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. 2,630 posts (42,666 including aliases). 3 reviews. 9 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.

1 to 50 of 2,555 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the stat is the worst stat then it is the worst stat. Some stat will always be less useful for someone.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Archdevil Mephistopheles, my favorite. I will have to find a way to use him.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
Jayder22 wrote:
You mention +3 evocation spells. Thasilonian magic replaces the regular evocation school, so you don't get the +1 from evocation school and than +2 more from thasilonian, it is just +2 from thasilonian. I think this was covered up thread but it may have been missed.

The regular 3 comes from a high intelligence, and the bracketed 3rd spell slot is when you specialize in a school, from Evocation, as Rysky mentioned, plus the Sin Magic.


Ouch. Right from the lead designer. :P

I don't want the sin magic for extra fireballs per say, I want it for extra evocation spells.

One of us is definitely misunderstanding.

Normally specializing in a school gives you 1 extra bonus slot for that school of magic on top of your normal spells per day, plus any bonus slots for high int.

I believe Sin Magic specialist instead gets 2 extra bonus spell slots of that school that must be the same spell, plus the normal spells per day, plus any bonus for high int.

For an otherwise identically built character, the Sin Magic specialist only gets 1 more spell per day per spell level.

You seem to be under the impression you get 1 slot from specializing in the school, 2 from sin specialist, plus the normal spell slots, plus bonus slots from int. I'm fairly certain that's not how it works.

That is how I read it also. You get 2 "instead of" 1, not 2+1.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

You shortened my statement. I said 'taken his word as meaning something'. I did not flat out state 'taken his word'. Please, keep my statements in context. :)

Simple, use the water rules because that is what Earth Glide says. The Earth Elemental gets Improved Cover.

As an alternate, house rule, you could use the incorporeal rules which would prevent full attacks (readied actions only) but reduce the cover bonus from +8 to +4.

Personally, I would use the incorporeal rules as they fit more closely.

But in either case, JJ also stated in another post that burrowing rules are really undersupported in Pathfinder. Because of this you really need to look at the RAI rather than the RAW.

Expect massive table variance.

That is fair. :)

Yeah, I agree that burrowing and/or Earthglide needs an update.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

While we know James Jacobs is not official in any way you and I have at least taken his word as meaning something if there is no other Dev comments to the contrary.

James Jacobs saying yes, you can attack creatures via the water rules (improved cover) while using earth glide.

I haven't always taken his word. When he want to apply the Intensified Spell feat to magic missile or scorching ray I disagreed with that.

I don't think we are going to agree on this one, but out of curiosity how would you expect a party to defeat an elemental(s) in this case without strikeback under your interpretation of how the rule works?

We can assume the party is level 7 or lower for this question.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

4. Either there is a clear point to the surface or there is not. If he is below ground there is cover. If he is above ground there is no cover. There is no rule saying you have to above ground to interact with it, but the rules do state that you attack beyond cover.

In my old post I said
"Note that only one of these ignores concealment. The others only give the location.

The earth element still can't attack through the ground so it does not matter. I will ask this question again though. If the elemental could stay submerged and attack freely then why would it ever come to the surface?"

I was not disagreeing with what I said today.

I also said "Yes really. Ignoring cover is not a small thing. If there is no specific rule rule that says you can break a general rule then you can't do it. There is no rule saying the earth elemental can break the rule of bypassing cover."

Some of my later quotes were written to make a point that if tremorsense and earthglide worked a certain way this would be possible.

However if I changed my mind in another thread feel free to provide a link.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Earthglide does not allow you to punch through the earth, and that would be needed to hit someone in an adjacent square while they are beneath the ground. If it worked like that earth elementals could stay below the ground, and attack those who are above ground.

It allows for them to travel through the Earth, nothing more.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott wrote:
Intent is irrelevant.

You do a lot of writing for a simple question.

Are you defaulting to "the words in the book trumps intent"?

Please don't give me a 1000 word essay this time. It's a simple question.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
You know it takes like three rounds of concentration to locate an aura with Detect Magic. How frequently are these opponents casting detect magic to locate a rogue?

It's 3 rounds, but still only one casting. It just has to be maintained, not that it matters whether it is cast 3 times or maintained. Most of the time when GM's complain about this spell it is because it found magical traps.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coffee Demon wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Coffee Demon wrote:
My only disagreement is with your assumption that a "quest for power" doesn't exist. It does in my games and I'd like to think in many others. You wouldn't know it by fading on these forums though.

