|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I rather have them be here so they understand why they can't dump constitution down to 7 be a melee combatant and expect to live because it sounds cool. No, I am not saying you have to be super-optimized to survive in a game that I run.
............<more stuff in my mind that I won't type out unless questions are asked>
Quark Blast wrote:
To be honest FR and Golarion have had logic holes in them also. The entire game has logic holes in it. Some people just accept different logic holes more easily than they accept other logic holes. I just look at it as a metagame answer of "This does not happen so we(the players) can actually play the game", kind of like how people do stupid things in movies so they can die and keep the movie going. :)
I have another one.
Topic: Mechanic X and how it resolves in the game.
Poster A: Has an opinion about X with ancedotal evidence.
Poster B: Has an opinion about X with ancedotal evidence + objective data to support it.
Poster A: Makes mocking comment about Poster B theorycrafting despite Poster B providing a real game example.
The attitude of "If it didn't happen in my games then it's theorycraft" is annoying.
I actually edited this comment but I guess it did not take. My point was that not all GM's host, pay for food, and do everything you do so what YOU do is not really a factor for allowances with regard to GM's as a whole.In addition spending money and hosting does not increase your right to infringe on player agency. By that logic a player that bought his own food dice and books could ignore you while another player could not. That really is not fair for someone to get more freedom because they have more money.
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
When you stop using the rules you are playing a different game.Now much of the rules you need to stop using before you are not playing Pathfinder is subjective, but if I advertise Pathfinder, but I use Shadowrun mechanics, then we are not playing Pathfinder.
The flavor really has more to do with the campaign setting than the base game.
Here is another one:
OP:Hey guys what do you think about me doing ______
99.9% of us in unison which almost never happens: That is not a good idea. <list a few alternatives>
OP: Well I think my idea was great and then follows up with some insult
99.9%: More ideas to counter the OP
OP: <very much upset> goes into rant, sometimes with more insults included
Basically they did not really want advice. They wanted people to agree with them, and got mad when almost nobody supported them.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I am sure he does, but the best solution, IMO, which is to get rid of the MS until he gets more GM'ing experience is not the one he wants.
I think one thing he will take away from this is not to not allow anything else that he does not fully understand.
Now for my issue. Being at the level I am, I worry the DM will compensate with higher level encounters and I might have to take a more direct hand in combat. I also worry that my summons will outshine the lower level melee considering I can now use Summon Monster VI. How would you handle the disparity? How can I make sure I don't outshine the rest of the group?
I would ask the GM if this is what he plans to do If so I would try to make an agreement to hold back until the party is closer to your level
It is a charge because the rules say it is a charge. Since it uses magic it bypasses the restriction that charges usually have. Otherwise it would not have been called a charge. Now maybe someone wants to argue that the devs used bad language, and the ability needs errata, but understanding how it works is not really all that difficult. I don't see what the confusion is about.
I think I'd be more okay with OMG BLOAT! threads if it was down to one thread per new book and not five over the course of a few months.
This reminds of another gear grinder.
It is not directed at you Hyper.
People who fail to realize that what is a problem for their games is not necessarily a problem for "The game" as a whole.
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
The things I just bolded in your post because it assumes that someone thinks their way of playing is the right way, and it assumes their level of optimization is ok, but someone playing above that level is doing it wrong.
I guess people that do this grind my gears.
edit: Some people have told me 100DPR at level 11 is too much. Other have said it was not good enough. Basically that means that what is OP or "too much" is subjective, and nobody should be judging someone else just because they like more firepower in their games.
What matters is that someone clearly states how things are at their table, and nobody goes beyond that.
An Elan is a race because they are transformed into a new race. If they were a template they would be the same person with new abilities. Basically their old mind is erased, and they get brand new physical abilities.
If you were a level 20 ____ and went through the Elan transformation you would come out as a level 1 _____ with almost no memory of your old life.
You are only human in appearance.
As a GM you can say that the Azlanti were transformed, and another reason they are different is because the flavor says so.
Azlanti also have superior stats to normal humans.
An idea you could use is to have an Azlanti still keep their Azlanti stats in Elan form. By that I mean the +2 to every attribute score.
The arms can not give extra attacks in any form. You also do no get higher bonuses just for having the arms. They are a non-factor, since they can't be used to get extra attacks.
Basically since those arms can't get you extra attacks, just normal arms would, you make the attacks as if those arms did not exist. They do not qualify for MWF. MWF is for limbs that actually factor into giving you extra attacks.
This nonsense needs to stop.
