisibility does not. <--An FAQ will eventually show that also.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you watch a lot of fantasy movies such as conan or read fantasy novels there not many prisoners taken. Typically in groups nonlethal damage is not the order of the day unless the group is trying to keep someone alive to ask them questions. That is why doing nonlethal damage gives you a penalty to your attack, and you need a feat in order for spells to do nonlethal damage.

I have spared NPC's as a PC, but they were the low level mooks who I didnt think would come back to haunt me later. In such cases the group did not mind, but if the group was like "I dont trust him", then I would not have tried to stop them.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sliska Zafir wrote:

That said, I'd absolutely encourage a 10 or even 15 point buy because it takes the focus off the stats, encourages teamwork, and makes the campaign more thrilling.

I've run for at least one group where teamwork was not the word of the day ever. Some people also optimized harder when faced with restrictions, but are more likely to put some resources into flavor if given additional points. I would say your assessment works depending on the group, and is not an across the board truth.


Not for your power gamer types, but I don't like to game with those anyway. Not anymore anyway, after having seen the worst of it in Pathfinder Society convention tables. I love Pathfinder Society, by the way. But when my white witch gunslinger fires 10 pistol shots in one round with her hair, you have to ask, when does power creep and over-the-top builds ruin the game for others? I encourage teamwork.

Some power gamers do cooperate, and that can actually make it harder to GM than when they only worry about spotlight time. You could have had a powerful summoner casting haste on that gunslinger as an example.

Also if that witch was using Prehensile hair it can not use weapons.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

And definitely do not allow anyone to play: Archaeologist Bard, Brawler, Ninja, Slayer or Vivisectionist Alchemist. Because they steal their niche pretty blatantly.

Really? Ninja, Brawler, Slayer, and Vivisectionist Alchemists are all totally fine. Slayer in particular is probably one of the best written classes. You'd really force someone to be a Rogue or a Monk if they wanted to play a different class that fills the same niche? Would you force someone to play a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid if they wanted to play a Witch? Would you force someone to play Sorcerer if they wanted to play a Psychic? What about a Fighter if they wanted to play a Paladin? And I guess Barbarian is out since it has Trap Sense, and Swashbuckler since it's a Dex attacker, so those steal the Rogue's thunder, too.

Sure, I'd probably discourage one of those and a Rogue/Monk in the same party since they do fill approximately the same niches (though not exactly; Slayer can fill different roles depending on build; Brawlers don't use Ki, have far different archetypes, and fill a different thematic concept; Ninja is somewhere between Core Rogue and UnRogue for usefulness; Vivisectionist works quite well in a combat medic type of character) but not ban them entirely. The only classes I think I'd ban outright would be Wizard, Arcanist, and non-archetyped Antipaladin.

GTW was not speaking badly of those classes. She made that comment about not allowing those classes as a play on Derek's comments about the allowing the unchained classes.

His logic is basically that the unchained classes add nothing to the game since the original classes work fine so he won't allow the unchained classes.

The classes she named are played by many people because they are better than the core classes in many people's opinions so she is saying "by that logic these classes should not be played either".

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Derek Dalton wrote:

I've read all the Unchained classes and will be banning them from my games when I GM. Nothing and I mean nothing about them makes me want them anywhere my game. The only class chosen to be unchained that did need help was the Summoner. The issue was spells and the lack of them. From what I read they nerfed their spell list even more. The Spiritualist is essentially a Summoner their Phantom slightly less powerful then an Eidolon. What makes them superior to a Summoner is their spell selection.

All the others show me not weak classes but weak or inexperienced players not playing them well. I have played Rogues all through 1st ed D&D, 2nd, switching to Pathfinder. Never ever had a problem holding my own in a dungeon. Same with the Monks.

Not everyone's games are the same. "Did ok in my games" does not mean they are ok.

I really doubt you are much better than most of the board members here at system mastery when it comes to Pathfinder and many of the better ones have had problems with rogues and monks. There are numerous threads on the topic. If you have a solution feel free to present it, but assuming people are weak players is 100% incorrect. Even the devs admitted the monk and rogue had issues. Normally when these topics come up the defense often comes up with a rogue is not supposed to be in combat, and/or to not rely so much on sneak attack.

