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. 2,616 posts (36,915 including aliases). 3 reviews. 8 lists. 4 wishlists. 25 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,445 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is one of those things that most of us handwave. If they pay the money I let them use the onyx.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

This is going to be a serious pain to explain in every game, to every player, and every DM.

I am know I am going get a bunch "where is that written?", and I have to explain, again, that it is in the unwritten rules, that the FAQ references, without really saying that.

Me too. I understand how it works now, but I am trying to think of a way to explain it without creating more questions. I am thinking it is easier to houserule the "in place of" and " add X to___" as working together, while only not allowing it on a case by case basis. I will inform the players it is a houserule so they won't expect it to work under another GM however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

I guess we should first ask the question; are we playing a game because it's mechanics are fun or because it has a great story? If the mechanics are why you are playing that game then optimization is clearly not a bad thing... on the other hand if it's the story you wish to play through then yes optimization is horrible toward the experience.

I am reminded of Star Wars: the Old Republic MMO. It has eight fully developed story paths and it is built on a rather typical MMO mechanic system. I started playing it when it went free play and I fell in love with a couple of the excellent stories; BUT I always had the horrible grinding mechanic common to MMOs getting in my way of enjoying the story. Eventually I gave up trying to experience those stories and it makes me sad, but it wasn't worth it to plow through countless hours of grinding to level just so I could play through the next chapter. In this case you DEFINITELY have mechanics getting in the way.

In a game like Civilization V however the story is clearly NOT why I play the game; I play for the mechanics here. It really doesn't even have a story beyond the vague story of your civilizations rise or fall.

I agree. To me the game is the mechanics. You can attach a story to several different mechanics, and the story might need some tweeking, but on many occasions the story can remain true to itself. If I say we are playing Pathfinder people will assume I am using the d20 rule set. If I run the same story, and I say we are playing Pathfinder, but I use the ruleset for Shadowrun the players will likely accuse me of false advertising.

PS: I also hate grinding. I am playing final fantasy 1 for the NES, and I want to advance the plot. To make this easier I am using a cheat which gives me more XP than normal, and does not split XP between party members.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dmchucky69 wrote:

So I keep reading other threads where folks keep trashing Pathfinder in their enthusiasm over the shiny new game that recently has taken the gaming community by storm. It's kind of like going to one friend's house for dinner and spending the entire meal talking about how much you like another friend's cooking. It seems kind of distasteful to me.

I don't want to use this thread to throw that gaming system under the bus. What I do want to do, is find other posters that are staying the course with Pathfinder rather than jumping ship for 5th.

The purpose of this thread is to say thanks to Lisa, Erik, James, Jason, the other James, Wesley and the rest by telling them how great their system still is and why you love it enough to stay faithful to her.

I love the complexity of the rules, the well-written plots of the Paths, and the level of discourse the Paizo staff has always shared with their website visitors.

Who is with me, and why did you choose to stay with Pathfinder?

And let's try to keep the thread positive if at all possible.

The system will always be criticized, especially by those of us that like it. I don't really worry about it. If they are on the Paizo boards instead of the other forums then they have not really left yet. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bane Wraith wrote:
Sorry mate. Unconvinced, and thus at a standstill. By your logic, Anyone that Fails a saving throw should be able to identify whatever hit them every single time, regardless of knowledge checks, because there's no text that explicitly states they can't.

That is not his logic so that is not what he is saying. He actually said a knowledge check is needed. Yes, I am aware this wont change your mind, but this post should clear up any misunderstandings, and avoid derailing due to misapplications of ideas.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Why is level implied as a source bonus? The only thing this FAQ addresses was untyped stat bonuses. nothing about level. If you guys keep this up you'll derail this and people will get confused. I can understand if you're upset at the ruling, I don't like it, I felt double dipping was fine. But there's no reason to say that this makes a rule that it doesn't talk about at all. Up until they say level is a source or a type it's not.

This is a good point. The FAQ question specifically addresses ability bonuses, not other bonuses. Of course, it is reasonable to consider other bonuses also falling under this ruling, as there is little distinction between them.

