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. 2,622 posts (38,840 including aliases). 3 reviews. 8 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.

1 to 50 of 1,764 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
So let's remember there's two sides to every terrible GM story....

Every story has two sides, but sometimes it is still 100% the fault of only one side.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
You don't need to keep your players off of the rulesbooks... you need to keep them off the messageboards.
Astutely valid point!

I rather have them be here so they understand why they can't dump constitution down to 7 be a melee combatant and expect to live because it sounds cool. No, I am not saying you have to be super-optimized to survive in a game that I run.

............<more stuff in my mind that I won't type out unless questions are asked>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
The alternative is a world without ANYONE else fighting against evil with a chance of success, without allies that could affect anything, without anyone able to reward the players, without any good magic items the players did not craft, without any safe places the PCs may rest and relax... isn't that kind of boring?

Grimm and gritty is a style of play.

For me, I seem to sit in the middle of all these possible worlds. Something Golarion/Oerth suits me fine for a fantasy TTRPG setting.

FR is easier to read about than it is to DM a campaign there - too much going on. Yikes!

Eberron takes a certain type of DM - one who's willing to put in ####loads of work to even get the campaign off the ground - and a group of players willing to suspend all the logical questions (like why hasn't Vol Summon Shadow-bombed her enemies centuries ago?).

To be honest FR and Golarion have had logic holes in them also. The entire game has logic holes in it. Some people just accept different logic holes more easily than they accept other logic holes. I just look at it as a metagame answer of "This does not happen so we(the players) can actually play the game", kind of like how people do stupid things in movies so they can die and keep the movie going. :)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have another one.

Topic: Mechanic X and how it resolves in the game.

Poster A: Has an opinion about X with ancedotal evidence.

Poster B: Has an opinion about X with ancedotal evidence + objective data to support it.

Poster A: Makes mocking comment about Poster B theorycrafting despite Poster B providing a real game example.

The attitude of "If it didn't happen in my games then it's theorycraft" is annoying.

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

When someone who is older than 12 says 'it's not fair', I tend to stop listening.

It is fair for a DM to set the terms of engagement of a game they are running. It is fair for the player to choose not to take part in the game based on those terms.

There are 7 players in my homebrew sandbox. They regularly split the party and go and do different things, and not every avenue and NPC is fully nuanced. I doubt 6 of them would be overly happy if I stopped the game for an hour while I rolled up the NPC and their whole backstory so that 1 person can try to bluff them out of some specified potion they may or may not have about their person. So yeah, sometimes I'll say I'd rather you didn't pursue that this week, but I'll sort it for you for next time.

I set up the table. Buy the rule books and minis, and build the terrain. I populate the sandbox, invite the people to my home, feed them and facilitate the game. Damn right it's fair I have a veto on what your character has as a back story and abilities. I try to be fair, and give clear reasons why certain things may not be allowed, and am amenable to most ideas, but if I say I don't want- oh, I dunno, let's say gunslingers- I don't expect it's not fair stompyfoot pet lip. A polite 'No thanks Mike, I'll sit this game out.' will suffice.

Nobody asked about YOU. The topic is about GM's in general.

I actually edited this comment but I guess it did not take. My point was that not all GM's host, pay for food, and do everything you do so what YOU do is not really a factor for allowances with regard to GM's as a whole.

In addition spending money and hosting does not increase your right to infringe on player agency. By that logic a player that bought his own food dice and books could ignore you while another player could not. That really is not fair for someone to get more freedom because they have more money.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

The Core RULE Book. The book of rules. Of course it is filled with rules. Even then, I would bet word-for-word there are more descriptions of a thing that are Fluff than description of things that are mechanical in nature. 2-to-1 at least. Probably more like 10-to-1.

But the Game is more than just the rulebook. Also you only use a small sliver of the rulebook at any give time in any given game. The Game can exist without the Rulebook - without Fluff the Rulebook is just a book of mechanical odds and ends that go nowhere.

When you stop using the rules you are playing a different game.