PS: Most of those comments were about the core rogue and monk. Things such as the zen archer archetype tend to do well.

PS2: House rules to help them out or GM's taking it easy on those classes whether on purpose or by accident, does not help the case of them not being weak.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

Unless someone concentrates specifically on making a bag character I find that scenario has pretty much been a total myth in my games. Someone might not be as strong a single others, but I've never seen someone make a cha after so incapable of effecting enemies that they just sit around.

And again, why does every single combination of race and class need to produce a viable character anyway?

That is a different question than the previous one, but my previous answer still applies.

That is not the same thing as saying there is a race that is so behind the curve that you cant use it to make a decent character with any class.

To my knowledge all PC races can be viable with any class that is viable already.

I also dont think you have to intentionally make a bad character in order for it to be almost useless, but I do think it is rare.

I am sure you also know that a nonviable character is not pulling their weight. They don't have to be 100% useless. That is pretty much impossible even if you use an NPC class.

I am really having trouble understanding the point of your question also. It is almost like you are advocating that someone bring a character in that will endanger the party.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Porridge wrote:
The Guy With A Face wrote:

I personally hate feeling limited by my class's required stats and being punished for "choosing the wrong race." That's what I don't like about 15 point buy. If you want to make something good you have to use one of the races that gives the right stat bonuses or you're going to have to dump a bunch of stats. What if i want my elven tanky fighter to be smart/charismatic/not a brain dead idiot with a big stick? I can't because all my points have to be forced into my con and strength. With 15 point buy I can't really do that without gimping myself. 25 point buy ensures that any race/class combination is going to work just fine.

Hmmm so this turned into me talking about why 15 point buy does not appeal to me instead....Whatever, I'll post it anyway.

I'm totally sympathetic to the idea that it's kind of lame that the rules disincentivize various class/race combinations, like Elven Fighters, Halfling Barbarians, or Dwarven Bards. But I'm not sure changing from a 15 to a 25 PB changes that -- a Halfling Barbarian is still going to be significantly disadvantaged relative to a Half-Orc Barbarian given a 25 PB.

What you need to do in order to make unusual class/race combinations viable, I think, is to offer the option of not taking the usual stat adjustments. For example, offering players a choice like this:

(1) X point-buy (with usual racial stat adjustments),


(2) X+10 point-buy (without racial stat adjustments).

That will make something like a Halfling Barbarian completely viable. It's true that a Half-Orc Barbarian can still get a 20 strength (using the first option), while a Halfling Barbarian can "only" get up to a 18 strength (using the second option). But a Halfling Barbarian built using the second option will get a batch of extra points to spread around to compensate.

Why does every race/class combination need to be equally viable?or even viable at all?

I agree they don't need to be equal, but viable on the forums means you are not dead weight in most conversations. If that is what you meant then being viable means you actually get to not die, and not hold the party down.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
How is a paralyzed person setting off a pit trap?
Worst. Companions. Ever.

Good answer.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The GM can provide the flavor.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
What's different between SKR's views and the FAQ in regards to Take 10?
SKR wrote:

The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.

The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances.
I'm not an athlete, but I can easily to a standing broad jump of 5-6 feet, over and over again without fail. It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump. With a running start, it's even easier. If I were an adventurer, a 5-foot-diameter pit would be a trivial obstacle. Why waste game time making everyone roll to jump over the pit? Why not let them Take 10 and get on to something relevant to the adventure that's actually a threat, like a trap, monster, or shady NPC?
Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things.

The take 10 FAQ says nothing about it being used to like this. They said it was used a rule to help the GM pace the adventure.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I agree, and part of it is that SKR had some influence on how the rules were being made. With him gone I have noticed the design direction has changed so some "unwritten design rules" are not what they used to be, is what it seems like.

As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.

Which is why "unwritten rules" are a dumb thing for a company to use.

