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. 2,611 posts (36,321 including aliases). 3 reviews. 6 lists. 3 wishlists. 25 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:

For myself, it was the sense of entitlement that really set me back when I first started playing/running a game again. Maybe that's the fault of video games?

But when Players learn that they can have as much fun without the "Christmas tree effect", then things get so much easier, and everyone can have fun.

Anyway, back to the OP question: I have very little available, maybe 25% chance, based on the town size, seldom going over something with a 2nd lvl spell equivalent. Mostly just scrolls and potions - which the players can craft for themselves. Just no permanent magic items - weapons, armor, rings, staves,etc. Instead of Item Creation feats, they can take another Feat.

But my campaign is meant to make being an arcane caster hard. Magic is drying up, and so there are VERY few who can work magic.

The casters already have the magic. It is the classes without magic that suffer more. Unless you have other houserules in place I would be more likely to play a caster in your game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Thank goodness Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, Frodo and Bilbo Baggins, Robin Hood and pretty much every great character from fiction didn't feel that way, eh?

Yoda: "If all jedi lightsabers have, none special will feel, hmmm? A butter knife for you is good enough."

Museum: "Sorry, Dr. Jones. I know you believed this to be the Lost Ark of the Covenant, but then we'd need magic rocks or something for the next movie, and we simply can't have so many magic goodies floating around. So what you recovered is, in fact, a brass-covered box with some plain stone tablets in it. But it has a backstory!"

Gandalf: "Yes, there are legends of the Ring of Sauron, that makes men and hobbits invisible to all except His eye... but what you have there, what your uncle Bilbo recovered, is my aunt Mildred's engagement ring."

Sheriff of Nottingham: "Yes, of COURSE you can defeat all my schemes with a mundane bow... we're only 4th level, after all, and this is an E6 campign."

Ummmm... what does any of that have to do with the characters being motivated solely by financial reward, as stated in the post I quoted and responded to?

That was the in game reason. The OOC reason was likely that the GM was too stingy with the loot.

If you tell people up front, "I am deviating from the norm by ___", they accept it a lot better than finding out by accident.

PS: No I can't presume he would have agree to play if he had known, because I don't know the poster personally


3 people marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:
A more interesting question is, if the rules somehow allowed you to ride the Lich's respawn ability back into the land of the living, could you use that as a poor man's phylactery? It wouldn't be particularly powerful, but it would be amusing.

From a story point of view this is interesting. This is going outside of the rules, but the lich/ghost could use this to keep you alive forever, which seems like a good thing, but then you have the immortality is a curse trope. He might even create a personal curse that enforces the one from the item. He could kill himself at random times, just to mess with you. Dealing with that for eternity would be a terrible thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
The magic mart is primarily a GM problem. I rarely see players complain and have found that more often than not, you'll never make magic feel special. Fantasy is too mainstream right now, with video games and movies and books flooding the market.

+1000

I think that what happens is the players give a sigh of relief when the GM finally gives them something, and the GM mistakes for it "wonder", so he keeps the same pattern going. I have never heard a player say, "You make it too easy to get these items. Send us on a quest.".

The 75% rule does a good job of not getting them everything they want, but normally giving them enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zedth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Yea! I mean... I know you have a +1 sword, and I know the Mage just told you that +3 swords will get through his DR just like it was made of cold iron, but how could you possibly know about +2 swords! FREEKING metagamers! This is getting out of hand!

What do you mean you want a +2 cloak of resistance. You mean a "gracious cloak of avoiding harm of the 2nd circle?" Well you don't know about those! Metagame cheat game ruiner!

Rod of metamagic quickening? Are you insane? How does your character even know about that? Oh? You have the feat? And you have extend? And a rod of extend? Natural conclusion?!?!! NO WAY!!!!!! NO MOAR MAGIC ITEMS! Magic items are the special precious flowers and snowflakes that litter my campaign world like a bad Longfellow poem. From now on you will take only what you get, and you will equip it, and you won't try to sell it, and you will like it, AND THERE WILL BE SANITY ON THE MATERIAL PLANE!!!!!! ROWAR!!!!

Nowhere did I infer players wouldn't know about magic items. I inferred players having the full knowledge of the extensive array of magic items in the CRB and other books is the very definition of metagaming. You're free to disagree, but your attack on my opinion is extremely childish. You may have missed the "Help us keep the messageboards a fun and friendly place" rule.

Why couldn't the characters know? In a low magic setting where magic or magic items is rare maybe, but in the standard setting I don't see how they could not know. As someone in the military, I knew about military equipment used by other services that I never got to see in person.

In the game you can use knowledge checks to know about monsters and other things that way outnumber magic items.

It makes sense that someone would let the PC's know about these items especially if they are the trained PC's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since I don't know exactly what it is supposed to do I don't have any expectations. My guess is that it will be Unearthed Arcana:Pathfinder Edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People notice when magic forces them to make a save. Now of course he won't know what it is without a some divination spells so I would suggest doing this quickly. In addition I am sure he can easily make a 23 will save. The other issue is that he is a ghost so it may not matter, but you already know that.

As for the lich, Arazni has a phylactery, and while your souls are linked the item does not destroy her soul. Nothing in the item says it dies any special way. It just says the target dies so there is no reason she won't be back and highly upset in 1d10 days, assuming the save is failed.

In either case you have two mythic level characters after you because I am sure they have a way to get to the participant's soul, and then they go after whoever came up with the idea, so yes you can kill them with a lot of luck, but I don't see it as perma-death.