It doesn't from a Paizo perspective. I can't recall a single mechanic or guidance in their APs, hardcovers, campaign setting books or player companion books that even hint at restricting options when you level up, caster or otherwise. It's certainly never been a part of any APs which is where the rubber meets the road in terms of both crunch and setting.

In short, GMs can always do what they want. Saying it happens in your games doesn't really mean much, no offense. It needs to come from Paizo for it to actually be "in" the game.

Read "The Most Important Rule" on page 11 of the rulebook.

I've never seen this restriction printed in any other roleplaying game that gives a huge list of spells and equipment.

Could be that we come from two different backgrounds of roleplaying. I definitely see more 4e and PF players than elsewhere who need rules permission to make a change at their own table. As you said, no offence. :)

Bringing up that rule changes nothing. That "rule" just says the GM can change stuff. Generally people are talking about the game at a base level so eveyrone is on the same page. Anyone can say "but rule 0", but at that point we could be playing entirely different games and still calling them pathfinder.

I want to know if you really needed for me to explain that or if you were just trying to be argumentive?

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

There are a lot of intelligent people who believe this game is broken at high levels. Actually the only serious disagreement on this is where you draw the line. E12 seems to be the standard, but even E6 doesn't really raise any eyebrows. I believe the problem is always there, it is just at what point it breaks it for you.

I don't think hyperoptimization is the problem, though I do think it is a symptom/effect of the problem. I think the problem goes down to a basic common assumption. The assumption is that everything written always and only works as written. We get hundreds of posts on various threads in the forums on how even first level spells MUST always work.

I have seen intelligent people bemoan the fact that the create water Cantrip breaks desert games, but if you suggest that water magic may not work well in a desert you should probably have your lawyer present.

What do you think?

Can you think of other reasonable situations that certain types of magic should be unreliable?

Broken is subjective, and in most cases the person is speaking of "their opinion" whether they like it or not.

As to the water question, even if the GM say no magic to make water until level X, the players will just max out survival and use aid another checks to make it a nonfactor.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Strictly by the words in the book it doesn't say you can stop after the 2nd attack, but no GM has ever enforced that as an actual rule because the book assumes that you want to keep attacking. However if a ruling was made I am sure the PDT is not going to say you must keep attacking.
Also if a GM rules that you must attack then just switch to unarmed strikes, and try to sunder the planet to avoid wasting bombs. After this happens enough he will likely stop wasting game time on nonsense.

PS: Also consider looking for a new GM.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zarius wrote:

To the topic of "beg the DM... It's my DM that provoked me. So that won't work. Hehe. I know, I'm suicidal.

Everything on Paizo or d20pfsrd is allowed, including archetypes.

As a side note, I was contemplating a single level of assassin (death strike, start off with a splat) and a single level of shadow dancer for the Hide in Plain Sight that isn't tied to terrain.

I don't know if he's going to have physical weapons, but even if he DOES... that Catch off guard... Delicious. I might end up dual wielding chairs or some weird s+!$ to get as much as I can out of that.

Abraham, normally yes, but this is just a PvDM suicide run. I don't even really expect to win this, though I'm going in whole hog. I'll make sure I have a wish scroll or something on hand just for that, though.

SR, check that. I'll get that one way or another.

Fly: Bows? Bows with fireball-enchanted arrows? Is that a thing?
Invisibility: Activated item of True Seeing
Invisibility detection: Wicked high stealth
Teleportation/planar travel: Dimensional Anchor
Illusionary Images: Yet more true seeing
Divination: I like the Scry Slip and Scrying Familiarity idea Artifix gave.
Allies: Umm... Adamantine golems? They ARE objects. As such, I CAN shrink/enlarge them, right? But we DID agree on no leadership, so only what can be acquired through wealth.
Force spells: Antimagic. All I got here is antimagic.

Golem are creatures, not objects even though they are created, and most wizards don't care about golems and their immunity to magic. Conjuration spells still jack them up, and they tend to have crappy will saves. Glitterdust pretty much takes care of them or the caster can summon call something to take care of it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That entire section is on retraining and none of it applies to gains via normal leveling up.