When I say "unwritten" rules I mean the design rules that are in place, such as making sure characters of low levels dont get access to certain things or making sure PC's don't come into something they can't deal with.

14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems as if some people are not clear on how rings are activated so I am posting this FAQ in order to get a final answer.

The ring specific rules for activation are as follows.

Activation: A ring's ability is usually activated by a spoken command word (a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or its effects work continually. Some rings have unusual activations, as mentioned in the ring's specific description.

Are the methods to activating a ring limited to command words, the effect continually being in place, and whatever method would be described in a ring's specific description?

If a ring just says it has to be activated, but does not specifically say "on command" or have a special method of activation listed how is that ring activated?

An example of this is the ring of invisibility which just says "By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I'm sorry I started this thread.

It does show that some people are confused about how the ring rules work so maybe now we can get clarification on that. That makes it a good think IMO. I will start an FAQ on rings and activation later on.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The GM is not forced to add something just because you say it exist there. If he doesn't you to have random banter going on about the game then he should just say so instead of making up excuses for it.

Saying vampires are in Ustalav is not metagaming, nor does it force the GM to suddenly use a vampire encounter.

28 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

The specific FAQ question is bolded at the bottom.

The entry in the APG says that "Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a "trait" bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack".

However, there are traits such as Ease of Faith which do not specifically call out a bonus given by a trait as a trait bonus.

Your mentor, the person who invested your faith in you from an early age, took steps to ensure that you understood that what powers your divine magic is no different than that which powers the magic of other religions. This philosophy makes it easier for you to interact with others who may not share your views. You gain a +1 bonus on Diplomacy checks, and Diplomacy is always a class skill for you.

Are we to assume that all bonuses given by a trait or trait bonuses unless specifically called out as untyped or another type of bonus?

Or, is a bonus given by a trait not a trait bonus unless it is specifically identified as a trait bonus in the rules text?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The game is turn based for us but combat in the game world is always going on. I would say you are denied dex until your next turn if you close your eyes, since you can't see attacks that are coming at you while you are also attacking those images.

There are no official rules for closing your eyes.

sightless=blind/can't see

the figments go invisible also. They always take on the appearance of the caster so if he is invisible so are they. This is good because of if they stayed visible and the caster moves they would give his new location away.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree, and part of it is that SKR had some influence on how the rules were being made. With him gone I have noticed the design direction has changed so some "unwritten design rules" are not what they used to be, is what it seems like.

As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Thunderrstar wrote:

No GM can cheat.

The GM is right the rules are wrong.

You obviously did not read my first post or could not comprehend it.

I will try again. There are game rules, and the rules of the social contract for that group. By stepping outside of the social contract the GM can cheat. Rule 0 does not cover the social contract, only the game rules.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, but it really depends on the social contract of the group.

Mostly the GM makes all the rules, and most groups have an understanding that the rules will work a certain way unless they are told they will change.

Other groups don't care about the rules as much.

I would ask the GM does he intend to always go by the rules. I would also ask him to let you know about any rules he plans to ignore.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Why do people keep posting about 3rd party stuff in places that are not the 3rd party boards? And it's always the complicated, overpowered Dreamscarred Press stuff.

How is it overpowered?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheburn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So is there an term covering the same ground, but without the negative connotations?

I do find it a useful distinction to make, even if there isn't an absolute distinction between the two.

OK, let's say you switch out 'roll-player' for 'optimizer', which is usually less annoying to the people you're labelling.

Even so, by framing the conversation you seem to be saying, "The Stormwind Fallacy is not a fallacy. Everyone is either an optimizer or a role-player. If you've made an optimized character, you're likely to be bad at role-playing. We are having a discussion built around this assumption."

So, is there any non-offensive way of stating my preference for games with low rollplay and high roleplay or is the mere idea that I prefer one to the other in itself offensive?

I should just optimize more, for example, even if I don't enjoy it.
"I prefer to focus on storytelling and roleplaying, rather than mechanics and character power"?

But it is possible to do both.

When presented as an either/or situation we find the Stormwind fallacy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarantula wrote:

You can't drop prone in the same square. Move action crawl requires you actually move. You also can't 5-foot step while nauseated then?

