|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Asking for feedback here without an actual playtest would be a terrible idea. Too many people here think their way is the correct way to play and someone's underpowered is someone's overpowered. A playtest cant be done for every possible errata due to the employees being so busy.
PS: I don't care much for the newest errata either.
I think there is a difference between unbalanced and gamebreaking.
Yeah those featherstep slippers were priced way below their value, but the tremor boots have been errata'd into "not worth buying at all".
The Falcon bracers(forgot the real name) could also have been adjusted better than they were as well as some other items.
Knight Magenta wrote:
Playtesting is hands-on for the Paizo staffed and they are always backed up as is.For the most part the staff does well, but I do agree there were a few botches IMO with this current errata.
I also don't want PFS to determine the rules for my homegame. They are not the gold standard and many of the rules there exist to give everyone the same experience.
If you're not likely to be critically hit more than once per day, doesn't that effectively translate to immunity to critical hits? What's the appropriate price point for an item that provides that immunity without any real competition in its slot?
Pretty much. Now I have seen multiple crits at higher levels, but even then it is rare for one player to take more than one crit a day. I haven't sat down and come to a definite better solution, but maybe limiting the crits to 1 per week might work, or maybe dropping it to a 50% or 75% chance to avoid the crit.
Paying 5000 for a +1 deflection bonus is not the answer though when better items fit that slot.
I am going to be blunt here. This topic comes up from time to time with sorcerors and wizards, and unless the GM is very nice(goes out of his way to not kill you) and/or you are highly favored by the dice gods this is not going to work.
Your AC, attack bonus and damage(with a weapon) are going to suffer so much that you won't really be good in combat. Full BAB classes that are 5 levels or more below you will do this better than you. Even using the polymorph school of magic and changing into another creature will not help.
Short version: Do not go into melee combat expecting to do well.
I didn't even catch that the first time around. That is ridiculous. Now you are not likely to be crit more than once a day so that part is really good, and in my opinion is the main feature of the item. I would rather for them to raise the price and/or drop the AC bonus.
Not cool at all. Those stars don't mean nearly as much as they think they do when it comes to the rules anyway.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
It does not have trap language because it is not a trap, and it does not function like a trap. It just a spell that lets the bad guys know you are there. Traps actually do bad things to you. This spell does not attack you in any way at all. It is not much different than a magic mouth spell with how it can give you away.
It is however another reason why stealth is difficult to use in Pathfinder.
Most of the time when I see this it is because some previous GM had it as a houserule, and never told the players it was a houserule.
Nobody has the entire book memorized and anyone can misinterpret a rule, but barring crazy combinations I expect for the GM to understand the rules most of the time.
Nobody agrees with another person on everything in my experience. It is not realistic. I would like for him to be willing to work with the player, but sometimes the answer is just "no". Players need to seperate "he disagrees with me" from "he is clueless".
I do expect for a GM to inform me of any houserules and not just make rules up randomly. That would be annoying to me.
As an example if I am ruining the encounters of a GM I would prefer that he talk to me about the problem so we can work together and find a common solution than to fudge dice and/or use other methods to try to negate my character in that regard.
This is not a rules question. Rules questions are to find out how a rule works in game. You want to know why a rule exist and/or why it works the way it does with regard to typical tropes of the small dex based character compared to larger characters and the larger character having an unusual advantage.
The answer is this is an abstraction, and you went with the hulk vs black widow. Yes in real life the hulk, the thing or any other similar sized combatants are not putting their hands in your pockets, but this is Pathfinder and reality(I can swim in lava) went out the window a long time ago. <----That is pretty much how I look at a lot of things instead of trying to make sense of them.
Also CMB's and skill bonuses are pretty even barring some extreme build.
At level 11 as an example you can see a CMB bonus of about +20
barbarian with strength surge, size modifers(non class specific), and other things can increase this number
add skill focus and other feats for another 10
I have mindflayers, beholders, the dolgaunt from the Eberron setting, and I am working on adding psionics races from DSP.
Noble Drow have the "see in darkness" ability.
As for NPC's most GM's play up important NPC's or give them a name. The random shopkeeper is not likely to be important so you are likely wasting your time talking to him unless you just like to RP.
As for knowledge of the setting you might want to talk to the GM to find out what he considers to be common knowledge and what requires a knowledge roll. Just because your fellow player has a lot of knowledge about the world, that does not mean his character always should. From that point you can decide which knowledges you need to invest in to really shine of if you can basically ignore knowledge skills.
I won't say it is OP, but it is a game-changer.
If you(the party) are not in a rush to get through a dungeon you can sit around for 3 minutes and get 30 points of healing back, and not too many adventures have you on a clock for every dungeon. That saves you money on wands, and it helps the party save resources such as spells and channels.
As long as the GM is ok with the party fighting a littler longer than they would otherwise it is not much of an issue.
In other words, look at how your want your games to play out and then decide.