Now much of the rules you need to stop using before you are not playing Pathfinder is subjective, but if I advertise Pathfinder, but I use Shadowrun mechanics, then we are not playing Pathfinder.

The flavor really has more to do with the campaign setting than the base game.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is another one:

OP:Hey guys what do you think about me doing ______

99.9% of us in unison which almost never happens: That is not a good idea. <list a few alternatives>

OP: Well I think my idea was great and then follows up with some insult

99.9%: More ideas to counter the OP

OP: <very much upset> goes into rant, sometimes with more insults included

Basically they did not really want advice. They wanted people to agree with them, and got mad when almost nobody supported them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ruske Bell wrote:
Throw Master Summoners back at him.
I don't think he wants to do that for every fight. He seems to be looking for a more general solution.
Depends, does he want a final solution?

I am sure he does, but the best solution, IMO, which is to get rid of the MS until he gets more GM'ing experience is not the one he wants.

I think one thing he will take away from this is not to not allow anything else that he does not fully understand.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonamedrake wrote:
Now for my issue. Being at the level I am, I worry the DM will compensate with higher level encounters and I might have to take a more direct hand in combat. I also worry that my summons will outshine the lower level melee considering I can now use Summon Monster VI. How would you handle the disparity? How can I make sure I don't outshine the rest of the group?

I would ask the GM if this is what he plans to do If so I would try to make an agreement to hold back until the party is closer to your level

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is a charge because the rules say it is a charge. Since it uses magic it bypasses the restriction that charges usually have. Otherwise it would not have been called a charge. Now maybe someone wants to argue that the devs used bad language, and the ability needs errata, but understanding how it works is not really all that difficult. I don't see what the confusion is about.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
I think I'd be more okay with OMG BLOAT! threads if it was down to one thread per new book and not five over the course of a few months.

This reminds of another gear grinder.

It is not directed at you Hyper.

People who fail to realize that what is a problem for their games is not necessarily a problem for "The game" as a whole.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:

For me, two things:

1) The Forge of Combat

2) Thread Necromancy

1) As if the game wasn't poisoned enough by munchkins and minmaxers, the Forge of Combat further reduces game concepts to board game/MMO status. I appreciate build threads - I really do - but I have found that munchkin types often infect non-maximization threads with rules lawyering and other powergamer nonsense. This is a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game, after all. The Forge of Combat makes this even more obscene.


What Grinds Your Gears?

The things I just bolded in your post because it assumes that someone thinks their way of playing is the right way, and it assumes their level of optimization is ok, but someone playing above that level is doing it wrong.

I guess people that do this grind my gears.

edit: Some people have told me 100DPR at level 11 is too much. Other have said it was not good enough. Basically that means that what is OP or "too much" is subjective, and nobody should be judging someone else just because they like more firepower in their games.

What matters is that someone clearly states how things are at their table, and nobody goes beyond that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

An Elan is a race because they are transformed into a new race. If they were a template they would be the same person with new abilities. Basically their old mind is erased, and they get brand new physical abilities.

If you were a level 20 ____ and went through the Elan transformation you would come out as a level 1 _____ with almost no memory of your old life.

You are only human in appearance.

As a GM you can say that the Azlanti were transformed, and another reason they are different is because the flavor says so.

Azlanti also have superior stats to normal humans.

An idea you could use is to have an Azlanti still keep their Azlanti stats in Elan form. By that I mean the +2 to every attribute score.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You should probably look for something you really want to do instead of "anything extra" that you can do.

Once you name a specific thing it is easier to provide help.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

100 DPR at level 12 is hard for a rogue*, but for other martial classes it is not that difficult.

*I am not talking about the sap master rogue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The arms can not give extra attacks in any form. You also do no get higher bonuses just for having the arms. They are a non-factor, since they can't be used to get extra attacks.

Basically since those arms can't get you extra attacks, just normal arms would, you make the attacks as if those arms did not exist. They do not qualify for MWF. MWF is for limbs that actually factor into giving you extra attacks.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Koshimo wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
So rogues can't get easy sneak attack damage on a fighting style that excels at many low-damage attacks.

aka because pathfinder hates rogues

This nonsense needs to stop.