That is why it says the new language does not count against the normal limit, and I quote.

The new language does not count toward your maximum number of languages (racial languages + bonus languages from Intelligence + Linguistics ranks). You can train this way only a number of times equal to 1 + your Intelligence bonus.

That matters because normally the amount of languages you can have is based on racial languages+bonus languages from Intelligence+linguistic ranks.

As an example if I am an Elf, I start off with Elven and Common. If I have a +3 int modifier I could also add Celestial, Draconic, and Gnoll.
In addition, if I am level 3 I could have 3 ranks in linguistics and also know Dragonic, Goblin, and Celestial, which is what the bolded formula above would limit me to.

However with the training in Ultimate Campaign I could learn languages without putting a skill rank into linguistics, but I could only get the "free" languages a number of times equal to my int bonus +1

So I could get training 4 more times to add Abyssal, Daemonic, Infernal, and Giant without spending additional ranks to do so, assuming the GM allows the training rules in Ultimate Campaign, and I had access to someone who could speak the language.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Third Mind wrote:

Probably an easy question, but I had run a game for some friends last night and it ended up with 13 character in initiative and since a good chunk of those characters (7) were identical creatures, I also found it was easy to get confused as to which were going when. Accidentally having a couple go before they were supposed to, forgetting who was next.

I wrote what I could down, but when you have wolf 1, wolf 2, all the way up to wolf 7, it's easy to get them mixed up. Any advice on how to better keep track of so many creatures / characters when running through the initiative chain?

I use different minis even if they are the same creature.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a player I have always had someone post guard because you never know when Team Evil might show up.

As a GM I don't "make" the players do anything, but depending on the situation they may be disturbed. So far nobody has ever tried to spend the night sleeping without at least one person on guard unless they were in a demiplane.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ridiculon wrote:
I believe the current rules/opinion of the forum is that you can't have a character who fights with more than 2 arms. There are certain monsters that can do it, but you run into all sorts of rules and balance issues if you attempt to let a PC use Multi-Weapon Fighting.

That is not true at all. In these debates before evidence has been provided that it is possible to fight with multiple weapons. The opinion is more that this should not be available to PC, but that is an issue of balance, not rules.

To answer the OP shield bonuses do not stack so you can have 80 shields and your shield bonus to AC will not stack because shield bonuses don't stack.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If one wants to be pedantic the item casting the spell means you still get to do stuff, but we know that is not going to fly if the PDT steps in. The items is the one supplying the spell, and you are still going to get stuck with the penalties associated with it. You do not qualify for.

Staves have a similar affect. They allow the user to activate a spell, while not being the actual caster, and he is still stuck with any penalties such as losing his movement after using DD. He can not however use the staff to qualify for any feats since he is only activating an item.

Otherwise someone(fighter, rogue, etc) could get a staff with arcane and divine spells and qualify for Mystic Theurge(Spells: Able to cast 2nd-level divine spells and 2nd-level arcane spells.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
You still see people playing rogues instead of wizards. It doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with rogues.
Funny. I'd say that's exactly what it means.

False. Many GM's either have houserules or they run the game in such a way as to reduce/negate the imbalance. That does not mean the problem does not exist. If you want to subscribe to the logic that "the GM can fix it" then nothing is broken, and everything should be allowed because the GM can account for in his own games. However for people prefer not to or don't have the time to fix things, these problems show up quiet often.

People also buy the books because they don't have time to houserule everything and they assume Paizo has mostly pre-balanced it for them.

In addition you see some people avoid the rogue because of it's problem so by that logic alone, which I also think is not a good reason*, you can argue it is not balanced.

*I am referring to idea that some people avoid it is not sufficient to say it is broken and likewise some people playing the class is not sufficient to say the class is ok.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grindstone wrote:
Thanks for the answers. The PC in question is a Shaman, so would that be WIS vs. the opposing spell-casters applicable attribute? Or using CHA anyway?

It's still cha vs cha. It doesn't default to your main casting stat so if the other caster is cha-based then he has an advantage in most cases.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kurald Galain wrote:
mourge40k wrote:
It seems you're the one that's looking at Evil Eye in a vacuum.

That's very funny considering the rest of your post consists of only pointing out that EE does something instead of wondering if other hexes or spells might do more.