Yes I know the souls are linked, but it never says they have the exact same status all the time. It only says that if one creature dies the other one dies.

PS: Upon returning to life/undeath they break the enchantment, and then go after whoever did did it. If it can be stopped by a simple remove curse I don't think it is all that powerful. Also--> Even if they make the save they go after whoever did it.

This is your evil entity known as Wraithstrike advising you to never use this item against him. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kevin_video wrote:
Whether I win or lose, my main concern, and I told this to Sean, was that we all get constructive criticism on our entries, regardless of how good or bad they are. Never having done this with you guys before I don't know how you usually do it, but I've sent other kind of entries in before and had them mercilessly torn asunder. It makes you hesitant of entering other contests with other people.

SKR has destroyed my submissions in RPG superstar. The key is to take it as advice and not a personal attack. All he was doing was telling me what I did was wrong and anytime you present something to be written you should be prepared for the feedback even if your name is well known.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Master of Shadows wrote:

I guess what I'm saying is that the rule already is unambiguous, there is nothing there that allows it. If the design intent was otherwise, as Jason's post suggests, then I would welcome an FAQ or an Errata.

Until then, RAW does not allow it.

I think you are really disliking that the rules are not conveniently in one place, and spread too far out. That is different from RAW not allowing it. So far nobody has been able to use RAW to dispute the thread where I said it was RAW.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I learned when myself and a few posters tried to write a rule for how negative energy affinity worked was that it is very hard to write a rule so that almost nobody gets it wrong. At that point, the PDT team earned even more of my respect. I was just trying to make one rule. They have to try to write and reference several other rules at the same time.

Even now you just tried to change two rules, and got them wrong. It does not mean you don't have a good grasp on the rules, but it does show that the job is not as easy as some of us think it is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

I expect Occult Mysteries to be amazing though, because so many of the people at Paizo love the concept. They've been planning and ruminating on something they love and are excited about, and love is where the real magic comes from.

Fear not, your damning praise will be quickly silenced by all the "ha ha Failzo hates point-based psionics so they're giving us another vancian system where casters rule and martials drool' people ;-)

I hope not. I am a psionics point guy, but I understand the reluctance to do a similar system, and I am hoping this one succeeds. In my games I will look at psionics and psychics as closely related, but still different, but I think some will use it as a replacement. People just need to realize Paizo can't always give them what they want AND still appeal to the broad fan base.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

JB's clarification is just that - a clarification.

The current Stealth rules work as outlined above (contrary to what Master of Shadows keeps claiming). You needn't pour over thousands of threads to find the answer - it's already in the PRD. JB was simply confirming everything, even going so far as to mention that it could have been made clearer.

There's a difference between personal opinions of how a rule should be run and a clarification of how a rule actually works.

+1

Yes, basically Jason was not changing a rule. He was saying ""This is how I intended for it to be read. It just was not explained well enough for everyone to easily understand."

A person not understanding it does not make it "not a rule".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Unbiased viewpoint:

The fighter does more damage until I see proof otherwise. On the flipside the swashbuckleris not that far behind and it has a comparable AC to a fighter with a shield so between the AC and parry and riposte it "should" get hit less.

Well you can push the fighter's AC. That is true, but if the fighter goes sword and board it loses the damage race.

Yeah the swash has evasion, but barring dazing spell which is really doing the heavy lifting, a d10 class will normally be okay failing the save. If the caster is specializing in evocation then you are in trouble because you will likely fail the save and even half of 250+ damage a round will hurt.

The swashbuckler has more skills. No argument here.

The fighter can master more than one way to fight, and still be decent at another such as archery thanks to extra feats and weapon mastery. True

Basically if you compare the core swashbuckler and the core fighter, the swashbuckler is the better class all around. However the fighter has enough archetypes that if you want to focus on something it can pull ahead in that area, but not for one weapon fighting. The lore warden as an example is good with combat maneuver abilities. If you combine it with the archetype that can change out feats every day then you can ready for a lot of situations if you plan it well.

However being better than the fighter is not really an accomplishment, and I still prefer the slayer, barbarian, and ranger over both classes, and I have not even played the slayer yet. I have however built a slayer and a swashbuckler.

Basically the people in your group will have to find reason to play a fighter. There are no blanket ones I can think of to always choose a fighter because there are several ways to play a fighter, and until the swashbuckler gets more archetype there are only so many ways to play a slayer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bioboygamer wrote:

Well, I've got some info from the player's character sheet:

Ifrit Sorcerer 3

STR 10
DEX 17
CON 17
INT 12
WIS 8
CHA 20

17 AC (4 armor + 3 from DEX)

FORT 4
REF 4
WILL 4

Unfortunately, it seems like the player in question uses his character sheet as more of a quick reference for the session, and he keeps the rest of his character info at home. All the same, it looks like he's not going to be nearly as overpowered as he was before.

If there's any other info you want, I could probably just ask him, but I'm not sure if there's much else to say at this point.

Players need to have the character sheet with them every session because it is easy to forget things. You need to require that everyone have a complete sheet before the 1st session even starts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do have issues with the open close eyes as free action because while we take turns in real life, in fantasy land things happen all at once. If you close your eyes for a full round attack they stay closed until the beginning of your next turn in my games.

For a single attack I just let it go because making your blind for only using a standard action is more of a penalty than I like to give.