Some people, not me, think the rogue is fine as is. If Paizo were to reword the official rogue class it would be looked at as catering to those power gamers who want MOAR power. Feel free to provide another insult they might use as necessary.

Now we do have unchained coming out so us power gamers can have the rogue at our table, the rogue can hopefully have nice things, and everyone can get what they want without any insults being thrown around.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I might have it in the game as a rumor, but I have not had anyone(player or PC) gullible enough to fall for it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Silver Surfer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The class is OP, or certain builds are OP?

If the class is OP it would be likely to disrupt most games even without optimization. A build being OP is another thing altogether since someone with good system mastery can give certain GM's headaches.

The class is OP... but not for the reasons some people think (ie Arcane Enlightenment) which requires a very specific game set up and forces you to become V.MAD
I am still strolling so someone probably beat me to this but how?

'Cause you're a Wis caster whose getting a number of bonus spells based on Cha and the level of those spells is based on Int. It's an exceptionally powerful ability counterbalanced by making you need all three mental stats.

It's not much in initial investment though, as Anzyr showed.

If it is requiring 3 stats instead of one stat that makes it harder to pull off. I am still not seeing how it is OP.

I can see certain builds being OP, but I have not seen how the class is OP.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:
I'm just going to leave this right here.

And it was just as wrong then as it is now.

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

The class is OP, or certain builds are OP?

If the class is OP it would be likely to disrupt most games even without optimization. A build being OP is another thing altogether since someone with good system mastery can give certain GM's headaches.

It is pretty easy to screw a wizard by taking bad options...Under your definition I think only summoner would qualify as OP.


I really don't see any class as OP yet. The closest is actually the summoner(maybe the master summoner), and at the same time I don't see it as the most powerful class. The floor is just so high on it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Silver Surfer wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Are you making proper use of Wandering Hex/Spirit Talker + Arcane Enlightenment for...

The Shaman IMO is OP... although Arcane Enlightenment isnt quite as good as people make out....

Arcane Enlightenment (Su): The shaman's native intelligence grants her the ability to tap into arcane lore. The shaman can add a number of spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1) to the list of shaman spells she can prepare. To cast these spells she must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell's level, but the saving throw DCs of these spells are based on her Wisdom rather than Intelligence. When she casts these spells, they are treated as divine rather than arcane. Each time the shaman gains a level after taking this hex, she can choose to replace one of these spells for a new spell on the wizard/sorcerer spell list.

So the Shaman is a WIS based caster (Min 18 - esp considering arcane spells are based on this)-(requiring point investment)

Taking the above requires a reasonable good CHA (16 = 3 spells) (requiring point investment)

To cast these spells requires a reasonably good INT investment (16 = level 6 spells) (requiring point investment)

Unless youre are in a 25 point game AND with loads of money floating around , the above is going to be a pretty tall order...

The class is OP, or certain builds are OP?

If the class is OP it would be likely to disrupt most games even without optimization. A build being OP is another thing altogether since someone with good system mastery can give certain GM's headaches.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
ThePowerOfWar wrote:

So now its the buff they can cast. I am not familiar with Quick study(its not in the PDR as far as the search could find and its not in any book I have seen) But under normal circumstances if you caster has to prepare all utility spells then they are weak/useless in combat and as for spontaneous casting they suffer from they have a much smaller pool of spells to cast anyway so most focus on what their main role is and not a jack of all trades. But I would say its still falls to the GM to find a way to balance that ex: if your party has a buffing maniac counter with the monsters doing the same.

As for the "resting" if you walk out/teleport what's to stop the whole place from "resetting"/hunting the party down at that point. To me that's like some of the Worst GMing to allow that type of play.

its one thing to take it as easy mode to help a new player type party for a GM. But to say Things are too strong because the GM is using Kids gloves on a more veteran party in the first place when the powers they are using are meant to be used in a more challenging setting ......... the only thing I can say to that is you cant complain about it being to easy on easy mode play.