What makes it a good hex in my mind
Right. But what makes it a poor hex in gameplay is that in most situations, a witch is more effective doing something else. Don't look at EE in a vacuum, but compare it to other hexes and spells. At least MrCharisma made the effort of doing math on it.

The witch having something else they could do, does not make EE poor.

That is like saying the barbarian could have hit for 900 points of damage so this 450 points of damage is garbage.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Selvaxri wrote:

why not go the simplest route that is often overlooked at high level? Disarm the bastard- Burning Disarm may not outright disarm him, but you could houserule that Burning Disarm ignites that black powder, causing more damage and a higher save to keep hold of the weapon.

You could also build a character that speciallizes in Disarming with Ranged/Ace Disarm and Directed Disarm

or an even lesser used tactic- have someone/thing steal his black powder.
Or for more hilarity- reverse pickpocket an ignited Tindertwig or Toothpick of Pyrotehcnic into his black powder.

RD is not fond of houserules.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

The 3.X DMG actually had rules for generating a class break down for a settlement.

I was about to mention that, and that is what I use for new towns or towns that don't say how many town/city guards are in a place.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In actual gameplay misfortune makes a Abig difference, especially in boss fights. People complain about the sleeo hex, but it's not that difficult to deal with. -4 to your AC and saves are not small things. Even a -2 isn't small.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

At a certain point in combat the fight is effectively over. That is when you stop casting spells. Some people insist on casting spells every round. When you are at a low level that is not a good idea at all. Grab a crossbow or use a cantrip, but don't waste slot/points.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:

So, I was just thinking, how many of you see level and age as linked?

For example, you can do an AP where you start off as level 1 and play to the end of the AP where you are around 16 or so. But how long does that AP take? A few months? A few years? A few decades?

Or, you can play a game where you start at level 1 and play for years in game, only gaining 10 levels or so.

So, that brings me to the reason for my question. How would you (as GM or as player) see a character concept at level 1 that is a human (with the Reincarnated trait) whose backstory is that she was in her 40's when she was reincarnated by a witch? So, she still has all her memories of before, but being as this is a level 1 campaign she's not the high level one would think a 40 year old should be?

I've always myself seen level as a mechanic necessary because its' a GAME... but to say that one can't be any age you want (granted, she of course doesn't get any bonuses for being that old... again, mechanic vs. concept) and your level only matters in the context of the story narrative.

What is everyone else's thoughts?

I don't link them at all and I don't restrict anything as long as a player's background story is not made to get a mechanical advantage.

Levels are an OOC mechanic so I have no problem with an level 5 NPC who has fought in a war campaign being part of a PC(level 1) backstory, when they both had the exact same experiences in combat.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Akharus wrote:

Honestly, the longer I play and the older I get... the more I think the old tried and true "roll 3d6 for each stat in front of everybody" method is best. Although 4d6 and discard the lowest is fine, too.

It results in unusually powerful characters infrequently, stops stat min/maxing (which can ruin a party, especially when everyone is INT 8), it's fair, and it encourages clever design of a character around what you have to work with, rather than making a designer character for power.

Random stats promote RP, IMO.

Rolling does nothing to stop min-mixing. That myth needs to be taken out back and shot. It stops a player deliberately choosing how much he can sacrifce in one stat to be good at another, but nothing stops him from putting the best stats where he needs them, while putting the less useful stats in an area that does not hurt as much. Nothing also stops him from putting the best combination of choices(class, magic items, feats, etc) together

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer to start at 3rd level as a minimum, but no higher than 7th.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Das Bier wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Das Bier wrote:
Yes, it does. As your CL goes up, you get more rays. It stops at 3 rays. With Intensify, it stops at 4 rays.
That has yet to be proven. CL-scaling of rays is not synonymous with CL-scaling of damage barring developer clarification. One does result in the other, but the calculation is "+CL=+ray" instead of "+CL=+damage" like Battering Blast, Ear-Piercing Scream, Fireball, etc. Until you get a FAQ to back you up, I stand by the statement 'Magic Missile and Scorching Ray are not valid for Intensify Spell'.
Yeah, I'll wait on that FAQ, too, and that's the interpretation I'll use until it comes. I don't like overpowering spells like that...BB is nice enough on its own it doesn't need that interpretation to do more.

Intensify raises the damage cap and only the damage dice/level cap. Things like fireball have a damage dice per caster level cap. Scorching ray has nothing resembling damage dice per caster level.