I do note that Challenge says it causes extra damage equal to the cavalier's level, where as Precise Strike says it adds level to damage. Is this distinction important? Well, I can't say.

+1. That is why we need language that is more clear on what a source is. If they want to say spells/feats/etc can become secondary sources then they need to let us know what else can push them to be secondary sources. Is it levels, HD, etc etc?
Well, until they say anything other than your stats to become a secondary source nothing else is a secondary source.

The problem is that it won't be said, even if they see us constantly doing it incorrectly on the boards until someone makes an FAQ. The inquisitor double dipping was a common tactic here, and so was flurrying with a single monk weapon. They even had it in official products.

Since they are saying this is not a rule change, the ability stat taking over as a primary source was the rule before they said something, so them not saying does not mean it is not the rule. It just means we don't know about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you phrased the question incorrectly. What should be asked is " Do levels count as sources of a bonus like ability scores do?"

There is a big difference between the two questions and ability scores counting as a source now is why you can't stack them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:

The whole "you can house rule it" is a cop out. If you have to house rule something to make the game work, the game is messed up to begin with. We didn't have to house rule anything to limit a magic user's impact in 1e, since the rules themselves, if followed, made casting in combat difficult.

3x, and, after they had a chance to fix it but didn't (and basically banned everyone who was mechanically correct but rude to the "we can just house rule it" cheerleading squad), Pathfinder, has the imbalance built in. 3x took away every mechanical limitation to spell casting AD&D contained, and took away a lot of what made non-magical characters competitive.

I hope they decide they don't need to be restrained by "backward compatibility" when Pathfinder 2e becomes necessary. Maybe they can actually fix everything (or at least a lot of) what was wrong with 3x.

I would not say it does not work. I would say it does not work for everyone's game. One also has to consider that PF changes at certain levels, and that is part of the problem. It needs to be the same game from 1 to 20 for the most part, if the intent is for it to work for more people's games, while still allowing for playstyle differences. However in its current state the game changes enough that certain people are better off not going above or below level ___ depending on what they want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
so far the rule is there is only source changing if something is giving an untyped ability bonus so that it's not a ability source instead of what it was previously. There are no unwritten rules, and there are no other source hierarchy. Unless they say something this is the only time the source can change. So there aren't multiple nested sources, and no other sources have changed. Stop trying to make this seem like a bigger issue than it is. I feel like you're just trying to cause problems by willfully "misunderstanding" what is being said. If this isn't the case it's how you're coming off. So if you have unaddressed concerns please share those.

Questions have been popping up a lot, and with some abilities I definitely understand. This explanation(FAQ) is muddying the waters a lot. I understand that they don't want double dipping for an ability score, but I think there was another way to do it than by saying ____ is a source except for when ____, however a bonus equal to X stacks with a bonus from X.

I have a good idea for how this works out, but I still think it can be written so that it is easier to understand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Each class will needs its own thread.

2. Do a forum search. All of those threads are just copies of any other thread on the same class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rikkan wrote:

Is this FAQ purely for ability bonuses? Or does it include other referential bonuses as well?

Like say, if I play a daring cavalier, when I use challenge I add my level to damage and if I pick up precise strike I also add my level to damage. Are those considered to be the same source?

And what about orange ioun stones? They add an untyped caster level bonus. If I have multiple ioun stones are they considered to be different sources (different ioun stones) or the same source?

It is clarifying when ability based bonuses don't stack, from what I understand, but the "level based damage" is a good question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, the normal strength to damage dealt with a Shield Bash, does not stack with the damage done by Merciless Rush, when using Shield Slam, or are these considered separate attacks(Bull Rush/Shield Bash), and both damage is applied?

This is a good chance to test my knowledge so I will give you an answer and we will see if Mark agrees with me tomorrow.

The FAQ says " you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier."

Merciless Rush says "... you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier to that target."