As for closing your eyes and swinging vs keeping them open, I see closing your eyes as you trying to take up as much space as possible with your weapon and hoping you get lucky, as opposed to striking at a specific image. Blind-fight is helping you swing into the corner part of the 5 foot square. It is not different than movies where a blinded fighter has gained the ability to fight without seeing. It is actually a trope. Behold the blind weaponmaster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just assume the uncommon races are known(heard of) but rare. With of the strange things going on in Golarion I see no reason to hide it. I would guess they at worst, get treated like teiflings in a GM's game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have always allowed for aid another on skill checks but I think per RAW it only works on skill checks, attack rolls, and boosting AC, and some spells(Don't ask me which ones, I am going by what the book says.) :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The feat seems to have forgotten about reach weapons because it assumes the charger can attack while adjacent.

I think the intent is for the charger to attack when you are in range.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ulgulanoth wrote:
Surely if your tactic is always disable the caster first, you would stack up on thunderstones, smoke sticks, ect to blind/deafen/ect the caster at a range to then deal with the marshals, especially since getting hit on purpose (with AoOs) is just as dumb

IIRC thunderstone are only a DC 15 fort save. Unless you are a low(1-3) level caster they are not a threat unless you throw a lot of them. Depending on how many minions are around throwing them could be a terrible use of your actions.

If they(PC casters) can't target someone there are always AoO's. In addition many casters cause problems with buffs and summons. Smoke sticks won't normally stop those.

From a PC perspective if the entire party opens up with thunderstones, then it might work, but I think think it is less efficient than trying to use your casters to shut down the other caster if possible, hopefully in conjuction with your meat shield so he takes less damage while getting to the caster.

I think the problem here is that "go after the caster" is being presented as "rush in with no matter what", but I doubt Ashiel or the other posters would do that. More than likely some of the meatbags protecting the NPC caster will be disabled, and the PC meatbag will be buffed, so that his path to the caster is less painful than it would be otherwise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

I would really just like a real aplology and not the kind where I'm told I didn't like the book because my standards were too high. Preferably a statement more public than a PM or post in this thread.

My standards are pretty average and thats why I even own RPG books in the first place, I expect some level of balance issues and rules errors. I don't believe that the ACG was bad because my standards were too high, I think it was bad because Paizo can and has done better. When people hear a core Paizo book they hear that they are going to get a quality product worth their money and it was advertized as such. I wouldn't go far enough to say that it was false advertising, but I do feel lied to and betrayed after all those blog posts hyping up a product that doesn't deliver.

I thought so, but you can't force someone into a "legit" apology. It is like when your parents force you to say sorry to your brother or sister but you dont really mean it, if they do it just to appease the fans/customers.

I am in no way implying that is what Paizo would do.

I purchased a bestiary where an entire paragraph was just gone from the book, among other errors, so I understand how you feel after getting a hardback that could have been better.

If you have an end point to your questions I guess you should get to that point*, but I don't think they dropped the ball on purpose.

*At some point they will move on to other things beside this thread, simply because they probably do have other things to do, and then you might start to feel ignored, even if that is not the case.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Do you know the main reason? Because I refuse to send a book to the printer early just to hit a release date. If my staff doesn't feel it is ready, then we won't ship.
Was the ACG an exception to that rule?

It seems you are being antagonistic now, but it could be the internet. Since Gencon releases have more errors typically the answer is more likely that, they did not notice the errors for (insert reason, to include lack of time to completely look over the book as needed)*, which is different from "I know these errors exist, but instead of fixing them we will ship it to the printer anyway".

*I will expand on this-->Being on a time crunch and not actually having time to playtest the final version of the book could make it seem ok when it is not. So you could give it the "thumbs up" when you shouldn't. Typically not playtesting the final version has been working. This time it did not.

Do I wish the book had turned out differently? sure

Hounding them about the process won't help though. The next book will be a sign of whether this is a trend or an anomaly.

I think you want an apology, but if they give it to you just to get you to stop complaining, does it really count, and how would you know if it was sincere or not?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdtothe3rd wrote:

Ok so I personally feel 9th level casters and potentially manifesters are just too powerful for your normal campaign setting. Often times I hear stories of the Wizard, Cleric, or Druid doing insane stuff at higher levels that just seem like why would you play any other class when you can just wish for more wishes or warp the universe to your desire, or heck make your own!.

So I wanted my new setting to be strictly limited to 6th level casters.
For arcane this means: Bard, Magus, Skald, and Summoners.
For divine this means: Inquisitors, Hunter, Paladin, Ranger, and Warpriest.

Alchemist and Investigator not being proper 6ths but allowed.

So to the advice for this part.
1. Do you think with those options the parties won't feel like they can't cover all their needs? Healing, DPR, Tanking, Skill-Monkey, Party Face, etc.

2. Do you think 9th level psionics are as broken and op as 9th level spells? I am fond of the psion and psionics in general so I feel my love for the style is blinding me.

I was considering running as a Dragon Age like Inquisition style world where Divine magic, their churches and armies have begun to persecute arcane casters and this is why we do not have witches, wizards, sorcerers and the like. To explain why no Clerics or Druids. Not every god agrees with this overly aggressive kill all arcane users way of thinking so they deny their clerics their full powers, which is why we get Paladins, Inquisitors, and Warpriest(Clerics basically). As even the gods who support these views don't want to give too much power to their followers when it might turn against them. Druids do not exist because nature is about balance and with the world shifting to divine over arcane the balance is thrown out of wack reducing them to the Hunter class.