As a GM who actually runs monsters intelligently, let me assure you that if a GM is playing their monsters appropriately, at level 13 the gap between classes with no casting and those with full casting becomes insurmountable. Properly played, high level enemies have tons of SLAs that can completely invalidate an opposing martial. The only way a Fighter can compete at these levels is to invest heavily in UMD and scrolls and do their damnedest to fake being a full caster.

If this does not happen the problem is that the GM is going easy on the party and playing monsters poorly.

Let me assure you as a GM with players: If you are running your monsters appropriately your players will have fun, and not be useless.

Honestly I would love to sit at your table, because I have yet...

I think he means that if you run the NPC's as intelligently as possible. As an example you maze out the fighter types since that spell has no save, and their intelligence is not really all that high for most people playing them. That leaves you to deal with the party casters who, depending on how well they optimize, may be dead by the time the fighter types get out of the maze. If you maze the caster he may be able to just plane shift out of the maze.

Also if the fighters are mazed and the casters are losing they can more likely escape via some teleportation effect, assuming the enemy has not thought of this in advance and blocked it. Then you have your fighters vs some casters, which basically translates into dead fighter types in most situations.

Just so you know this is not me theorycrafting I used a similar tactic before. Now since it was not fun for those guys swinging weapons I decided to stop doing so.

There are other ways to shut down most fighter types also. If they are super-optimized some things can be covered but in most games high optimization is not going to be the norm.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have nothing to add that I have not already mentioned in the other bloat threads, or that someone here has not already said so I will do this--> <waves to everyone> smurf

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:

No, but the animals do.

So if an evil caster summons a fiendish wolf that wolf is considered an evil summoned creature and cannot touch someone warded with protection from evil.

Summoned fiends keep their own alignment so they cannot touch someone warded with protection from evil no matter what the summoner's alignment.

I misread his statement. I was not even close to what he actually said. <goes and stands in the corner>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Share spells has two clauses. One of them is spells with target of "you". The other is that spells which dont normally affect the eidolon still affect it. The eidolon works due to the 2nd clause.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As this is not a rules question, since the OP has admitted he knows what the rule is, but a discussion on how he likes to run the game I suggest this be moved to general discussion or the houserule area.

<proceeds to flag his own post>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is no hate of casters or martials. People just notice some things more than others and whatever is not for _____ is seen as hate.

PS: Martial hate is really "I can't accept the non-magical guy doing _____".

edit: changed "can" to can't"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
graystone wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Good ruling.

Likely, that's why it was one of the ones they decided to let anyone know happened.

We had to catch the other ones they sneaked in.

LOL,I thought the same thing. Both about this FAQ and the others. ;)

And I have to agree with Rynjin: AMF + dragons makes them more threatening in a non-fun way. It might be ok as a once off thing but it'd get old fast.

I mean, how often do you fight a very old age category dragon? That shouldn't be happening every day, and to my knowledge dragons can't cast it before that age category.

Doesn't seem like it should be a problem with it being over used (within a campaign).

There are published adventures where you meet more than one that can cast it. It might require for a GM to change some spells out, but it(for a dragon) is still an option.

It might not happen in every campaign, but it is one of those "once is more than enough" type of things for some groups.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Silver Surfer wrote:

IMO there is only class that is TRULY missing (and has been from the start)

1) D6 divine...

And before you say it... NO.... the Ecclesithurge does NOT have this covered.... no offence but a very half assed attempt IMO.

D6 divine caster is not a concept.