A shield bash is a normal attack and the equipment chapter says.. "Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon"

Now going back to the FAQ you can add the modifier/bonus and a number equal to the bonus so these two should stack. Now if Merciless Rush said to add your strength bonus instead of "damage equal to" your strength bonus then they would not stack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also thanks for taking the time to answer questions Mark. <2 thumbs up>


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

Those two were listed earlier as an example, they don't stack.

It sounds like, unless the ability specifically changes the 'type' of bonus granted by the ability modifier (i.e. paladins and their smite adding Cha to AC as a deflection modifier), then they don't stack.

Citation needed.

PS: I think you are correct, but I did not see an example that matched up with this one. I don't care if it does not stack, but now it seems they will need to clarify what the "source" is. By the rules this also seems like stealth errata, which I don't think is a bad term, but it should be noted as such officially. OK, I don't expect for them to say "stealth errata", but sometimes the FAQ is used to change rules so noting it as a "rules change" would be nice.
Rules changes, as of late, have been noted with "This will be reflected in future errata". Or at least, we're trying to get better about that. You'll see it in the ACG FAQs. The result of this particular FAQ, however (that ability modifiers don't add in multiple times), was unanimous consensus among the Design Team of how the rules currently work, so it doesn't have that tag.

So how are we supposed to know what a "source" is? I always thought it was a spell/feat/class feature, not the bonus itself. Just to be clear I am not upset, but unless I am reading the FAQ incorrectly I have no idea on how to identify a source. If that will be in another FAQ I will be happy with that answer.

From the way I read the FAQ a source is the ability score, not the feat/spell/etc that grants tells you to use the ability score, or are ability scores an exception to what the designers intend for us to use as sources?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

This "type changes source" thing just does not sit well with me, as nothing prior to this FAQ, even implies such a thing.

Is it in the "unwritten rules"?

It seems to be a "new unwritten rule".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paulicus wrote:

Those two were listed earlier as an example, they don't stack.

It sounds like, unless the ability specifically changes the 'type' of bonus granted by the ability modifier (i.e. paladins and their smite adding Cha to AC as a deflection modifier), then they don't stack.

Citation needed.

PS: I think you are correct, but I did not see an example that matched up with this one. I don't care if it does not stack, but now it seems they will need to clarify what the "source" is. By the rules this also seems like stealth errata, which I don't think is a bad term, but it should be noted as such officially. OK, I don't expect for them to say "stealth errata", but sometimes the FAQ is used to change rules so noting it as a "rules change" would be nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dark Immortal wrote:

So in another thread the issue came up of how a player should make a mechanically strong character all of the time and just dial it back in game play if needed.

I argued against that and it was even said that there will be people and tables where having a mechanically strong character could be seen as rude. I argued that it was about taking the temperature of the room so to speak before making a character for the table.

If you never play a character up to his strengths they should not know, and if they see it as rude that is a problem with them. At the same time I think you should optimize for the group you are playing with, but within reason(don't be too strong, but don't put your character's life on the line because someone else sucks at making characters).

So yes, I have no problem with the temperature test, but at the same time nobody should think you are rude because you have a strong character. The idea is silly to me.

Remember we are talking about "making" a character not using it to ruin everyone's fun which is an entirely different topic. I am not saying it wont offend someone, but someone will be bothered no matter what you do.

As for your PFS example let say it is a home game that is similar to the PFS scenario where there seemed to be a lot of out of combat things to do. This player built his character to be an "out of combat" specialist much like a bard or inquisitor would have been, and he is decent in combat, but not great, much like a bard or inquisitor would have been. The problem was not the character, but that he just happened to have the perfect character for the scenario, just as if someone was running a paladin in an undead campaign. Now if Mr.OOC-Master was in a more combat oriented game he would not have done as well, and you and the others would have been more valuable.

When complaining about someone's character being too strong take all points into consideration, and also remember that sometimes the problem is with the person who is upset. Being upset does not automatically transfer the blame or fault to the other person. You can be upset and still be wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Even if everyone had perception as a class skill they still won't notice a stealth focused character most of the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barathos wrote:

@Rynjin

Cool, the ranger and rogue (the most scout-like classes) already have it on their class skills list already anyway. Why should a fighter (the front line soldier) be as good at perception as the ranger (the scout)?