Some people, not me, think the rogue is fine as is. If Paizo were to reword the official rogue class it would be looked at as catering to those power gamers who want MOAR power. Feel free to provide another insult they might use as necessary.
Now we do have unchained coming out so us power gamers can have the rogue at our table, the rogue can hopefully have nice things, and everyone can get what they want without any insults being thrown around.
If it is requiring 3 stats instead of one stat that makes it harder to pull off. I am still not seeing how it is OP.
I can see certain builds being OP, but I have not seen how the class is OP.
\I really don't see any class as OP yet. The closest is actually the summoner(maybe the master summoner), and at the same time I don't see it as the most powerful class. The floor is just so high on it.
Silver Surfer wrote:
The class is OP, or certain builds are OP?
If the class is OP it would be likely to disrupt most games even without optimization. A build being OP is another thing altogether since someone with good system mastery can give certain GM's headaches.
Abraham spalding wrote:
I think he means that if you run the NPC's as intelligently as possible. As an example you maze out the fighter types since that spell has no save, and their intelligence is not really all that high for most people playing them. That leaves you to deal with the party casters who, depending on how well they optimize, may be dead by the time the fighter types get out of the maze. If you maze the caster he may be able to just plane shift out of the maze.
Also if the fighters are mazed and the casters are losing they can more likely escape via some teleportation effect, assuming the enemy has not thought of this in advance and blocked it. Then you have your fighters vs some casters, which basically translates into dead fighter types in most situations.
Just so you know this is not me theorycrafting I used a similar tactic before. Now since it was not fun for those guys swinging weapons I decided to stop doing so.
There are other ways to shut down most fighter types also. If they are super-optimized some things can be covered but in most games high optimization is not going to be the norm.
I misread his statement. I was not even close to what he actually said. <goes and stands in the corner>
There are published adventures where you meet more than one that can cast it. It might require for a GM to change some spells out, but it(for a dragon) is still an option.
It might not happen in every campaign, but it is one of those "once is more than enough" type of things for some groups.
Silver Surfer wrote:
D6 divine caster is not a concept.
A concept may be so good that it forces a divine caster to be a D6, however the reason for existing is entirely different.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
Even if you can see someone and something like a wall of force(also invisible) is in the way, that does not change anything. You aim the bead to where you want it to detonate. However if it hits something it explodes. Most spell targeting just makes someone a victim. With fireball you have to send the bead to them. You can even make attack rolls if shooting it through a small space.
I prefer a more serious tone. Some jokes are ok, but it can't be on the level of Monty Python for entire sessions. It would take me out of the game mentally.
Don't get me wrong. Sometimes I joke around as a player, and my players say silly things IC and OoC, but as a GM I don't think I have any jokefest campaigns. <----There is nothing wrong with it. It just isn't for me.
So basically the party worked together as a team and the fighter did his job by being good at doing damage.
Why did the dragon get close if he had the advantage in reach? <---You don't have to answer that. It is more of a rhetorical question since the dragon was supposed to be played well.
He also could have tried to sunder the bow, or disarm the fighter and take the bow away. He could have sundered the spell component pouch or the holy symbol. etc etc.
I realized that I might be doing the same thing I am accusing you of doing kjd, and not explaining well enough.
On the issue of 3rd party material you bring it up as if it is a problem. However in the other bloat threads, this has not been brought up. That leads me to believe that you are making a common mistake I see around here. You are confusing what may be a problem for "you" as a general problem for "the game".
There can be a huge gulf between "I don't like X" or "X is bad for me", and "X is bad for the system overall".
There are no rules for this. It is more of an "advice" question. The NPC should get a sense motive check to detect deception however. Glue however has a certain consistency to it, so even if it smelled and looked like ___, it should feel different. so they are unlikely to drink the entire bottle. However even drinking some of it should cause a problem. What that problem is, I don't know.
PP does not count, and everything you said is a matter of opinion, and some of it nonsensical.
What does this even mean---> "it is no longer feasible for normal people to contain the set of options available in their brains."
You only need to CRB to understand it so that is a fallacy already.
More things that make no sense and have no meaning, at least as written anyway.-->It becomes shapeless; when all options are available it becomes a mash of stuff that becomes nonsensical.
What does "shapeless" even mean in this context, and nonsensical is also subjective.
This post remind of those pretty little "feel good" quotes that people write, that get a lot of likes, but when you really examine them, they don't hold up to logic.
Yes, I am aware that you said some good things, so don't take it as an attack, but you have not made any claims not made by anyone else, or supported them any better.