Do you think this would be a good idea?
Can you give suggestions for fun plots to take place in a world Arcane users have to mostly hide what they are doing. Sure the churches know what they are doing and that the bards and so forth exist but only go after them if they begin to upset the status quo(?). At least till they are ready to wipe out all arcane users in the end.

EDIT: It was an oversight and I am banning them. I was going to ban the Summoners, but that just leaves Arcane with Bard, Skald, and Magus and that seems very pitiful when it comes to magical support.
ALSO I cannot make new posts for some reason.

Every setting I have played in has had things more powerful than the PC's. I don't think they can be too powerful for any setting. They can be too much for a GM, depending on the GM.

Also it is better to play and experience it for yourself than go by hearsay. Some tables have them wrecking GM's encounters. Other tables don't have a problem with them. Some tables also are ok with them, but only up to a certain level. Some table are ok with some of them, but not others. Basically how much trouble they are depends on the group.

Psionics are more balanced than spells, but the do nova a easier so whether or not they are better depends on playstyle. As an example if the world goes on independently of your PC's then the problem will self-correct. If they use the "nova then rest" combo, and they never have to fight while depleted on resources they will continue to do so.

With that said players are more of a problem than classes in my experience. If a player has really good system mastery he can trivialize encounters and still give the GM headaches even playing partial casters.

There is no one plot that I can recommend, but the game is easier with full casters for players. You will probably need to compensate for certain things if certain spells are no longer available and/or they come later in the game due to not having full casters.

As for the summoner, the class is not inherently broken, but it is an easy class to optimize, and it has a lot of rules exceptions. Most of the builds that cause trouble are due to rules errors on the part of the GM or the player. If you and your group are new to the game you might want to avoid the summoner for now, and bring it in later on. Definitely avoid the master summoner for now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for the LGBT:

The only think I noticed recently was a transgender character and it was only one. As for homosexuals, rise of the runelords(the very first AP) had one. Another AP had one in a prominent role instead of as something players may never notice. It is not like this started yesterday or as if there has been a sudden increase. I clearly doubt it takes up enough time to detract from production.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Drogon I am wondering what he is talking about. I don't think Mythic would have been much better, nor would the ACG without more playtesting and editing time. Since products have their own teams I don't think more products is an impact until people have to cover several product lines.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdtothe3rd wrote:

3.5 is where we are all from, we have been playing PF for a year or so now but 3.P usually finds a place at our tables so converting doesn't mean much. Also since it runs from 1-20 I dont think converting is the proper term. I will have to look into those.

Shackled City, War of the Burning Sky, and the Drow adventurer do you have briefs I could read? Like just something of a non-spoiler summary?

Shackled City is pretty difficult from what I remember.

Spoiler:
Basically the bad guys are trying open a planar rift between the material plane and another dimension. This is not revealed at the beginning to the PC's

War of the Burning sky
Click this and then download the campaign guide
Once good thing is that the players have more options about how the campaign unfolds. It does use some psionics, so you might want to replace those NPC's if you dont like psionics.

Rise of the Drow
Click here

The following are also 3.5 and go to level 20.

Age of Worms:

In this adventure some cultist are trying to return a lesser deity to the material plane, but the PC's don't find out about him until late in the game. This adventure is difficult. It is a good adventure. You will have to get the pdf versions of dragon magazine or hunt down the physical magazines, which is why I did not mention it up front.

PS: There is a fair amount of undead especially in the later chapters

Savage Tide:

This one has you taking on demon lords at the end, and trying to save the world. It is a sea faring adventure for some parts of it. It is also dangerous from what I have heard.
Just like Age of worms you have to hunt the magazines down or get the pdf versions.

Between Savage Tide, Age of Worms and Shackled City which have references to each other Age of Worms is the most difficult.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Skeld wrote:

Lesson learned.

-Skeld

Did they? We'll see.

Iron Gods's new rules were written by the same guy who's developing Iron Gods.

Hell's Rebels and Giantslayer aren't linked to ANY new rules in any significant way.

Make of that what you will.

Well, I've started up my suscription again with Iron Gods, so I'll know soon enough. Although I kinda get the feeling that the Technology Guide is absolutely needed to run that AP, which I kind of disapprove about.

True, but the rules are online which means you don't have to purchase it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drogon wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Why do you think it's important for paizo to be the worlds leading game company?

I wish them all the success they want, but its irrelevant to me whether they sell more or less books than WotC. I consider them great because of who they are and how they do things, not because ICv2 declared them the winner for a few quarters in a row.

I have no idea how to reply to this, beyond saying that I can't imagine not trying to be the best at what I do. No way did Paizo set out wanting to be "okay" at making their game. If they had, it would have been exactly that.

Edit: I'm not seeing you pounce on anyone, Steve. You're being completely reasonable. Others, however, have an overwhelming need to be the cool kid in class. It gets old.

I don't think he is saying Paizo should not strive for financial success. I think he is saying the number 1 spot is not needed to be successful, and making more money does not always mean you are the better company.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Drogon wrote:
I can't get behind the idea that the reason is because you hired too many people.

This won't be a popular response, but perhaps if the very clear priority of keeping the LGBT flag waving wasn't quite so front and center, if the social engineering and universal representation were left to the players and GM's themselves, the focus on these many other issues presented might be greater.

We can't get answers to any of dozens of questions in the FAQ, have classes coming out after months of playtests which immediately need tons of errata and the much-heralded Mythic ruleset is broken pretty much as soon as you get into the meat of it... but hey, we all know EXACTLY how much a sex-change potion will cost!