@Bardarok

Excellent point, but they still observe more than a common "do as you're told" soldier.

Fighters are not just front line hit point bags. They also serve as the military, police, bodyguards, guards in general, and other things that need to be able to protect/guard people and things. Keeping those sneaky thieves/assassins/etc out is why they should have it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Traskus wrote:
Home rule a fumble rule. Roll a natural 1 and something goes wrong with the attempt. Because no matter your skill at something there should always be a chance for failure.

I disagree. I will never incorrectly install a CPU which is mundane for me but not for another person. Once you get to a certain skill level the difficult becomes mundane and 5% failure is way to high.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know rogues get a bad rap around here, but they can be viable in a game. It depends on the table, and how well the player knows the game. If your GM is the type to be somewhat lenient, and you are not sitting at a table with optimizers the rogue should be ok. Otherwise I would suggest slayer(if allowed) or another class that fits the background.

Also make sure you have a willing flanker to help you get sneak attack off, and be sure to do something about your fort and will saves.

PS:You can actually do the same if not more damage with a rogue by using a two handed weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:


The attitude at Paizo, though, seems to be that if you don't want the kind of everything goes kitchen sink world that Golarion is, you're on your own. I don't see that kind of shoehorning as a good thing.

Actually the idea from Paizo is that you should use what you want, and not use the rest, thereby making your own Golarion. As an example if I had a problem with technology then I just would not use that part of the campaign world. It takes almost no effort to not use something. It is no different than not using a certain class or feat.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't do anything. If the players works that hard to be good at something he should reap the rewards.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kartissa wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:

The game assumes you have access to cheap healing for in between combats, nothing wrong with it at all. My witch took the feat and is crafting like 20 IH wands and retraining it out. The first item any party usually splurges for is a wand of IH or CLW.

But he should really just craft wands of infernal healing and not loose a sorcerer level to dipping.

The only RPG I've played that allows such cheap healing between combat is AD&D 4th Edition. (Although I have acquired the 1980s Marvel Super Hero RPG to run a City of Heroes campaign, which does something similar.) Every other one required the players to take a certain amount of downtime to fully heal, either through lack of convenient rapid healing, or a more complex damage system. (Sometimes both - I'm looking at you, Babylon Project!)

Such rapid healing, as you claim PF assumes, just seems incredibly wrong to me. It takes some of the fun out of the whole thing. If the players start every battle at full health, with enough healing items spare to remain at full health without using up any limited, class-based healing abilities, then where's the challenge? The struggle of fighting through hordes of minions, in order to face the Big Bad with the few resources you have remaining?

Almost every fantasy epic has the protagonists fighting against impossible odds and only just winning through perseverance and determination, despite being outclassed in almost every way. That, to me, is how a role-playing campaign should be played. The fun, the satisfaction of managing to win when your party is at its weakest. It's at those times that the class abilities of fighters and rogues really come into their own, since they are never depleted like those of the casters.

As to the Infernal Healing: since we now have the book that comes from, our sorcerer probably will get it, instead of taking a level of cleric, as he'd originally considered. Even though we are rather short of healers in our Adventurer's...

The challenge is still there, and if they burn through expendable items it eats into their loot. Keeping wands of cure light wounds in stock is smart tactic. Also by the time a caster is 7th level they are not likely to run out of spells, and if they do and the fight is difficult then it is the noncasters that are normally in the most trouble. The game is not a movie or book, and while I like gritty games, the players topping off has not diminished my ability to challenge them. Ambush them, use combat that go against their weakness, use terrain, use ability damage/drain, etc etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
LazarX wrote:

And if a player says "Let me use my game-wrecking exploits" and the GM says no, Who's being the poor sport here? Your answer is the GM?

First tell me how the exploit wrecks the game. I'm willing to bet that, most of the time, the only thing it wrecks is the GM's sense of fitness and desire to run a level-inappropriate story. You know, "you can't teleport into Mordor, because I want to run a crossing-the-desert survival story."