Scorching ray just like the other spell has a "projectile/attack" per level cap, just like magic missile does.

Fireball wrote:
1d6 points of fire damage per caster level
scorching ray wrote:
one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd

<---more rays based on CL

magic missile wrote:
or every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile

<----more missiles based on CL

intensified spell wrote:
Benefit: An intensified spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels

<--this really needs to be written better. Is that an FAQ on it, but it does call out damage dice, and not projectiles, rays, and so on.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Stats don't really get broken unless you take to an extreme that well beyond what is normal. It is the build than can cause a problem, and even that varies by table.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
The Sword wrote:
It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.

C/MD summary

What part do you disagree with?

EDIT: This is an open question to all, not just The Sword. Does anyone disagree with any part of the summary?

Yeah I disagree with parts of it, but I think we agree for about 75% of what you wrote.

Like someone said it is really a magic/non-magic disparity, but for the purpose of this comment I will use caster/martial because I am so use to typing it.

I don't think casters outshine martials at most tables, but I do think they have the ability to do so. It just doesn't happen for several reasons, one of which is that it is inefficent to spend spells on something if a someone else can do it with a skill. This of course assumes the problem can be solved with a skill.

Another part of the disparity is that martials can be replaced by casters. Before anyone gets too bent out of shape, I am not saying a wizard, druid, or a cleric is going to match a fighter or a barbarian in DPR vs a single target, but between their ability to fight and their spells they tend to take care of combat with less trouble. The fact that they don't focus on hit point damage as much doesn't change the fact that they make life easier.

I agree with the rest of your write up, until you get to your ideas on how to fit it. I don't think there is an across the board solution(s) that will work. It will vary by table, except for number 10, which is basically "talk to your group".

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
What is clear is that the expectation of a lot of the posters here is far, far away from the typical adventure path. Based on how some people are describing encounters it is almost as if they are playing another game. It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.

Not really.

I actually described a scenario where a caster-light party got their butts kicked, and how things would have been different if I had a caster instead.

I don't know if you missed, forgot it, don't believe the account, or if you think it was a corner case so it doesn't count.

Personally, as a GM if I run a monster it plays "keep away" to avoid the party ganging up on. I know people can pull out ranged weapons, but unless they are focused on ranged attacks or have spells the fight will be a lot more difficult.

MC/D doesn't mean martials can't do anything at all. It means there are things they can't do, and often when they can do them they may have a more difficult time getting them done. <--People also take comments like these to mean "martials are helpless and can not do anything", even though that is not what was said.

Another issue with topics like this some is that people will use words like "useless" and those get all the attention instead of more objective post which give martials some credit but also outline their limitations.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
Perhaps I am missaplying the term Fiat. I mean "changing/ignoring the rules of the game for a narritive point." Its something that I support, and if the term seemed condescending then I apologize.

GM Fiat much like rules lawyering is not neccessarily a negative thing, but it can be a bad thing depending upon how it is used.

It is basically used in the forums(normally) for when the GM makes up things on the spot.<---Not always a bad thing.

GM Fiat Positive: The players are stumped on how to bypass a certain obstacle. Maybe you thought player X could do it, but his character does not have the ability so you call for an intelligence or wisdom check, and then make up some new way to pass the obstacle that nobody had thought of, and that by the rules is probably not supposed to work.

GM Fiat Negative: The party is in a boss fight, and things are dicey. Player suddenly remembers he has ability X, which won't insta-win the fight, but it will significantly improve the party's chances. However you don't want that player to save the day because ___ so you decide the monster is immune to that ability. Then the player has another, which while not as good as the first idea is still a solid idea. However, it still involves that player's character largely contributing to the party's success, and you shut that idea down also, even though it would work by the rules.

Another one I see here from time to time is then GM's suddenly decide rogues can only sneak attack once per round or that it can not affect certain creatures, and this was never mentioned in advance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

SO martials are always useless so long as you disallow any of the options which can shut down a caster, because, while shutting down a martial is fair shutting down a caster is unfair. Do I have it?

Probably not, but if you had a specific example which doesn't involve a GM having to go out of his way to target a caster feel free to post it here.

Also most of use don't think martials are useless. Taking arguments well out of context does not help your position, which at this point is not well understood. If someone did say they were useless then quote and address that person

Otherwise it just looks like passive-aggressive posting.