No rules say you can go prone as a move action. You can crawl 5 feet as a move action, which makes you prone, but that doesn't keep you in the same square.


Cease Concentration on Spell

You can stop concentrating on a spell as a free action.

Drop an Item
Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action.

Drop Prone
Dropping to a prone position in your space is a free action.

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.

So, while nauseated, you can't stop concentrating, you can't let go of something in your hands, you can't fall to the ground, and you can't speak. I too will be ignoring this FAQ.

I think this shows they need to look at that nauseating FAQ again. This is one where they should say certain free actions are allowed with GM discretion because the amount of free actions that not be allowed and still make sense vs those that would not be allowed is too large to list.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
You can "turn off" Toughness, but not in the manner people are thinking. Toughness allows you to gain +3 extra HP to start, as well as +1 extra per level at 4th level and up (effectively +1 HP per level). Turning off toughness won't take away those HP any more than turning off the light after you're done in the kitchen meant you were retroactively preparing your sandwich in the dark. Turning off Toughness would mean that, when you level up, you retain the ability to not take the bonus HP if you choose not to (it's a poor decision, but it's yours to make). But after you've taken the bonus HP, it's there to stay. So no, dominating a creature won't allow you to reduce their HP by turning off their Toughness feat, but I can perfectly well see how you should be able to retain the ability to not use a particular feat in a given situation. In order for a feat to be "locked on", it would require an explicit statement to that effect, likely by explicitly stating "You must <whatever the feat does>."

You can't control to not gain hit points any more than you can choose to not take a feat or not to add skill ranks. The character creation section tells you what does happen, not what can happen. When you level you get hit points. They are tied to your class level.

CRB/PRD wrote:
Step 6—Finishing Details: Finally, you need to determine all of a character's details, including his starting hit points (hp), Armor Class (AC), saving throws, initiative modifier, and attack values.

Before the "It only says starting hits points" argument comes up.<--Kazaan I don't think you would have tried to make that claim, but someone else may have.

Characters advance in level according to Table: Character Advancement and Level-Dependent Bonuses.
The process of advancing a character works in much the same way as generating a character, except that your ability scores, race, and previous choices concerning class, skills, and feats cannot be changed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TimD wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You can't use a Swift Action to use Lay On Hands on yourself and remove the Nauseated condition via Mercies,

So Paladins have an ability that cannot be used?

No. Paladins have an ability that they cannot use on themselves, but can use on others.

It's the poor samurai who have the ability that cannot actually be used:

** spoiler omitted **

Interesting. That should probably be FAQ'd.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Before I get started I want to make a something clear.

1. This post is not about which one is better. More on that below. It will be bolded.

2. If this is in the wrong section feel free to flag it and have it moved to another section.

The phrase "if you roleplayed instead of rollplayed" or any similar phrase is offensive, even if you don't mean for it to be, and it should not be used here. It implies a "one correct way to play the game" perspective. Aligning yourself more or less with the rules or being in character is not a better or worse way to play no matter where you fall on the spectrum. It is only a preference.

If you say or imply that if someone were to be less mechanically efficient and/or worry more about the personality aspect of the character they would have more fun as if it is a fact, that is not much better.

In case anyone wants to try the, "but it's not against the rules or guidelines so it is ok" approach.

community guidelines wrote:
There are all kinds of gamers here on Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our messageboards, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there’s another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!

That is all.

PS: That is not nearly as long as I thought it was going to be.

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:

At least it is if you roleplay instead of rollplay.

It was only a matter of time before a jerkish comment was made.

Some people never learn.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

If a player will curbstomp an AP with a 20 point buy they will do it with a 15 point buy. The point buy alone is not enough to warrant a CR increase.

There have been 1000 post here on why people like point buy.

1. It removes situations where one person has super stats and someone else's character has terrible stats, which can have an impact on making combats for the GM.

2. It allows more choice for the player to make the character they want. The character is the only thing they really have full control over so I at least try to give them that.