So, yes, in the majority of cases, I'd say the GM is the one being the poor sport.

Are you saying players should just be able to do whatever they want as long as they have fun, and the GM should allow it? I don't mean things like blatantly ignoring rules such as giving weapon focus a +10 when it is a +1, but let's say using wishing binding to get 1000 free wishes and anything else that is a loophole. Maybe using simulacrum to _____(insert option that trivializes the game).

To take this a little further and give another example, let's say a player finds a way to get an AC of 60 by level 10, and that is his method of fun. Let's say as a GM I wish to challenge the player so I find a way to get an attack bonus of +50 or higher onto a CR 10ish creature. Am I wrong for that because I removed his ability to only be hit on a nat 1?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
noretoc wrote:

Welcome to the Paizo Boards, where you ask how to help with a story idea and instead everyone instead decides to give you advice on what you did wrong, how things don't work like that, or how to not do what you already planned on doing instead of trying to help answer the question you asked.

Or welcome to the Paizo boards where some people dont know how telling a GM which things might go wrong is actually helping because it will help him to think of alternate solutions to problems, instead of being caught with his pants down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
How do you not know what the feats in the core rulebook do? Do you just get your information on them online and never acually read the book itself?

It seems that everyone has a rule they don't know about. Even the devs(those guys that wrote the book) have cited rules incorrectly from memory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alecak wrote:

My question is basically this:

Can you learn (scribe into spell book/familiar) a spell like Fireball but have it a different descriptor like Acid or Cold? Maybe get it from an Admixture Wizard?

I have a Winter Witch and She can not even know a spell with the fire descriptor and I would really like to be able to use some big AOE spells like Fireball.

This may have already been addressed but when I searched for it I came up empty handed. probably searched for the wrong wording.

There is a feat in the APG that lets you change the energy type. If you wanted to have a permanent spell like that, you would have to research and create it yourself. This requires GM approval however. The rules for this are in the Ultimate Campaign book, IIRC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
New Earth Man wrote:


Now this book is meant to look like a volume the characters have encountered before and have been looking for since around 5th level. It is not the same book but rather is a blank book wherein a paper thin Mirror of Life Trapping has been situated. The big baddy touches the pages of the book and appears to disappear into its pages. He has in fact cast Invisibility using Silent Spell.

They might spellcraft it. Nothing stops a silent spell from being spellcrafted by the rules, and if you plan to make it a houserule I would inform them of this rule. Also if he just disappears they are likely to think he just teleported. In addition if they cast detect magic the aura of the spell he just used will be there. If detect magic only gives the strongest aura then arcane sight might work, but there is no reason to think "he is in the book". They might just take the book and leave also, and open it somewhere else.

Quote:


He then waits for the characters to voluntarily enter the book (Thus no saves?) and uses Suggestion on those who are thinking twice about it. Now there's a REALLY good possibility that he will succeed in this, thus trapping the characters for an undetermined measure of time...in short, he wins.

Unless you modify the magic item they get a save or get pulled into it. Also once the first person is sucked in the other party members are less likely to go in because the equipment does not go into the mirror with the person. At level 13 they can get access to Analyze dweomer which would automatically identify the mirror. Suggestion is also a low level spell, and the chances of them failing a will save are not high.

Your entire plans works around you assuming you can guess what the players will do, and that almost never happens, especially with all of the things that have to happen for your situation to turn out like you want it to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
Quote:

Silent Spell (Metamagic)

You can cast your spells without making any sound.

Benefit: A silent spell can be cast with no verbal components. Spells without verbal components are not affected. A silent spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat.

I never knew that, and it is a stupid rule which I will ignore, but thanks for the information. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When a spell has a costly material component it also has the price. That unholy water with no price beside it means the cost is neglible. There is no reason to have two options, with only one being free if the intent is to pay.

An example is this:

Quote:


HOLY ICE
School transmutation [cold, good, water]; Level cleric 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a flask of holy water or 5 pounds of powdered silver worth 25 gp)

Holy water is sold by the "flask", not by the dose.

equipment chapter CRB wrote:


Holy water (flask)

So let's look at the evidence. The option other than the unholy water is free, and they don't use a "flask" like the other spells do. I would say a dose was meant to be a "drop".

