|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Most of the rules use the same wording from 3.5, so it makes sense that the same words have the same meaning, unless Paizo says differently.
With regard to metamagic, they do stack unless stated otherwise. There is no rule saying they don't stack. There are actually feats and traits to reduce the cost in slots you use if you use more than one.
With a maximized intensified fireball the damage is 90. All intensified does is raise the cap on the dice. That is different from adding dice after the fact.
An intensified maximized empowered fireball would do 90 + ((15d6)/2)
1. Taking away class features will make for unhappy players, especially in the last fight.
2. Do not use single boss encounters in Pathfinder. If you want a CR 17 fight as an example, it is better to use a CR 15 monster, along with help that adds up to a CR 15 for a total of 17.
3. I don't know what tactics you use when you GM, but having monsters that work well together and that may be prebuffed is a good idea. The bad guys should know that entering into melee with the paladin is a bad idea so they will try to avoid him and focus on taking out the other party members first. They may get in the ranger's face since he provokes, unless he has the feat that allows him to fire while in melee.
4. The stock(directly out of the book) monsters use average hit points. You may have to give them max hit points and allow them to use their treasure allowance to equip themselves.
5. Some monsters do not live up to their CR. Horned devils are not really all that good. They don't really do a lot of damage, and their SLA's are not impressive. You may be better off taking a good aligned outsider that has innate cleric caster levels and reskinning it as some type of unique evil outsider, or just say it is an evil celestial.
Nope.I am saying there is no "Celestial" enhancement or pseudo enhancement.
The process for celestial armor treats the chainmail(medium armor) as light armor. Due to how it looks they called it celestial armor.
That process for Celestial plate treat the full plate(heavy armor) as medium armor, and it has similar features to celestial armor so they called it celestial plate.
The "celestial" is just the name of the finished producted. There is not one process.
I will put it another way. Celestial is not a process that makes armor one category lighter.
Each armor has magic applied that gives it a specific condition.
One process specifically says to treat chainmail as light armor which is not the same as "drop by one category"
Another armor treats full plate as medium armor, which also is not the same as "drop by one category"
Both processes give you a very specific armor. If they just generally dropped the armor by one category then it would be like any enhancement that could be applied to any armor.
The other thing is that the actual armor category never changes. So it is actually still heavy armor if you want to go with the full plate example. Heavy(celestial plate) + mithral = "treat as medium".
That is how I think the rules would apply to this 3.5 product.
Ninjas and Samurai do not belong to Anime any more than annoying characters with high pitched voices do. No I am not trying to change you mind. Just making a point by comparison.
What is reasonable varies by table, and the game is still not written to account for custom items. That is why they got rid of the level 0 spell from 3.5 that always cured 1 hp.
Let me put it like this, and repeat myself. The armor is NOT medium. It is treated as medium. It is actually still heavy armor. If I treat A as B then A is still not B.
Since it is still A(heavy armor) that still means the mithral won't drop it another step.
Now until you can find a rule saying that the actual armor category is ignored by Mithral per RAW you can't claim RAW is on your side..
edit: The entire time I thought this item had been reproduced in Ultimate Equipment. This item is a 3.5 item that never got updated to Pathfinder so this should not even be in the rules section. It should be in the advice or homebrew section. With that said it defaults to "ask your GM" on that alone.
Actually the only thing written is that celestial full plate is treated as medium and celestial armor is treay as light armor.
You are assuming that it making something celestial drops it down by one armor category but the raws never says to treat celestial as a pseudo enhancement.
Not really. You are assuming Celesital is like an enhancement that always drops armor to one level lighter from the current form.
It could be that the process for plate makes it medium.
As an example if I cast a spell that gives you an 8 strength.
And then I cast another spell that takes your strength from a 10 directly to an 8, the your strength won't drop to 6 because the spell does not say strength drops by 2. It says it makes it directly into an 8. In that case one effect is duplicating another so there is no benefit to casting both.
To get things back on topic I think no class(older melee) is really obsolete even if they are less optimal. Simple classes like the fighter are a good way to bring someone into the game. Due to table variation and style of play I doubt any of the older melee classes will ever really stop seeing use.
I am confused by what you mean.
I will give you some more information however.