3. You can't force anyone to RP anything no matter if you use point buy or if you roll. The fact that some people might dump down to that -7 is actually a complaint some have against point buy. On the other hand it is very possible to not roll low enough when rolling to get any negative numbers even after racial adjustment. I have rolled more than one character with scores no lower than a 14, more than once.

Going back to my first point:
Some will say that if the rolling is uneven the person who rolled low will get a reroll, but if you are just going to let them keep rerolling then I have two solutions.

1. After everyone rolls a person can choose to use the rolls made by someone else if they want.

2. Just use a stat array. That way you don't have to worry about buying down points, and you don't have to deal with rerolling.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That would depend on the specific topics, and exactly how it is handled.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:

what i'm getting at, is there is no objective ruleset for when it is an isn't okay to control a player character as GM.

That I can agree with. Different tables allow for different allowances.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

People avoid relationships with family members so they can control who they fall in love with by not being open to the idea at all.

As for objective fun, that is hard to prove, but we can likely show that it is likely a bad idea, which I think is the point being made vs "every group and player will hate this idea". Has Sundakan made the latter argument?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really dont see how it would make sense.
You fail a will save vs a sleep spell, and you are now just a lazy person who has no problems leaving his friends to die in combat without helping them, and also does not care about their own life. There are not to many other reasons to take a nap in the middle of combat.<----For Pathfinder it just doesnt fit the game unless you change all will save spells to do something like "reveal a person's true character by giving them the opportunity to commit to their vices". But that changes the game by so much that the spell descriptions would have to change.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thewastedwalrus wrote:
Adamantine Golem wrote:

But what does that mean for my soft, delicate fists?

Does it mean I get to bring the pain again (or still, I forget where they landed with Adamantine Golem fists)

Ah, I remember that thread. Good times.

Mark, do an Adamantine Golem's natural attacks count as adamantine for the purpose of bypassing Damage Reduction?

No, but they still bypass Adamantine DR. I would ask do they bypass adamantine DR if that is what you want to know.

The wording of the question matters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no one "this way is correct" with regard to how much to enforce rules.

Personally, I prefer consistency. If you let a player do something, and then later tell them they can't do it, it can cause problems so I just prefer to follow the rules except for special cases. As a player I also like for the rules to not change. It keeps in world consistency for me, which helps with immersion.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Master Summoner

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never seen that. What I have seen are people wanting to ignore the working version of certain rules, and not realize that(the version they want) interpretation of the rule will be very bad for them if they fight an NPC with that ability.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It will depend on the feat. There is no general rule that is official that points to yes or no. The game assumes you will do whatever is to your advantage, but there could be corner cases where using certain feats could work against you.

As an example, there is a shield feat that says you get a bull rush attack. It does not present it as an option, but if bullrushing the person puts them out of your attack range then it would not be a good idea to use that feat. That is a feat that I would say is optional even though it is not written as having a choice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blindmage wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Blindmage wrote:

He was a character that failed pretty hard at the class he had the most levels in, but always contributed and was fun as hell, especially with Contagen boosting his int, made him actually able to strategize and think, not just react.

Thats the difference between a [dumb wizard or fallen paladin] or a negative energy channeling cleric or stupid alchemist. Some classes or archtypes have a grab bag full of abilities and if you don't use them all you've still got a pretty good kit.

The wizard is wizard spells. If you ARE a wizard (as opposed to just dipping wizard) thats a very empty bag you're holding. Same with a fallen paladin. That's the difference and it's pretty big, big enough for people to wonder if you're screwing with them.

Condisering my int was so low that I didn't get any Alchemist 'spells', I was totally reliant on Mutagens, the Bombs feature was basically useless. I was the worst Alchemist ever. I got by thanks to str 20 and throwing things.

I could make a wizard that's dumped int and focuses on school powers, or having an amazing familiar, I don't see how that's any worse off.

As long as everyone has fun and is contributing in some way, it works, even if that's a wizard with a wonderful theoretical understanding of magic, but no actual ability, so he uses wands, or, hells, he could have str 20 and be throwing some of the crazy things that are in his spell component paunch, there's some sweet improvised weapons in there!