There is also this spell.

Quote:

UNHOLY ICE

School transmutation [cold, evil, water]; Level cleric 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a flask of unholy water or 5 pounds of powdered silver worth 25 gp)

Once again we have a flask.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Go bard all the way. You still get much more use of it than anymore multiclassing with a rogue. Honestly if the GM allows it I would suggest retraining the rogue levels to bard levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your other post made it seem like your GM thought that by the official rules a wand could not be cast at CL 1. That is different from what you are saying now, and if you are introducing house rules into the rules section you should say so. People tend to avoid listing house rules here because it is assumed that the posters will be giving them the actual rules.

The problem is this statement "He (a more experienced GM than I am) interpreted that slightly differently. "

Later on you said "This makes even level 1 wands slightly more of an expense, and is more in line with our campaign setting."

That 2nd line makes it a little more evident that it is a house rule, but a house rule is different from a rules interpretation.

The rules interpretation is how someone thinks the rule actually works.

A houserule is when they just choose to run it differently at their table.

PS: Just to be clear I am only stating all of this to avoid confusion in the future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
davidvs wrote:

Please allow a quick recap.

(a) People want to use Pathfinder to create several flavors of adventure story.

(b) The Pathfinder rules provide many options for how to create characters.

(c) The Pathfinder rules provide almost no guidance for how to subdivide or restrict those options to support a desired flavor of adventure.

In other words, Pathfinder tries to allow creating everything. But it does not guide you towards composing anything.

And that lack of guidance is not "freedom", it is "confusion" and "lack of balance".

We are trying to ask for books such as Pathfinder: Hardboiled Noir Flavor or Pathfinder: Wuxia Flavor or Pathfinder: Destined to Save the Kingdom Flavor that have no new options but simply collect all the relevant archetypes, traits, feats, spells, items, etc. for that particular flavor in one place concluded by a few chapters about how a Player and GM can contribute at the table to creating that type of flavor.

Accurate recap?

I've come to the conclusion that games with a great many options for player characters really need to have some explicit text in the rules explaining that the GM is not just allowed but expected to carefully pick and choose which options are available. Players should not expect to create a character without firm guidance from the GM and probably cooperation from the other players as well.

Pathfinder would have far few problems IMO if the devs assumed that only a small fraction of the available races/classes/spells/feats/etc. will be used in any one campaign and gave GM and players the tools to help them decide what that fraction should be in their particular game world. Like GURPS does with its myriad of world books.

Put another way, the system has gotten so complex that it really needs an easy way to let people just use the parts they want.

Pathfinder is too complex for that. There are a lot of different ways to play the game. You as the GM have to decide what is ok, and what is not ok.

The only thing that should probably be put out is that a new GM should be sure he is comfortable before moving beyond the CRB.

It is not the devs place to tell someone how to run the game or make assumptions on what people will do. The fact that there are so many ways to play the game, even if I don't agree with some of them, is one of its strengths.

I also personally don't want to play "mother may I" when it comes to options as a GM or player. As a GM I let them know you can use certain books. As a player I ask for houserules and which books are open for use.

As players we should be the ones to help each other out. There are posters here who know the rules and how to optimize as well as some devs or close to it.

PS: I have heard of a book that does what you want, but it is not out yet. Just to clarify I am saying they can't comment on every option and how it relates to other options. That book, whose name I cant remember, will likely offer general advice, but don't expect for every piece of source material to be spoken about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malakav wrote:

Well as the title says, seeing the new Numeria setting, with the Technology Guide and the new adventure path Iron Gods, all I could think is "Borderlands Much?"