A. This magic makes the plate armor one category light from its current standing etc etc etc
B. This magic makes heavy armor into medium armor etc etc.
My basic point is that there is no RAW to say how the flavor behind this magic works. If it is A I still think your idea does not work, but if it is B then you have no chance at all of being correct dropping 2 categories because the mithral is doing the same thing that magic is doing for the most part.
PS: Celstial Armor's magic could make medium armor act as light armor, but the magic that is used on Celestial Plate may only make heavy armor into medium armor. Just because they have a similar same name, that does not mean they do the exact same thing. We only know the end result, not how the magic is applied, so by RAW the answer is still murky. Which goes back to "ask the GM".
I've been thinking about grabbing Celestial Plate Armor for my barbarian, so I can gain the benefits of fast movement. However, I realized that the armor never says it's made of mithral. Were I to get this armor in mithril, would it count as light armor and allow for a faster move speed?
You can make it Mithral per RAW, but since the armor is already treated as one category lighter, and mithral does the same thing the GM could rule that mithral acts on the base armor type, and only overlaps, but does not stack. Ask your GM.
Your off hand and main hand attack should have the same attack bonus unless one weapon has a special ability such as a feat or magic applied to give it a higher attack bonus than the other weapon.
That penalty from TWF applies to both weapons, not just one or the other.
Nobody is saying to do this. They ARE saying create flavor, and find the mechanics which allow you to best fill that flavor. As an example if I want to use a ranger as my "ninja" instead of the actual ninja that does not mean I am playing a flavorless statblock. It means that I like the ranger better for what I want to do and maybe at worst my view of what I want a ninja(insert other concept/idea as needed) to be is different from what Paizo offered.
Neon Sequitur wrote:
I don't have this problem, and most of my players in more than one group don't either. What your statement means is that PF may not be the game for you, but that does not make it a "mess". As for the GM, offer to run a game for him under another system. That is how I got introduced to Mutants and Mastermind, and Shadowrun.
The CRB is the worst offender of power disparity. Many of the later classes are in the middle and better balanced. I have learned over the years that some things look a lot better on paper than they really are, and until someone runs an actual campaign with arcanist we won't really know. We can just guess. That is why it is theorycraft at least until someone experiences it. Even then it will depend on the table's playstyle.
If your players don't like certain things then the group can agree to not use them, at least until a new campaign starts up. That way a new player does not have any real or perceived advantages because they came into the group later on.
Just because there is a new game that does not mean it will be exactly what I want it to be. It might even be farther from from I want than PF is right now.
To add to this taking up more than one square does not mean you take up all of the space in those squares.
Can the caster attack the square with a melee attack? Yes
Is he armed? Yes
So by RAW it works. I am not sure if it is RAI or not, but RAW there is nothing to stop it.
If the GM says the rule is X then the rule is X however I.from what you said I dont think he likes to admit being wrong. An increase in price is different from a decrease.
I guess I should also clarify that in order to gain access to greater exploits you only need to count as an 11th level arcanist, and wizard levels count as arcanist levels for exploits in all ways most likely as RAI.
A strict reading of the RAW may disagree, but for the purpose of the rules I think the wizard qualifies.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
The rules are what are in the book. The rules for "a specific group" are what the GM says they are which makes them houserules.And if for no other reason than people should use the same terms, when in the forum "house rules" = changes made to the system for your enjoyment, and the "rules" = the official rules per RAI.
In addition "house rules" is not a bad term. We all have house rules, and anyone who gets upset about it is being way too sensitive.
What is flamebait/annoying is ignoring the standard definition of something, when you know what everyone else means. No I am not accusing you of this. I am just informing you so you don't become the "wrought" guy.
Short version: We had a poster using words but he used them as his group used them, instead of how most people understood them, and was surprised that nobody knew what he was talking about.
So when we say "house rules" it does NOT mean "you are doing it wrong", it just means you are not using the rules as intended in the book.
At best(not that I think this will happen) people will just say "your rules...." or some similar phrase which basically still amounts to "house rules". There is no need to come up with a new phrase that means the same thing as an old one however.
edit: In my 5+ years here I have never seen anyone get upset about the term "house rules". I have also never seen it on any other site. It is quiet common here. So even if there is some site where it is a problem, it is not the case here.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
I am sure the those heroes wanted to rest also, and they will if given a chance. If you read a novel where someone is fighting on fumes it was because they had no choice, not because they thought "Man, if I fight with nothing left I will look really cool".