I'm not saying the two are related, but in earlier pathfinder materials, the focus wasn't so great, the constant LGBT banner wasn't so zealously waved and many of these issues weren't near so pronounced either. Can we skip the social agenda, cut the rules bloat and just get back to what Paizo has always been best at - telling great stories through gaming?

What is rules bloat is subjective, and rules can be sold to GM's and players. Don't make the mistake of thinking "what you like" is "best for business". That is a mistake I see far too often here. "Well in my games...." does not equate to "ok for the general public or good for Paizo".

That is why I try to debate from a neutral stance. Someone like myself would have more powerful options based on how I like to play, but I know that is not everyone so I don't try to push Paizo to make more powerful options. I like to play/GM to level 17, but many prefer to stop before that. I can list a number of reason of why it works for me, but that does not mean it is good for Paizo to push it.

Basically you are advocating what suits your games, but since Paizo is growing quickly under their current model that may not be best for them or us as a whole.

PS: Personally I think the mythic rules do need to be redone so we do agree on that. No, I am not expecting for it to happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
I work a job where I have to keep a lot of people happy too. I'll tell you a secret - if there's one task I can do that will make people happy and make me feel better about my day, and another that will inevitably lead to someone "screaming" at me and making me hate the human race, I will choose the first one as often as humanly possible.

Everything else in the quoted post was also good, but I wanted to pull this out in particular. Ssalarn is right that pretty much any FAQ that clarifies an ambiguity is going to make the side who doesn't have the clarification go their way upset. And there is always that side, so it will always make someone upset. So to continue to help me get you more FAQs, faster FAQs, and more consistently timed FAQs, if that is your #1 priority, I entreat you all—if you want to see more FAQs, then one day, when a FAQ doesn't turn out the way you wished it would, please take a moment to remember this post and then don't post about it angrily. I understand that you will still be angry, you have every right to be angry, and I'm in no way telling you that you don't have that right. In fact, go rant to a friend about it.

The reason to not post about it here is purely a psychological one based on conditioning (yes, I am teaching you how to condition us for your advantage, so read on!). Basically, if you give negative feedback when there are no FAQs and then negative feedback when there are FAQs too, since your discontented posts are your psychological ammunition, you're diluting your message in both instances. In essence, pick your top priority and choose that one to give negative feedback. If your top priority is preventing FAQs because they might turn out the other way and you prefer the ambiguity, then complain about the FAQs when they come out and don't complain about the lack of FAQs. If your top priority is to get more FAQs and clear up grey areas, as I hope it is, like mine, then post negatively only when we don't give you FAQs and you feel we should, and...

Good stuff. Another thing for the PDT team to do is to "not just answer the question asked". Sometimes answering one FAQ will make it seem like it conflicts with another rule. Even if it takes longer to get the FAQ out, mention how related rules are or are not affected.

1. I am not saying scan every book, but just try to think of anything that might be related. If nothing comes to mind post the FAQ, and if we(the posters) think of a possible conflict we can ask for another FAQ, but saying something like "however ____ is not affected because ____" would solve some problems before they start.

2. I had another point, but somehow I forgot it. Oh well, I will post it later if I remember.

3. You or someone might want to remind people to post in a conservative manner while disagreeing with official decisions. Sometimes people can be verbally abusive without realizing it.

4. To all of the posters: If you make a mistake just own up to it, and if you are misunderstood just say what you meant. Replying with hyperbole does not help. YOU may know what you mean, but that does not mean the other reader does. Getting mad and being more combative instead of saying "I meant ___", does not help a discussion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Perhaps back then Paizo were the plucky underdog duking it out against a big corporation, now they're the tall poppy. In other words, maybe it's the expectations that have changed rather than the rate of error.

I think the expectations have changed, but not because of the "David versus Goliath" perception of Paizo, but because Paizo's audience has changed significantly.

In 2007 (when the AP launched), Paizo's audience was basically "people that liked what they did in Dragon and Dungeon magazines, wanted periodic adventures, and/or wanted a new campaign setting."

In 2008 (when the RPG was announced), the audience grew and added "people that wanted to stick with 3.5e."

Since then, Paizo has added tons of new players (necessitating products geared towards new players) and so-on. The audience today (if the messageboards are any indication) is far more demanding than in 2007.

Hayato Ken wrote:
Interesting stuff about language.

Something like this (using a consistant set of well-defined words and phrases as game terms) is a great idea, but probably requires rewriting the entire ruleset. If they wanted to this, it's basically a new edition.

-Skeld

Another thing I noticed when PF first came out was that the rules were written with the assumption that you had played 3.5, so not a lot of explaining was done, compared to 3.5 which had a lot more detail. Their glossary in the 3.5 handbook has more codified words. Now you have people who never played 3.5, and it is hard to explain why things work a certain way at times. Some want to say PF is its own game, and in many ways that is true, but many of rules are written as if you already understand ___. If they are their own game they needed to write the rules as if the reader never knew 3.5 existed. Yes I am aware that there will be no PF 1.5, at least I hope not anyway, but many of the problems come from how the rules have been written. Sneak attack as an example never calls for an attack roll so the question of can "any attack" work has come up more than once.

To sum it up, I think part of the problem is that old problems not being fixed are starting to add up, but as of now I don't think overall quality is down despite mythic rules and the ACG.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Other than the ACG error what are examples of quality slipping?