I got dissapointed, really, I changed from 3.5 to pathfinder because they offered me new worlds, new skills, an improved 3.75 system, everything started to make sense immediately and all clases improved in a cool way

Continuing with the Medieval theme, with iconic monsters and some othernew cool monsters

It was a straight hook, they got all the old school players to change to Path and laugh at 3.5 and the stupid 4th version

Then new classes were coming, I loved all, except 1, the Gunslinger

The Gunslinger was cheesy, Full Bab, Touch Damage, full Dex can forget all other stats except WIS, and extra damage with DEX
This was not cool because if I wanted to put a full armor tank, the gun slinger would say "oh that´s cute"

Then came the Advanced Classes or Hybrids.............

talk about OP and Unbalanced!!!

This became more and more just a videogame, where the players would just think of a build and then win, most of the times, the monsters didn´t offer much challenge and most of the time I would get frustrated as a DM, because, hey! I want to win sometimes too!

The new setting reeks of a vile ripoff of Borderlands, come on!, lasers, bazookas, aliens and motherships?? LAME

I changed to 5th because everything became balanced there, I just wanted to see if anybody else feels dissapointed on Pathfinder like me

PD For the peolpe WHO STILL LIKE PATH, this in NO WAY affects you, if you like the system good for you, i just changed opinion that is all

Don't use that part of the campaign setting or pretend it does not exist. I certainly don't run Golarion 100% as written. As an example I dont like the flavor for goblins.

As for "OP", that is subjective and varies by table. I have never had a problem with a gunslinger or 9th level casters which are much more powerful.

Why should a GM want to win? This is not supposed to be a contest between you and your players. If you mean you can not challenge the players then you should ask the people here for advice.

5th is also brand new. That is all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Master of Shadows wrote:
I don't really know why there is all this hate on the rogue in this thread? I have played them, and I have never found a well played rogue to be subpar, and never found it difficult to arrange sneak attacks every single round (as long as the enemy is not immune). Its on the player of the rogue to build a fun rogue, and yes, in theory a highlevel wizard can sing the "everything you can do, I can do better..." song but only if you assume he has completely free reign over his spell selection. If a campaign actually adheres strictly to the guidelines for how wizards learn new spells, its not as easy as you think. Especially if the GM limits the availability of Spell Scrolls and the campaign down time it takes to research new spells.

It is not hate. That word is used way too much, and I dont like the idea of limiting one class to help another one. If you want to know why people advise not playing rogues there are a lot of threads on it, but I dont want to turn this into a rogue thread so I will stop here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Eltacolibre wrote:

I know a lot of people seems to be obsessed with the idea of everything needs to be balanced...but quite frankly do you actually really care? Like a player wants to play a tiny fey creature barbarian and complains that he isn't doing as much damage as the half-giant barbarian? Old school players do you remember how hard it was to play a pixie barbarian?

I mean, I understand that some people like to play special snowflake characters but do you actually care that them playing a subpar option or class should be compensated by something else?

Frankly, I don't think that everything should be balanced to be viable at the same scale of power all the time but that's just my opinion.

I think balance means different things to different people. I like the idea of niche protection within limits. However I don't think all classes should be equally effective across the board, or that one class should not be more powerful than another class. Power disparity is fine. At the same time the gap between classes should not get too big, and yes I realize "too big" is a matter of taste. I have never known a snowflake to ask for compensation, and to me that is a different topic from the balance topic. If you play certain things you just have to deal with the consequences. Likewise I would not expect the half giant to be as stealthy as the tiny creature. He just has to accept that the small creature will be stealthier if they both play rangers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Master of Shadows wrote:

wow, 240 posts, and you guys are still drawing battle lines?

I would have expected you to agree to disagree by now...

It's only on page 5. We have to at least go to page 10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:

Meh...Treantmonk's guide is cynical in a thousand ways, from insulting the roles of every other character class to encouraging cheezed-out mechanics like Planar Binding abuse, etc.

If the man had his head in the right place, he'd have started his guide with: "The Wizard is incredibly powerful if you know how to use spells effectively, so don't worry about optimization if you play one. Now, here are the spells..."

But, of course, nobody who'd write a guide to "being God" should be expected to show much restraint.