A concept may be so good that it forces a divine caster to be a D6, however the reason for existing is entirely different.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like this ruling :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If the bead hits an object it explodes.
Right, I know that but if an invisible door still blocks line of effect, can you still target past the door, not realizing that the door is going to prematurely detonate the Fireball, or do you have to tell the player You cannot target that orc, but I cannot say why. You just can't. is what I am asking

Even if you can see someone and something like a wall of force(also invisible) is in the way, that does not change anything. You aim the bead to where you want it to detonate. However if it hits something it explodes. Most spell targeting just makes someone a victim. With fireball you have to send the bead to them. You can even make attack rolls if shooting it through a small space.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

If the bead hits an object it explodes.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
mourge40k wrote:

So, after about 7 years of being the DM for about every tabletop group I've been a part of, I have finally found a group where I can put up my feet and actually be a PC for a while. I have to say, it's fun to actually be on the other side of the table for a while, and to not actually pay that close of attention to every single part of combat. And I have to say, I'm more than loving the fact that I don't have to go for a serious character, and can actually make as many jokes IC as I want (Because Bards are awesome like that).

That being said, this DM I'm working with has recently asked me to tone down my "zaniness" because he likes a more serious game. And this led me to wondering: When you DM a game, what level of humor do you find acceptable IC? Do you want a completely stone-cold fantasy game, or do you not mind things devolving into Monty Python and the Holy Grail level antics?

Myself, I find that I like having characters who aren't afraid to joke. That's not to say that you can be silly all the time, but that part of me that loves Spiderman, Terry from Batman Beyond, and Harry Dresden knows that humor is a great thing to have as a hero.

I prefer a more serious tone. Some jokes are ok, but it can't be on the level of Monty Python for entire sessions. It would take me out of the game mentally.

Don't get me wrong. Sometimes I joke around as a player, and my players say silly things IC and OoC, but as a GM I don't think I have any jokefest campaigns. <----There is nothing wrong with it. It just isn't for me.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Berselius wrote:
Tell the tale good sir. Even without his martial prowess a dragon is a caster, and fighters don't fare well against casters.
The Dragon's spells were being hampered and undone by the Fighter's colleges while the Fighter literally laid a f'ing bombardment of magic arrows into the Dragon's behind. The Dragon decided spells and breath weapon weren't cutting it so he got in close. BIG MISTAKE, the Fighter CHEWED HIM TO PIECES! It's AMAZING what you can ACCOMPLISH with two magical dual-wielded weapons. ^_~

So basically the party worked together as a team and the fighter did his job by being good at doing damage.

Why did the dragon get close if he had the advantage in reach? <---You don't have to answer that. It is more of a rhetorical question since the dragon was supposed to be played well.

He also could have tried to sunder the bow, or disarm the fighter and take the bow away. He could have sundered the spell component pouch or the holy symbol. etc etc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I realized that I might be doing the same thing I am accusing you of doing kjd, and not explaining well enough.

On the issue of 3rd party material you bring it up as if it is a problem. However in the other bloat threads, this has not been brought up. That leads me to believe that you are making a common mistake I see around here. You are confusing what may be a problem for "you" as a general problem for "the game".

There can be a huge gulf between "I don't like X" or "X is bad for me", and "X is bad for the system overall".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are no rules for this. It is more of an "advice" question. The NPC should get a sense motive check to detect deception however. Glue however has a certain consistency to it, so even if it smelled and looked like ___, it should feel different. so they are unlikely to drink the entire bottle. However even drinking some of it should cause a problem. What that problem is, I don't know.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kjdavies wrote:

At the risk of seeming self-serving (because I am publishing books to help deal with this):

From a practical perspective yes, Pathfinder is getting too big. It has reached a point where it is no longer feasible for normal people to contain the set of options available in their brains. Between PRD and 3pp sources there are at least fifty cleric domains and over a hundred subdomains. Several thousand spells, I think I've counted somewhat over 4,000 so far, and a similar number of feats (remember, you get somewhat less than twenty in your career...). Hundreds of rage powers, scores of rogue talents, and so on. Dozens of classes, scores of archetypes, and so on.

Pathfinder in toto is getting too big to use altogether, and there are two primary dangers because of this:

  • It's too big to be readily understood; and
  • It becomes shapeless; when all options are available it becomes a mash of stuff that becomes nonsensical.

However... the sheer volume of Pathfinder material available is part of what is good about it. It allows for so many games to be played from the same chassis, depending what options you make available.