Yeah Mythic rules won't make it to my table, but not all of them are terrible. I just don't have time to fix the really bad ones, nor do I want to play mother may I as a GM with the book.

Actually Mythic Adventures and Wrath of the Righteous is the perfect example of why I would consider the quality of Paizo's books to be lower than it was before the release of MA/WotR. The ACG has some bad things I've noticed, like the dex-to-damage issue and Divine Protection (although I haven't really read carefully through, waiting for that until I get a hardcopy), but otherwise it seems like a fine book.

But Mythic Adventures and Wrath of the Righteous showed once again that Paizo shoves out new rules and sub-systems without really testing them or, if they make a playtest, really listening to the feedback from fans.

Those new rules don't work at all, at least in the context of CR appropiate mythic opponents providing any type of challenge to a mythic party. Paizo really screwed up in their calculations of what kind of power mythic player characters have at their disposal, as is evident from what those monsters are supposed to dish out and take as damage.

That was a lack of playtesting, but I agree that the rules do need to be fixed which is why I made my statement about not using them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Victor, by that logic Hekatonkhires, with their 100 arms, should have 100 attacks. They don't.

That is because just like the 3.5 epic version the statblock is written to go against the rule.

The flavor idea seems to be that it can only use so many arms at one time, which makes sense because no GM really wants to make 100 attack rolls, nor does any player want to be subject to them.

Yeah, they should have put in language specifically explaining why the statblock is the way it is, but the statblock alone shows how it works. In case you missed it upthread there was a link to an official paizo monster with 4 hands, and it used

Here is a Pathfinder monster using the multi-weapon fighting feat, not multiweapon mastery.

Four-Armed Mudra Skeleton

Quote:
Melee short sword +1 (1d6+2/19–20), 3 short swords +1 (1d6+1/19–20) or 4 claws +3 (1d4+2)

ok, so maybe I am not gone yet.. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

Well the DEVS have already spoken up on this issue years ago and set down they why's and hows of whether extra limbs actually give you extra attacks.

SKR answering this question 2 years ago

Actually he still is assuming that you are a normal humanoid with 2 attacking limbs but not one with 3+. He even says the default is mainhand + 1 offhand, alluding to being able to more than one off hand.

What it comes down to is multiarmed characters don't work as written if you take the rule of only mainhand + 1 offhand because none have been issued errata.

He is assuming that because that's EXACTLY how they want the rules to be presented. PC's will ALWAYS be assumed to have 1 mainhand attack + 1 off hand attack, they will never change that. They clarified that with the Alchemist extra hand/tentacle discussion. PC attacks per round are based off BaB, X number of main hand attacks + 1-2 from TWF.

If you want to get an attack per limb then you have to use the natural attack rules and that has it's own set of limitations.

There is no assumption of "PC's" always having ... The default assumption is that the player will choose something with a humanoid shape(2 arms and 2 legs). That is different than the PC's having a special tag that disallows the PC character with 4 arms from doing the same thing that NPC X with 4 arms does despite being the exact same creature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:

I make them find the stores.

When I write up a settlement I specifically write down what stores will be selling the magic items and what sorts of items they sell. Then I make up the store owners and what it takes to actually find the store.

Even after finding the store the owner isn't going to sell his best stuff right away. They have to Role-play and build up the relationship before he brings out the back room stuff.

I don't name the items out of the book. The shop owner might indeed have "a magic belt that increases your strength" but concepts like +2 or +4 Strength arn't things people in the world use, and very few shop owners like you casting spells on their merchandise.

Lastly, anything higher than +2 is a named item and rare as heck. You simply will not find them popping up in a store without some kind of story involved. That's just how I roll.

So if I am reading this correctly a "business owner" is trying to not sell his better merchandise and make a profit?

Now if the guy was an old adventurer with a sentimental attachment to some gear I would understand, but me and the owner in character would have a long talk about his logic.

I understand about concepts like +2 not existing, but I assume my character says it in fantasy land terms just like when I roll a 35 on my diplomacy check, which I could never do in real life.

Going back to these store owners I would make deal with them to bring them back some magic items I find while I was adventuring if they ease up on holding back on me. That way we both benefit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secane wrote:

Just to clarify, there ARE boons that give you a perm 1 per day SLAs.

Its permanent, with no requirement to cross off after 1 use.

If such a boon allows you access to prestige class, it would better to know, as it could potentially give both GMs and players headaches.

If it was 1/day then it should work even in PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Other than the ACG error what are examples of quality slipping?

Yeah Mythic rules won't make it to my table, but not all of them are terrible. I just don't have time to fix the really bad ones, nor do I want to play mother may I as a GM with the book.

Yes, a lot of books have errors. I would say every book has errors. That is consistent over the past few years, and I know some will say it is not a strong point, but it is different from quality slipping.

I guess another question is at what point did quality become noticeably and consistently worse?

I am asking because I want to know if this is based on factual thing such as plot holes in AP, misspellings, and unclear rules, or subjective things such "power creep".

"Quality is slipping" is too broad of a term without more insight.

And no hyperbole please. I prefer to avoid any more buttery knife type discussions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:

Rogues SA loss via concealment. Means you cant sneak attack some in the dark (ironically making a dark alley the last place you want your ROGUE fighting in).

Either by changing how concealment via darkness works, or how SA works.