The difference is level of effectiveness, but if you can actually pull your weight then I don't think people would care. It is not so much about "I lost my class features" as it is about "Can I not be a strain on the party?".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:

And again, the topic is not, and has never been, making dysfunctional characters. This is an assumed understanding by responders. In my opinion, there's a pretty wide margin between dysfunctional and just not optimized as a twink character. And again, this is a Role playing game, not a tournament. The priority is role playing.

A stupid wizard is going to be assumed to have an intelligence below 10. He is basically dysfunctional if he can't cast spells, and role playing alone will not keep you alive except for in corner cases. Most campaigns have enemies who will attack you on sight so you will not get a chance to bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate your way to victory.

If you have an idea as to how a wizard that can't cast spells can be useful I would have gone that route, or if a stupid wizard is not the same as a stupid non-wizard that might have been a good angle to go after.

You may want to give some concrete examples if you have not done so already so people have a better idea of what you mean.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This question comes up from time to time. The answer is that it depends on who you ask. Some people still want more. Others feel like we have had enough for a few years now. Personally I like having more material to get info from, even if I might not run a campaign in that part of Golarion.

As an example, if there is some rogue's guild or ninja clan in a certain area, I can borrow that info. Why they are doing business in some area that is far from their base of operations? Trying to find out that out can be a good subplot. It can also be a break from what they are normally used to. Having someone with tech gear show up in Magnimar is another example.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

He wants rules that say "this is how you must play the game".

Personally I think we both agree that making it into a specific rule won't help.

If someone were to bring a book like that to my home game and insist that this was holy writ that I as a gamemaster would follow, I'd chuck it out the window. (well not really, I would tell said person to put that book away and never mention it again, even if it had the authorship of every developer at Paizo.)

The rules are there to serve the game and me as gamemaster. It'll be a sunny day in Hades before I ever accept the reverse. I once walked away from D+D for ten years because I thought that it's problems were fatal and there were better horizons elsewhere, and there were. I can do that again.

I agree. Paizo has no authority over a table, and <insert game designer X> might get some leverage if a rule is unclear, but if I am knowingly changing the rule it won't matter nearly as much.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can probably make another post flag it, and ask a mod to move it in that same post.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bane Wraith wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Also, what is this 24 hour rule you are talking about?
PRD; Magic, in the Core Rulebook wrote:

Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.
Emphasis mine. It seems a bit strange to me too, but I can't find any further explanation regarding the outsiders you summon.

That is strange. I don't even know why that exist. There is nothing to stop you from summoning another creature of the exact same type.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Charisma is more about "appearance" than it is about being attractive. It never mentions attractiveness. That is just an assumption people make. James Jacobs explained more as how memorable your appearance is.

PRD wrote:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

Therefore no houserule is needed since it is a non-problem/issue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are no limitations on skills. All limitations are written into the spell.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Since they are leaders of cults and use other creatures to their own end it makes sense that they have a high charisma score.
The bhole is? Hm... I didn't realize that. How do they manage that with a 3 Int? Thanks!

I thought you were talking about the Star-Spawn. I didn't notice the ** so I thought the sentences were connected.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since they are leaders of cults and use other creatures to their own end it makes sense that they have a high charisma score.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rando1000 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
They know about the stats. They is partly why they made the comment. They don't think he should have been given stats.
Then don't blame the GM. Blame the company that put out the stats. Once there are stats for something, you shouldn't say "the GM has no idea what they're doing" for using those stats.

Just because someone gives you the stats that does not mean they have to use them. <----That is likely their counter, but we know from 3.5 that if you give something stats the players will try to kill it.

Personally, I don't agree with them since he is an actual creature, and not even the top guy despite being the most famous.

I don't see it as blaming the GM, so much as disagreeing with how to use Cthulhu. What they want Cthulhu to represent can not really be done in Pathfinder unless the group buys in with their idea.

It is more of a "you're doing it wrong" than "this is ALL your fault", and yes there is a difference.

1 to 50 of 2,731 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.