For instance, you might

  • Drop the standard non-human races and replace them with the elemental-touched races (oread, sylph, etc.).
  • Swap out the core cleric domains with other domains, changing the flavor of the pantheon available.
  • Replace the cleric class altogether with the 3pp divine channeller from Rite Publishing (fewer spells, more channelling) and Rogue Genius' Exalted Domains ('double power' domains).
  • Select a set of archetypes and PCs of relevant classes must take (at least) one.

Pathfinder is becoming immense, but there are so many good subsets available within it that I cannot say that this immensity is a bad thing.

PP does not count, and everything you said is a matter of opinion, and some of it nonsensical.

What does this even mean---> "it is no longer feasible for normal people to contain the set of options available in their brains."

You only need to CRB to understand it so that is a fallacy already.

More things that make no sense and have no meaning, at least as written anyway.-->It becomes shapeless; when all options are available it becomes a mash of stuff that becomes nonsensical.

What does "shapeless" even mean in this context, and nonsensical is also subjective.

This post remind of those pretty little "feel good" quotes that people write, that get a lot of likes, but when you really examine them, they don't hold up to logic.

Yes, I am aware that you said some good things, so don't take it as an attack, but you have not made any claims not made by anyone else, or supported them any better.

How big is too big? Why is it too big, especially when nobody is forcing you to use the options. Every AP can be played by the players with the CRB alone. A GM might need to look up a magus or some other class, but he does not need the entire book the magus is in to run it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jigsaw wrote:
Yeah had multiple tabs open and opened post in the wrong thread. But it's the shards of sin ap just hit third level. 4-5 players depending on week. No third party. Class are swashbuckler, alchemist, barb, wizard, witch. There is also a lot of we all have dark vison so we will cast darkness and just pound on these ppl that can't see and other moves like that. So adding more of the same mooks that can't hit them does not help. They get up set cause I don't use xp. My argument is that non of you where in danger of getting hurt so you would not have learned anything from that fight. I'm kinda getting to the point where I wanna recreate all the npcs min/maxing them the way the players did.

I have never played shattered star. However using darkness like that is good tactics not min-maxing. What I would do is have some bad guys run away. It is better to retreat than not fight like you want. If they can get to the BBEG or someone higher up they can let the BBEG know what to expect, and he can have something in place to counter the darkness.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:

I appreciate the example, Wraithstrike, and your experience with the system.

I'm curious: if a player succeeds, how do you give information that is merely a "hunch"? That is where I feel I am giving away too much information/truth.

You can say "You feel as if the person is hiding information", or "You feel as if ___ is not acting normally".

From here the PC's still have to get the NPC to divulge the information .

It may be better to just have the NPC lie if you don't like the hunch rule they have a decent bluff check since that would have a higher DC than a "hunch".

A good time to use the hunch rule: If someone is hiding the truth, to protect themselves, not necessarily to harm the PC's. As an example if a local gang is collecting protection "insurance" from local businesses, they might not want to say anything to anyone, but you a certain topic might give the PC's a "hunch" that they are hiding something.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have had that problem more than once when similar threads were running. I just try to quote who I am replying so I dont reply to the wrong person in the wrong thread. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Omnitricks wrote:
Q: Can UMD be used to bypass the personalizations?

I think it depends on the personalization, but even then it would be something a buyer may not want to pay full price for if he was trying to sell the item. The OP is working under the opinion that the game works like movies and the magic item will be kept for life.

There is also the opinion that your enemy will not have your alignment or class abilities. Evil people as an example are probably going to be killed by more evil people than anyone else. Even in this setting it would just make evil people target evil people more, if item stealing is common.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

Alright, question about race restrictions: does it help if the player can provide a concept and argue for it?

When planning a Legacy of Fire campaign set in a homebrew world a while back, I asked if iI could play a (slightly reskinned) strix. The GM was going for an Arabian Nights vibe, and one of my favorite cards from M:tG has always been Bird Maiden. So I wanted a brightly-plumed, beautiful dervish. We went back and forth, including some accusations of special-snowflake-dom (and other traditions), but in the end, I successfully made the case for the character being appropriately themed. That campaign is still pending, and I'm not that excited for it for other reasons (the homebrew isn't as much to my liking), but at least I get to play something I'm interested in.