This I agree with. If someone with SA finds you in a dark alley you should be more worried, not less worried that you are in the dark.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorb wrote:

Summon Monster/Nature's Ally really does need an expanded chart. This came up during my group's final Jade Regent session. Our oracle wanted to summon something to help put the hurt on the Regent's companions, but nothing in the core was sufficiently Chinese/Japanese; we settled for a behir.)

Ability score damage/drain effects need to be dragged behind the woodshed and shot; nobody, and I mean nobody, should have to recalculate a bunch of skills/derived effects on the fly because you're getting pounded with Rays of Enfeeblement/Clumsiness. (Incidentally, the -6 penalty from Bestow Curse, as well as Feeblemind's "Your mental stats are all 1s now" work as intended. I do not know why I'm wired like this.)

Fighters (and fighters only, not just anything with a full BAB) should be the only ones getting more than one attack with the same weapon in a combat round. 2e throwback ahoy~

Ah, well, this is why I have Microlite20 and Spears of the Dawn to mess around with. =p

If you take ability damage the actual score does not increase, and you just apply a -1 for every 2 points of damage. Ray of enfeeblement is not supposed to impact your carrying capacity since it applies a penalty to your rolls, but the stat is never actually changed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the players and GM need to be on the same page about the lethality of his tactics. A single CR 15 versus a full party is not as difficult at as 3 CR 12's.

Part of the problem here was that the players split the party. A level 12 character is very powerful in the game world, and yes I know PC's don't know what "levels" are, but they understand that they are well above the average person. Even with no assassins after them, fantasy land is a dangerous place so going off one by one is just not a good idea when someone goes missing. The first person could have stayed within 30 feet and turned his back to the party for privacy. There was no need to go out of sight.

With all of that being said I don't think the GM was too harsh. Next time they will stick together, well hopefully anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can have excellent DPR and still have good defense. You can also hyper optimize defense, and have good DPR. I think those with really good defense, but poor DPR make the same mistake as people with glass cannons. They failed to find the balance.

I like using dwarves along with steel soul and or another saving feat to shore up saves.

People like to say fighters have poor will saves. I like to say "your fighter" has poor will saves. I am not likely to match a druid or cleric, but that is still different than needing a 15 to not fail.

Enough of my talking. Level 7 dwarven fighter will be in the spoilers when I press submit

level 7 dwarven fighter:

Unnamed Hero
Dwarf fighter 7
NG Medium humanoid (dwarf)
Init +8; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +2
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 24, touch 13, flat-footed 22 (+10 armor, +2 Dex, +1 natural, +1 deflection)
hp 74 (7d10+28)
Fort +10, Ref +8, Will +7 (+2 vs. fear); +2 vs. poison, +4 vs. spells and spell-like abilities
Defensive Abilities bravery +2, defensive training (+4 dodge bonus to AC vs. giants)
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 20 ft.
Melee +2 guisarme +14/+9 (2d4+9/×3)
power attack +2 guisarme +12/+7 (2d4+15/×3)
Special Attacks +1 on attack rolls against goblinoid and orc humanoids, weapon training (pole arms +1)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8
Base Atk +7; CMB +11; CMD 24 (28 vs. bull rush, 28 vs. trip)
Feats Blind-fight, Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Power Attack, Steel Soul[APG], Weapon Focus (glaive-guisarme), Weapon Specialization (glaive-guisarme)
Traits indomitable faith, reactionary
Skills Appraise +0 (+2 to determine the price of nonmagic items with precious metals or gemstones), Perception +2 (+4 to notice unusual stonework)
Languages Common, Dwarven
SQ armor training 2
Other Gear +1 full plate, +2 guisarme, amulet of natural armor +1, belt of giant strength +2, cloak of resistance +2, ring of protection +1, 541 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Blind-Fight Re-roll misses because of concealment, other benefits.
Bravery +2 (Ex) +2 to Will save vs. Fear
Combat Reflexes (3 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Defensive Training +4 Gain a dodge bonus to AC vs monsters of the Giant subtype.
Hatred +1 Gain a racial bonus to attacks vs Goblinoids/Orcs.
Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Steel Soul Hardy's save vs. spells and spell-like abilities becomes +4
Weapon Training (Pole Arms) +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Pole Arms


Short version
Init +8
HP 74
AC 24
saves
Fort +10, Ref +8, Will +7
That means I have at least a 50% chance even on the weak saves to pass.

In addition there is a +2 vs poison and fear.
And a +4 vs spells and SLA's, which is where most saves come from anyway. That is about a 35% chance to fail against spells of CR =APL monsters.

Not great, but you wont have to worry about the fighter turning around and cleaving the wizard in half due to confusion or dominate.

I did this in about 5 minutes, and I was not trying to make a super defensive character, but with a little effort you can shore up a weak save.

There is no reason to be level 7 with a +3 save. <----Just an example from a real game.

I almost forgot the character also has blindfight to lessen the pain of invisible opponents.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Driver 325 yards wrote:

As to Simon, the Diplomacy check against the daughter is not as hard as against the king. You don't have to contribute to killing the dragon to be excited by trying to survive the attack. You don't have to roll a whole army worth of attacks.

Wow. The lack of creativity is unbelievable. I see why every player being exactly the same power level is so needed in Pathfinder. It is not the players. Its the GMs

Your scenarios are too contrived to hold immersion for most people I have gamed for, and most people on these boards also. It being ok for you, does not make it ok across the board. It does not make the other people bad GM's. You just have a different idea of "what works".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Driver 325 yards wrote:

The GM is the writer. The character's accepted their roles because their roles were acceptable. It was not unbelieveable in any way that the characters accepted their roles. It is not like the writer forced the unbelievable down our throats. The reason why it was a great movie is becuase the roles were believeable.