Define "handful".If you mean 7th level casters and they still have 3rd level spells then I don't know why they are resting barring very extreme cases. If they are level 15 and they only have a few 3rd level spells left then I understand, but a 15th level party can normally take on enough fights to not call it a "15 minute work day" before they are pushed to 3rd level spells.
That depends on how tough the BBEG is. Personally if they end their last fight right outside of his door/entrance before resting he would know. If they take too long to show up he should know and adjust accordingly. Resting right before a boss fight can be blind luck if the players dont know where he is. However the boss should have plans in place to deal with such things.
That is a GM problem. Unless you are in PFS you are not bound to what is in the books. Many people run home games and still fall prey to this. I have had bosses change locations, and I don't mean in the same dungeon if they had too. Give your BBEG a preferred place to fight, but he does not have to have a mandatory place to fight.
I believe you, but you have to set a tone of actions having consequences. It seem the problem here is players expecting to have their way. Even if you remove the x/day mechanic they would still arrive with full power. I never tell players they can't rest, but a lot can happen in 8 hours. Also at low levels there is a good deal of resting, but at higher levels PC's are able to take on more combats. That is just part of the game. I personally like to start PC's at 3rd to 5th level when I run homebrew games, which I have not done in a while. I have started AP's at 3rd before, and it worked out pretty well.
With regard to your resting players, there is a difference between them knowing bad guys might bother them if they sleep in enemy HQ, and the GM saying "No you can't rest because I said so". The former is something they should expect to deal with. The latter is something I would not like as a player either. Even if the bad guys don't assault them because they boarded the door they should be on alert, and be more grouped up than normal, depending on the situation.
Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.
You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
*Cover and concealment are relative, so you may be able to stealth against one creature, but not against another creature. As an example if a creature has blindsight and you are within the range of its blindsight then you can not stealth against it, even if you have concealment.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving to avoid being pinpointed. Use the chart under invisibility in the glossary to determine how additional modifiers will affect your stealth bonus. The same chart also applies to your stealth check when not invisible. As an example if you are speaking in a normal voice it is a -20 to your stealth check. If you are speaking within the hearing range of another creature then it may not be possible to use stealth against them as you would be observed by their hearing. Whispering imparts a -5 modifier, to your stealth check, and your allies may need to make perception checks to hear you. The enemy may also make perception checks to hear you. If they can hear you whisper however, and you have already used stealth against them successfully it only gives them your direction but it does not pinpoint your location unless they can beat your stealth DC.
If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a bonus on Stealth checks (see Feats).
As of now I am undecided as to whether or not I should require total concealment for someone to hide if they are being observed by eyesight
Could all of it be done by one build?
If the arcanist can't do all of it in one build then you are correct, otherwise the other poster may have a point.
I think part of the problem here is that people refuse to acknowledge, or just don't realize how their style of play or house rules impact the game. That is why when discussing such things it is best to not bring corner cases or house rules("How I or my GM does it"), unless it is done with a rule in the actual book.
As an example if you use the "rule of cool" when defending a class don't expect it to stand up to scrutiny. I am not saying it is bad to let players do things that are not in the book, but if the class can do it, then the class can't do it. At the same time nerfing casters by using houserules or having antimagic fields when they are not common also won't get much credit. Now some will say "you can't prove they are not common". That is correct, but I don't think they really believe they are common. They are just trying to win a debate at that point. Nobody can prove that most tables don't give out 1 million gold pieces at level 1, but I think we can most agree that it is not the norm.
Some will change a rule and then go on to say that is not GM fait or rule 0. It is the "rule". They know when someone says "rule" they mean the ones printed by Pathfinder, and yes a GM can change how things work at his table, but the common point of reference is the printed book. In any discussion you have to be sure to have the same meaning with whatever the topic is. If you are not discussing the same fighter/rogue/wizard/etc that everyone else is then the discussion does not apply to you anyway.
Before this is misread nobody is saying don't change the rules for your game. I am saying be honest and don't say X is not a problem when you know your X and everyone else's X is different.
I am also NOT saying that if you used class x without houserules that class x would not work. I am saying that you need to recognize what your changes bring to the system. Because once you bring in your house rules all you are really saying is "I made changes so problems ______ doesn't happen in my games". That is very different from _____ is not a problem. Since every table is no different nobody can really say _____ is not a problem. They might be able to say if you did Y then ____ would not be a problem.