I can't speak for RDM, or some of the other GMs that posted, but it does often feel like if you say, you made an encounter (not an adventure, and not a encounter, 1 part of 1 session) that included something like a no-teleport, or anti-magic, or SR monster you're immediately targeted by a couple zealots, with implications that its bad GMwrongfun, stealing agency, hating casters, shutting down players, etc. Not even removing ever possible spell option....either, just using things that exist in the game to provide -your own- players an enjoyable session.

While you'll hear nothing but crickets if you say you created an encounter that was DR/xxx and your group's melee characters had to use their back-up weapon to be "most effective".

its a double standard for some people on the forums, that's what gets old, as well as the "always/never" or other extremes that get tossed on your post regardless of if you clearly stated "sometimes, or infrequent". And I've created a house fighter to give them more toys....I know magic changes the options to characters, and I'm ok with that. So its interesting who will attack you for explaining how you operate your game, and why you do it that way and how you work -within the CMD- to create fun encounters for your players that include variety over time.

Some people just can't stand adversity I guess. Losing the ability to get the most out of your class features is just part of the game. As an example rogues can't sneak attack everything. Paladins can't smite everything. Magic won't always work whether it be by SR or some other reason.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
Okay, now I'm having a beef with this proposed scenario. Who the hell teleports onto solid ground? You teleport into the air and open the bag of holding with your small army inside of it. I mean you can land before opening the bags but the teleporting thing should be a midair thing at least 150 feet above the place you're invading to avoid getting spotted by things with true seeing.

You have to end a teleporation affect on something that can support you.

A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

How is NPC's using spells that are in the world designed for a purpose for the purpose they are designed for going 'out of the way to target a caster'? A strong wizard WOULDN'T think of using Teleport trap to protect his lair? Really? Why not? They aren't allowed to plan?

If the shortcut magic option to do something is short circuited, as long as there are still OTHER ways to do something than someone else gets to act. If every single thing ever that the caster could do was shut down, sure, it would indeed be ridiculous. But the fact that scenarios are inserted where the caster isn't the automatic answer to every issue is not a 'problem' or some sort of unfair targeting.

Nobody should have a problem with a wizard(npc) using the spell to stop the pc wizard, but most of the time in these post the poster will, as I said before, "try to stop every idea the player/caster thinks of", which is not realistic for reasons I already described.

Teleport failing is not a problem, as long as the GM is not just actively aiming to shut the one player/class down. <----I hope that makes things clear.

As a GM I have had caster's whose primary purpose in combat was to counterspell the party casters, but it's not something I do for every fight.

Also if a player favors spell ___, and some bad guys escape they will let the higher ups know, so when the players get to a boss he might be very resilient or immune to that spell.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes and no. <-----This applies to all classes, and it is dependent on the person playing them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not seeing a downside and I am sure vampires and liches have entertained guest which involved eating and drinking.
Vampires are known to seduce women so I am sure carnal pleasure is still thing.

As for the appearance, the lich would have craft wondrous item, and the ability to research new spells. Between the two he could hide or remove the normal lich appearance pretty well.

The worst part is seeing family and friends die over and over again, but people are resilient.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
I am up to 13th for the first time and I am running into problems.

The first time I did it 7th level spells were kicking my butt. Is that what is getting you?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Das Bier wrote:

Aye, Anti-magic Shells are useless unless you can force a caster into the shell. And that area is SMALL.

Spell Engine has a huge area, and you can make it nigh impossible for a caster NOT to enter the area of effect.

It's just such magic is too pricey for NPC's to use on a broad scale, when in actuality it should be pretty cheap and common. Wards and similar magical defenses are VERY common in literature, I don't know why they are so expensive in PF. Let casters labor under penalties, and rogues have a place to shrine.

IMC, spell engines are everywhere, restricting any spellcasters not sworn to the service of the city. Urban areas are the playgrounds of rogues and martials. Casters have to invest heavily in magical items of defense because they can't cast such spells themselves, have bodyguards, etc.

Not having spells makes the party weaker, and it you are a druid,or other fighty caster then you might still be able to give the melees a run for their money.

For the 2nd time in this discussion➡➡full arcane casters are not the only ones stepping on people's toes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

So why is it unfair for the moments to use the spells design to counteract common magical effects where...