In fact, in everyday life people of various skill levels come together to take advantage of one another's talents. Why is it possible in books and in real life and not possible in Pathfinder?

Also, most players like to define the character's roles, not have them controlled by the GM. In that sense the players dictate the story to a large extent, the GM just provides a setting, and a plot. How it plays out in most of its details is determined by the player characters. In a book or movie the writer does it all. He is the mind of the villains and the heroes. The two are not synonymous.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Driver 325 yards wrote:

The GM is the writer. The character's accepted their roles because their roles were acceptable. It was not unbelieveable in any way that the characters accepted their roles. It is not like the writer forced the unbelievable down our throats. The reason why it was a great movie is becuase the roles were believeable.

In fact, in everyday life people of various skill levels come together to take advantage of one another's talents. Why is it possible in books and in real life and not possible in Pathfinder?

The game does not work like a movie. Trying to force it to work like a movie causes more problems than it solves, and many players are quick to notice GM Fiat, even when a GM thinks he is being sneaky about it. Many won't appreciate it.

To give you an example if you have one character who can do can only be challenged by what would kill the rest of the party it is much more difficult to have a meaningful encounter. In a movie as the author you control everyone so you can have the characters in different scenes, and make sure they don't get into bad situations. The game does not promote living by splitting the party, and if you try to use that "in movie" method you may have to use GM Fiat, or hope the players "play along".

You can try to do more social scenes to avoid the combat scenes, but it is also possible that "super character" is better at those also. Sometimes this is obvious, but sometimes it is a surprise when the GM tries to give PC ____ a chance to shine only to find out that PC X has ability Y, and steals the scene.

It is just much easier to have everyone close to the same power level than try to manufacture a less useful player feeling useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another thing is that diplomacy is not a form of nonmagical mind control. Making someone friendly towards you does not mean they have to obey you, and the rules never say they have to do what you want. It just means they are more likely to cooperate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exotic weapons are not supposed to be superior to martial or simple weapons, just rare enough to need special training.

I don't really like that, but that is how the game works.

If I get time I plan to give each weapon something extra or move it into the martial category. I see no problem with the double bladed sword being martial.

As a quick fix for now however I might allow for proficiency with many of them for only a combat trait, along with the idea that being born in certain places such as Tian Xana makes weapons such as nunchucks simple or martial weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, it does not convert

You do keep two running tabs. If your nonlethal matches your lethal then you go unconscious.

If your nonlethal damage bypasses your max(not your current hit points) then the nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The sneak attack damage is precision fire damage, but it is still not part of the spell.

No offense, but Paizo has clarified time and again sneak attack is not a separate pool of damage. It has been stated that it is not a rider effect.

It is considered a part of the attack it is made with.

Else sneak attack would not go off if you did not break DR, per the rules on rider effects. This is not the case in Pathfinder.

It is part of the total damage, but that does not make it part of the damage from the spell itself, which is why it won't work, just like it can't be multiplied on a crit. All of the damage is added together, but it does not gain all of the benefits of the "base damage".

Being "added on" does not make it into a rider affect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If your turn comes up and you delay then you also have not taken an action, but you would not be flat footed. The RAI is that your turn in the initiative order has not come up yet, but RAW that combo could work.

Expect table variation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarondor wrote:


Two shields, on the other hand, leaves you nothing to kill with. And no matter how many cool feats an RPG assigns to it, shields aren't particularly deadly in the real world. And no matter how ooc you are at defense, if you have no offense in a battle, you are going to die.

In real combat a shield bash can end your life. Even if it does not kill, you can be get a concussion or other head injury that sets you up for the killing blow, so if you want to use real life as your basis then a shield was able to kill people. Was it as good as a sword/lance/etc? Most of the time, no. But that is different from "aren't particularly deadly" and "no offense". Many bludgeons weapons to include shields could fracture skulls and possibly break someone's neck depending on the angle of the blow, and that is assuming the victim had a helmet on. Without a helmet well, I don't think I need to explain that.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't mind weapons not being equal, but if we go that route we should get rid of the simple vs martial categories. That however means we have to list every weapon someone is proficient with instead of saying "take this category". Of course we can also move crossbows and slings over to the martial category, but people like wizards(insert other caster as needed_ who may never have used a martial weapon can now use one. You can deny them proficiency, but at low levels they need something to do. Those 4 spells a day won't last forever. So the solution is to make some weapons "not good".

Is there another solution?

Yes. A weapon could have martial and simple expertise. Those who are barely trained like a commoner or wizard take one move action to fire the crossbow, but someone with martial expertise get to use the weapon as if they already had rapid reload.

PS: This might be the best 30 second idea I have ever had. I might even try the martial vs simple expertise in a home game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Torbyne, making the bolt and placing it in the magazine for you is an entirely different thing. That is why the magazine/clip still has to be loaded.

On the issue of free actions getting 15 in a round is not something I would expect most GM's to allow and combining magic.items is something that still requires GM permission since it is not an already made item in the CRB. However if we are to assume the GM will say yes to whatever may be possible this idea can work. I just would not use it to prove anything since there are two things that are subject to table variation.

PS: Before any says "everything is up to the GM, I am not trying to debate semantics. I am just stating in advance certain things that I have seen before on the boards.

1 to 50 of 1,353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.