He was writing it in a humorous fashion. It was not meant to be taken seriously. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread servers no purpose. At least the other anti-rogue threads are attempting to educate people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. RAI is rules as intended, not playing loose with the rules.<---I am just making a correction. I am not saying the playstyle is invalid.

2. The group needs to come to a concensus on how tightly they are going to follow the rules. Are you not following certain rules because you did not know the rule, or because you dont care to follow those specific rules?

3. Once that is decided that should help take care of it. If the new player wants things to be tracked more tightly he can suck it up or find another group if the GM does not want to enforce certain rules. In the future however it is probably good for a GM to put certain things in writing so a new player will know what to expect before joining.

Personally I dont really track weight unless you are really far over it so I can understand ignoring it.

The player might also not care what the rule is, but he may want some consistency. Talk it out. At the least talk to the GM, and let him handle it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Generally mindless creatures can follow very simple instructions. They can even recognize colors, but they can not come up with waves to solve problems. They do exactly as they are told, much like a computer program does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

I tend to be on the side that a big problem with DnD/Pathfinder magic is that it does a horrible job of emulating magic as used in most contemporary fantasy.

In fiction, magic may be powerful, but has constraints.

The reason is that each version of fantasyland in a novel or movie has its own limitations. D&D/Pathfinder draws upon all of these. As an example the "death" spells are a common trope. That is how we get the SoD spells. Invis and flying are common magic tropes.

Because the game tries to include so many elements it will never support any contemporary fantasy without a lot of house rules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Readying an action burns your standard action for that round. What you may do with that readied action is do a standard, move, or swift action. If the rules intended for you to be able to use a standard action to perform an act that requires a swift action then there would not be a need to ready a swift action. You could just ready a standard action and use it to perform a move or swift based act. So when you choose an act that calls for a swift action you are actually using a swift action.
Now some will argue that it makes no sense.

Breakdown: You are allowed to perform a standard or lesser action but you are still using the action that is required for that act.

I hope I explained this well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Dead characters don't stop being creatures; they are dead creatures.

Dead creatures become objects. This doesn't stop them also being creatures.

Spells last until they say they don't, typically because of the duration expiring. To cast a spell, the target must be a viable target for that spell. There is no rule saying they must remain a viable target throughout the duration, unless the spell specifically says differently.

Now this is a good point since the spell only checks for qualification when the spell is cast and it is not doing a continuous check likr feats do. However if you are dead before the spell is cast you may not qualify.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mswbear wrote:
basically people are mad because it actually balanced the class. I have seen a ton of theory crafting arguments that it is now one of the worst class and doesn't hold up to paladin or inquisitor. I assure you that in actual practice it just as powerful. Advanced Class Origins is coming out Oct 22nd. I assume that war priest will be plenty powerful after some of the options in that book for the theory crafting crowd.

What makes you think I have not actually made one or seen one in play? Don't be so quick to shout theorycraft.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adacanavar wrote:
Does anyone know why they decided to not give the warpriest a full BAB progression in the advanced class guide? I would understand it if they balanced it more like the magus but it does not appear that they did.

They thought it was too good to have full BAB. I think it should have kept full BAB to stay in competition with the inquisitor. Allowing the warpriest to buff himself with spells by using swift actions does not make up for the lost of full BAB IMHO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
InzemO.On wrote:

So is this the general consensus, as Hendelbolaf wrote : "even dead, you are still a creature" and by consequence still a valid spell target ?

The reasonning makes a lot of sense, and this has interesting consequences in the game. For example :
- Your non expired buffs do function again if you are brought back to life. Good for high level wizards :)
- If you die while invisible, you remain invisible until the spell expires. Too bad for low level rogues :(
- If you are dead, i can still target your body with a Magic missile.

And certainly many more i just can't imagine right now !

Does everybody agree with this ?
Thanks !

By the rules I think you are not valid for a spell targeting a creature(something that is alive) since you are no longer alive, but I think this is one of those things that not many people enforce depending on the situation.

As an example if the party is on the verge of defeat and you want to teleport away not many GM's will count your buddy's corpse as an object instead of a creature in my experience.

1 to 50 of 1,445 << 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.