I don't think certain people anticipate having adventurers meddle in their affairs so they don't think to take certain measures, and if adventurers are so common that they are always in everyone's business* then the common measures to stop them would be known so the players would likely not use the common methods and it would be almost impossible to stop every idea a player can think of without it coming across as railroading.

You can enter a castle via teleport. You can charm you way in. You call planar monsters to assault the place for you. With the right spells you can just destroy the place if you can't find a way in. I could keep going, but my point is for the NPC to have a perfect counter to whatever the player came up with as a commonly occurring theme is going to look very suspicious.
It also doesn't really help the rest of the party since their lives are now more difficult. As a GM you have to have some idea of what players can be expected to do, and not even attempt certain types of adventures because of how the game is made. If you want to keep them at the level to where _____ is a challenge then the best thing is to use slow levelign or completely stop it(leveling).

*If this were to happen laws would likely be in place to stop them from doing so, and to stop the profession as whole.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It seems as though the question of whether or not guantlets actually count as unarmed attacks for the purpose of monk abilities, and even the amulet of mighty fist is still alive. It has come up several times in the forums.

Is this on the PDT "to do" list or do we need an FAQ?

I remember this one from before I worked here. I seem to recall seeing flip-flopping between books and vaguely remember a then-official post, but I'm not sure what happened exactly. An FAQ request could work.

Thanks. I had forgotten about this.

I have a rules question for you.

Let's say someone cast a fog spell centered on themselves. Let's also say the caster can see through this fog. Now the rules say the opponent on the outside has no way to bypass the fog cloud's statement that vision is blocked beyond 5 feet. This means the caster can not be seen.

If the caster whose sight is uninhibited were to make a ranged attack against the person who can not see him, would the opponent who can not see the caster lose dex to AC or would you say that even if you can not see someone you still get dex to AC.

I am asking because someone believes that "not being able to see someone" is not enough, and they did say dev input would matter.

This was my last stand.

11 people marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
How do those counter-actions show that the martials have something to do?

They don't. Someone forgot that this was not a "How can the GM make up stuff to shut down the casters" thread.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Level 1:

GM: Okay, you know the Red Fang has their headquarters in a secret lair beneath this casino, but the security here is so tight you'll need to take special care ...
Player: No problem. I'll use charm person to get one of the guards to escort us to the lair. You know, like Luke did in Jabba's palace?
GM: <splutter>

Response 1:

GM: "You round the corner with your escort. Coming to a room with five guards. One of them looks at the guard with you.

"Oiy Larry, who is these blokes?" He says.

"These are my new friends!" Larry replies.

"New friends? Why's ya bring em back here Larry?"

"They asked to come here."

The guards draw their swords the jig is up. Good going wizard, ya just screwed up big time."

Response 2:
The other guard with Larry sees the light show from the charm spell and yells, "Intruders!" Alerting the whole base.


Level 3:

GM: Okay, as you cross the desert, you realize that your water is running low and you will need to find...
Player: Create water. It's a cantrip. You know, like Moses in the desert?
GM: ... and that holes have mysteriously appeared in all your canteens. It looks like you will need...
Player: Mending. Got it covered.
GM: .... and that you have lost your way in the blowing sands. You know, like Moses in the desert? You will need...
Player: Know direction. We head south-south-east like the guy at the inn said.
GM: <splutter>

Meh. Or someone just rolls a DC 10 survival check to find water. This isn't a good example. Though I doubt you have know direction memorized.


Level 5:

GM: Okay, as you get out of your boat, you realize that the cliffs of this island are four hundred feet of slippery, wet, nearly unclimbable rock and that the tower is at the top. There's no way to....
Player: I cast levitate on the fighter who carries the gnome and the rogue, and I will fly up myself.
GM: It's too windy; you'll get blown away. You will need to...
Player: Oh, that's all

DC 10 is a "common(anyone can make it)" check. Commoners are not finding water in the dessert in most games. That would pretty much kill the idea of the dessert ever being dangerous, which is obviously the idea the GM was trying to represent. And none of these examples to anything to disprove his point. Of course a GM can just keep throwing more obstacles in the party's way but it becomes obviously pretty quickly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

The GM shouldn't be spluttering.

A key skill of a DM is to know your party.