How big is too big? Why is it too big, especially when nobody is forcing you to use the options. Every AP can be played by the players with the CRB alone. A GM might need to look up a magus or some other class, but he does not need the entire book the magus is in to run it.
Yeah had multiple tabs open and opened post in the wrong thread. But it's the shards of sin ap just hit third level. 4-5 players depending on week. No third party. Class are swashbuckler, alchemist, barb, wizard, witch. There is also a lot of we all have dark vison so we will cast darkness and just pound on these ppl that can't see and other moves like that. So adding more of the same mooks that can't hit them does not help. They get up set cause I don't use xp. My argument is that non of you where in danger of getting hurt so you would not have learned anything from that fight. I'm kinda getting to the point where I wanna recreate all the npcs min/maxing them the way the players did.
I have never played shattered star. However using darkness like that is good tactics not min-maxing. What I would do is have some bad guys run away. It is better to retreat than not fight like you want. If they can get to the BBEG or someone higher up they can let the BBEG know what to expect, and he can have something in place to counter the darkness.
You can say "You feel as if the person is hiding information", or "You feel as if ___ is not acting normally".
From here the PC's still have to get the NPC to divulge the information .
It may be better to just have the NPC lie if you don't like the hunch rule they have a decent bluff check since that would have a higher DC than a "hunch".
A good time to use the hunch rule: If someone is hiding the truth, to protect themselves, not necessarily to harm the PC's. As an example if a local gang is collecting protection "insurance" from local businesses, they might not want to say anything to anyone, but you a certain topic might give the PC's a "hunch" that they are hiding something.
Q: Can UMD be used to bypass the personalizations?
I think it depends on the personalization, but even then it would be something a buyer may not want to pay full price for if he was trying to sell the item. The OP is working under the opinion that the game works like movies and the magic item will be kept for life.
There is also the opinion that your enemy will not have your alignment or class abilities. Evil people as an example are probably going to be killed by more evil people than anyone else. Even in this setting it would just make evil people target evil people more, if item stealing is common.
So you basically wanted a Strix that looked different? If so I don't see the issue, but this goes back to what I said before, and maybe in the other bloat thread, about some things being trivial to a player that the GM thinks are really important.
Because the game is not designed in such a manner as to have magic weapons made and sold like that.
Also in most games, and in official campaigns settings magical items being stolen is not really a problem.
If a setting assumes people will rob magic item shops then I would assume the setting would have guilds and/or magic ways to deter/prevent theft.
Now you might say "Then rob the adventurers". The problem here is that adventures are professional(assessment of skill not legality) killers, and if you misjudge the mark(person/group you intend to rob) they may end up killing you and taking your stuff.
Did you really not understand my point, or you just trying to argue semantics. If you didn't I will explain in detail.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
I don't think it is a matter of "importance", but many GM's can't get behind something unless they like it enough. Some playstyles or adventures just don't suit some people.
As an example I can't really run a game where the players expect to trounce every encounter and want to get +5 weapons at level 5. I am not saying it is wrong to like that game, or run it, but that GM won't be me. <----Yes, I met a GM who gave things out like candy.
Taking 10 does not equal "If you fail bad things can't happen". You can take 10 in situations where failure leads to bad results.
You can not take 10 if you are in danger or distracted.
What counts as a distraction is up to the GM but the results of a failed check are not what was intended. With that line of thinking taking 10 is almost impossible for any skill.
Knowledge check: Oh, no if I don't identify this monster it might kill us and eat us.
Swim check: If I fail this swim check in this lake with no current, I make stay for 30 seconds too long, and that might be enough for the BBEG to activate device X
craft: If I don't make this bow properly I could once again be delayed and it can end the world due to me running out of time.
The point is this--> A character knowing that something bad may happen is not a distraction because when you think about it something can always happen if you fail a check.
Climbing while someone is shooting arrows at you likely means you can not take 10. Climbing with nobody trying to kill or capture you is likely not going to be a problem.
The hunch rule is there to let the player know that someone may not be 100% honest. I just have NPC's who are not honest roll a bluff check, and if they don't beat the bluff check, they(PC's) don't know the NPC is being dishonest.
Basically bluffing in my games is used to hide the truth, not just for outright lies. I don't think it is a bad use of the skill, even if it is not RAI.
I would like if they were to just have a blog on the issue of intent, but then state for word space reasons the CRB won't be errata'd. It won't really change my games much, but it might stabilize the "Is this evil" topics that come up.
Side note: I think certain spells such as the "protection from ____" should not even have an alignment.