Of course, I almost always have to GM and rarely get to play, so I tend to be very insistent about what I want to play. If I'm only going to play one or two characters in 3-4 years, I want to be fully invested in them... kind of like the GMs who want to be fully invested in their campaign. See - we aren't so different after all! :D

So you basically wanted a Strix that looked different? If so I don't see the issue, but this goes back to what I said before, and maybe in the other bloat thread, about some things being trivial to a player that the GM thinks are really important.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because the game is not designed in such a manner as to have magic weapons made and sold like that.

Also in most games, and in official campaigns settings magical items being stolen is not really a problem.

If a setting assumes people will rob magic item shops then I would assume the setting would have guilds and/or magic ways to deter/prevent theft.

Now you might say "Then rob the adventurers". The problem here is that adventures are professional(assessment of skill not legality) killers, and if you misjudge the mark(person/group you intend to rob) they may end up killing you and taking your stuff.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

However the only example is of the gm adapting. How would you suggest, say, the players adapt?

The GM mostly has all of the control so he will mostly be the one adapting, even if it is allowing the smallest of changes.

I gotta say, I find this a bit amusing. The GM has all the control, so if there is ever a disagreement, HE is the one that has to adapt.

Doesn't SOUND like he has all of the control. :P

Did you really not understand my point, or you just trying to argue semantics. If you didn't I will explain in detail.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Yeah, it's a golden plot hook, but it's one for some other campaign than the one you wanted to run.

Yeah, yeah, that's the GM being tyrannical and forcing his story down the player's throats, I know.

But isn't it really the players forcing the GM to accommodate them?

Sometimes you're just not interested in a game about the last catfolk. Maybe somebody else can run that game.

I never understood this as a GM. Why is the campaign that I want to run more important than the campaign that my players want to play in?

I don't think it is a matter of "importance", but many GM's can't get behind something unless they like it enough. Some playstyles or adventures just don't suit some people.

As an example I can't really run a game where the players expect to trounce every encounter and want to get +5 weapons at level 5. I am not saying it is wrong to like that game, or run it, but that GM won't be me. <----Yes, I met a GM who gave things out like candy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Taking 10 does not equal "If you fail bad things can't happen". You can take 10 in situations where failure leads to bad results.

You can not take 10 if you are in danger or distracted.

What counts as a distraction is up to the GM but the results of a failed check are not what was intended. With that line of thinking taking 10 is almost impossible for any skill.

Knowledge check: Oh, no if I don't identify this monster it might kill us and eat us.

Swim check: If I fail this swim check in this lake with no current, I make stay for 30 seconds too long, and that might be enough for the BBEG to activate device X

craft: If I don't make this bow properly I could once again be delayed and it can end the world due to me running out of time.

The point is this--> A character knowing that something bad may happen is not a distraction because when you think about it something can always happen if you fail a check.

Climbing while someone is shooting arrows at you likely means you can not take 10. Climbing with nobody trying to kill or capture you is likely not going to be a problem.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The hunch rule is there to let the player know that someone may not be 100% honest. I just have NPC's who are not honest roll a bluff check, and if they don't beat the bluff check, they(PC's) don't know the NPC is being dishonest.

Basically bluffing in my games is used to hide the truth, not just for outright lies. I don't think it is a bad use of the skill, even if it is not RAI.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like if they were to just have a blog on the issue of intent, but then state for word space reasons the CRB won't be errata'd. It won't really change my games much, but it might stabilize the "Is this evil" topics that come up.

Side note: I think certain spells such as the "protection from ____" should not even have an alignment.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see Matthew and TacticLion basically said the same thing that I did. I knew those two were awesome people.<----I will only claim this to be true until they disagree with me on something. Then I will claim someone hacked my account. :)

1 to 50 of 1,764 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.