He still won't know every spell or ability that is on everyone's character sheet. He may also not be used to more experienced players who are used to these things and are able to get around them.

And as the party levels up it gets more difficult to account for every little thing they can do, and that is before they start to get creative.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
I really don't get the fascination with PB. Just roll the stats. That's how my father did it, that's how I do it, and it worked out pretty well so far.

The last time we rolled stats:

"Okay, I have three 18s, a 16 and two 14's. What did you get Neil?"

"I got a 14, and a couple 10s. And a 9 and two 8s."

"Don't worry. I'll let you carry my stuff."

that's how life is. not all are born equal. to overcome that is part of life and should reflect in the game

How the game should be played is by whatever method fits that group the best.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are no rules for identifying a class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:

It's as simple as this. You claim that stealth makes you hidden, and lets you deny your opponent dex to AC.

Honestly I didn't read past this line, but the rules do state this in a round about manner though.

Basically, if you are hidden(aka they fail the perception check to notice you) your opponent is not able to react to your attacks. If the opponent can not react they lose Dex to AC.

It is more of an "If A is true then B is true" type of thing.

Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly.

So if you do not notice the hiding opponent then you can not react.


You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.

If you can not react you lose dex to AC.

Once again in the combat chapter.


Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don't have a Dexterity bonus, your AC does not change.

With all of that aside and for anyone read if you are in the mist, and someone can not see you then they lose dex to AC against you.

Is someone trying to make the argument that you retain dex to AC when you can use your eyes to see the enemy?

PS: Common sense says we are assuming things like blindsight, blind fight, or other special abilities are not in play. Don't be that guy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

If is is the normal AP, and you guys optimized decently well you can be ok, assuming you stay with the wizard.

Its the Anniversary Edition - is that normal?

I wouldn't say "fully" optimized, but using a 4d6 stats, we're pretty high on bonus already at 4th level. I'll lean heavy on summons and conjuration control spells (took focus and augment so far); and with my ASI my INT is now 20 (Human), so I'm comfortable I'll be able to control with some nice high DC Reflex save spells and help with flank buddy summons.

The wife's Paladin has 18CHA, and high Str and just picked up Hero's Defiance(?) and Greater Mercy so I think we'll be ok with LoH, and my CLW infusions for now. Paladins....tough to kill anyway, I'm not worried about her.

Daughter's Ranger has best stats of all, she rolled just ridiculous, right in front of me too. I think her low stat is 12, and now her dex is 20, and a 16 Str Bow with rapid shot next level(5).

Son's ninja is arguably the weak link....and he's TWF, got Mirror Image and a ki-pool...and I'm willing to help him out with PfE or Shield Wand buff to his AC.

Probably just my 1E nervousness of lacking a full healer class.

By normal I meant no GM modifications to make it more difficult.

edit: In a later chapter(s) there are some hard hitting bad guys so that might be an issue for the ninja.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

No. It wasn't exactly 4 fighters.

IIRC fighter rogue slayer, and monk(?).
When we just needed hit point damage things were fine. Overcoming difficult terrain and status effects, along with other problems weapons can't solve was not fun.
Lack of out of combat healing and emergency in combat healing bcuz crits also was an issue.
CLW wands only go so far.

..sounds like a suicide mission.

We're doing RotRL and I'm nervous with our Ranger(archer), Paladin, Ninja, and my Alch1/Wiz+ (Conj) combo. I would have gone cleric, but was advised there are so many cool arcane drops it would be a downer if no-body could use them. However, we're going to be leaning -very- heavy on Paladin, I'm nervous.

I will say, my story on magic doing something a martial couldn't (and we all had fun, so it isn't like I ruined the game). We just cleared the thicket area of Thistletop and were worried about getting ambushed while crossing the rope-bridge, so I used my bonded item slot to cast silent image on the far side....a silent image of our side and the rope-bridge. Basically functioning as a curtain to obscure our movement so myself, Ninja, Paladin could get across the 60' span unseen and launch our attack with the Ranger providing fire-support. Running the gauntlet across that span would have been rough IMO with 4 martials. It just is what it is, magic let me do that (subject to GM approval, but he said he was wondering how long it would take for us to figure something like that out).

If is is the normal AP, and you guys optimized decently well you can be ok, assuming you stay with the wizard.

1 to 50 of 2,555 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.