PS: Your and you were not pointed at any one person.
A CR 15 fighter is not going to equal a CR 15 wizard unless the wizard is gimped. Even if the fighter is gets a jump on a level 15 party he will at most kill 1 party member barring something crazy like the PC's rolling a string of nat 1's. A CR 15 wizard might kill the entire party if he gets a jump on them, and the GM is playing for keeps. Not all CR's are equal. I am sure a GM can contrive a situation to make the fighter seem more dangerous, but if you just go by their abilities that fighter is not a threat to TPK most APL=CR parties.
I think he has met the "right/wrong" player yet, and his group style of play is affecting the game. He may have to sit at another GM's table.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Because there are other 20th level casters opposing them. :)
But seriously I think the idea of "casters(the one true build) can do anything" is a misunderstanding. It is more like a good build and a good player can do a whole lot of things to wreck a GM's game, and make some players feel useless.
Another fun DM thing to do is the bait and switch telegraphing. I've seen arcane casters have trouble when they misinterpreted (either their fault, or my intentional gm-dickery) what was waiting for them. One came loaded for harpies he could fireball only to find fiends who were immune to fire, one came expecting rogues with low will saves and ran into vermin who straight up didn't care about his charms, the giant bone things turned out to be bone /golems/ not skeletons, etc, and since they didn't have the right flavor of blasty or bypass they had a rougher time of it, whereas the martials just shrugged and whalloped things.
This is why player skill matters just as much as the class chosen. A smart player always has generalized spells, and usually still leaves slots open. It should not require every spell you have to be dedicated for to solving one problem. Sometimes the best thing to do is have spells that make the fight easy for the party instead of assuming you will be the star that day.
The "Win" buttons are the spells that let you solves problems the party could not handle or that make the problem a lot easier.
Thanks for your thoughts, guys. I haven't been enforcing it myself because I felt it added one more complexity to juggle in an already complex character creation process and I didn't feel like dealing with it. It's interesting to see that the majority of you seem to have no problem with it. I guess I'm just lazy in comparison. :D
It is not difficult. Just tell the players not to do. Now if you have the type of players that HAVE to be audited I can understand why you might not think it is worth the trouble.
1. Not all BBEGS have the same resources.
2. Many things are not done in the game, so the game can continue since the goal is to have fun. A GM always has the most guns if he wants them just because he is the GM. All he really has to do most of the time is have the BBEG pay the PC's a visit when they are still at a low level, and that is not the only thing that could end a campaign early.
It is not theorycraft. Casters at higher levels have buffs that can last over several fights and they have enough spells per day to take on several encounters. Noe he is going to waste spells just because he is bored hemight run out. Otherwise he can cast one or no spells at all at times.This will vary by group but with more powerful abd I don't just mean DPR the spells are needed less. That extends how long he can go before needing to rest. In addition nobody will fight once thier hit points are gone and I have martials run out of hit points before casters ran out of spells. of course that varies by group. People ned to stop assuming everything they have not experienced has not actually taken place when the poster claims it
Don't go into Power Dome A wrote:
That is incorrect. Your experience is your experience. Those that cheat are not rules lawyers. They are cheaters. The two are not synonamous, and there is nothing wrong with speaking up if a GM makes a mistake. It is a problem if the player is a jerk about it. It is very possible to speak up and not be a jerk. When I correct the GM it is done even if I suffer for it in game. Yes I also GM, and I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong.It is NOT inherently bad. You just have players that want to have their way it seems. That can be handled with a better screening process.
He did not say that. He was saying it seems(is likely) that if a GM tries to cut rules out.....
Restricting rules does not weed out bad players. Kicking them out of the group does. If he is an entitled player with a lot of options then he will still feel entitled with less options. The same goes for most other nonacceptable behavior.
You should give examples, and evil people can have compassion, not that I think Asmodeus has much of it, if any.
They are evil many times because of how they go about solving a problem. An evil person may have no problem sacrificing the few to save the many. A good person would take a much more difficult route, even if it might mean he could die so that nobody has to be sacrificed.
The book does not allow them to use customized material components to hide spells. That is all you had to say. That way no house rule is needed.