The game has specific rules for disguising things/people and hiding them. Armor is not one of them. Like someone said a deathknight can't be identified if that is the case. You would not know if it was a deathknight, human, aasimar, or some other humanoid shaped creature in that armor.
PS(another example): Someone could also animate a suit of armor and you would not be able to identify it as an animated object.
RAW has to be interpreted. It seems you understand the intent of the rule is to bypass a DC of 10 without being trained.
So I will now ask what is the purpose of this thread. Do you want Paizo to rewrite the rules so the language is tighter?
They only thing they can do is hit point damage, and they are not even always the best at that.
Barbarians are right with them and sometimes ahead, and they have out of combat utility without having to go into archetypes.
Barbarians can also have a decent AC, and if they go with the cookie-cutter build that boost DR they are ahead better in hit point defense. They can also get higher saves with superstition. They also have more hit points.
The fighter is better at archery, but that is not "everything". It might be the only thing they can claim as being consistently better at than a barbarian.
Overall the fighter is behind rangers, especially when you know hat enemies you will be fighting. Paladins are also ahead, unless the GM goes out of his way to mess with them.
Your player is mostly just repeating things he has heard others say. A castering that focuses on someone else's job will not do his own job, and there is no justification for what he wants his barbarian to be able to do. When the party casters start to out damage him then he can complain, but only if he has a decent build, and no way to be THE damage guy. Even then the solution can be found without 3.5 solutions.
Also not everything from 3.5 goes well with Pathfinder. Some things in 3.5 are too good for 3.5. <----I would only allow certain things on case by case basis.
That barbarian will do well without the 3.5 options.
A lot of things are evil/bad/dishonorable in D&D/Pathfinder because of fantasy tropes. Poison is almost always something only the villain would use. The heroes don't go around raising undead to fight for them. Making bargains with demons is something that evil people in fantasy stories.
So D&D in its attempt to bring it over made it objectively bad to do these things.
Some people want this fantasy in their games while others do not like the objective "This is bad..".
The intent is there<-----That most likely goes without saying.
I think that rallying against it will only make Paizo put it in more concrete terms, so it is likely better to just say "I know what PF wants, but in my games.....".
Dark Die High wrote:
The game rules disagree with you, and so do the game designers. It is not really about telling someone how to play something. The gameworld assumes that deities only grant power to those who further their goals.
If deity X is the god of happiness, life, and all things good then some psychopath out killing random people, or <insert other bad thing> is not going to be doing what the deity wants so there is no reason to give said cleric/inquisitor/paladin/etc any more power. Let him go to some other deity to get it.
The same would apply to a deity of death and carnage granting powers to someone who is out kissing babies, and walking old ladies across the street.
Technically there is no spell "summon monster", so there is no spell description to reference. Now if it said as though it were "summon monster I", it'd be a little more questionable.
Yeah, but we all know it refers to the "summon monster" line of spells.I don't think it helps to get into technicalities when we know what the intent of the wording(summon monster) was. The goal here is to find how the SLA is supposed to work, not to get into a "how pandemic can we get" contest.
Just to make sure you get what I am saying--> You are arguing against the words, and not the point that was presented. It does not help.
I don't think anyone is saying one evil spell automatically makes you evil. Many might say that repeated castings without balancing(determined by the GM) acts would make you evil by the rules. There is no hard number(X many acts changes your alignment) because it will always vary by table.
I think many times they are arguing from a rules-based perspective, and not necessarily how they would run it in a game.
The protection from ____ spells are an example of that. I know what the rules say, but I would never enforce.
PS: I know some would enforce it, but luckily I have never had to deal with it.
I'm fine with spells being evil (or other alignments), as long as why there is an explanation for why they are evil (or other alignments.) The protection from alignment spells are the biggest offender in this regard if you ask me.
Those make no sense to me either. If some bad guy planar binds an angel, and I cast protection from good it is an evil act. That makes no sense at all.
I have never seen it enforced. I am just saying that is what the rule is. I think many of the "this is evil/good" rules are in place to avoid opinion based ideas, and because the game assumes heroic fantasy, and the "hero" is supposed to make things right, even if he has to be less efficient.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Having the the fist be made of adamantine would make it logical, but its not stated anywhere.
Here is what I think should have happened
"Even though the admantine golem is not entirely made of adamantine it's natural weapons still overcome DR and hardness as if they were a manufactured admantine weapon."
That nonsense about there only being enough for one golem on a planet(Golarion) should also have never been printed.
If that is all he does then yes, but I am sure that for every spell he cast, he does enough evil to keep him on the evil alignment scale.
On the flipside, if a good caster spends a lot of time casting evil spells he can keep his good alignment if he also does good deeds.
The GM's role is not the same as the players so he is not as limited. I really don't see it as metagaming. As a GM you have to adjust the adventures at times. As an example I have GM'd for less than optimal parties. Had I ran the adventure as written it would have led to TPK's. I have also ran for superoptimized PC's who could have each had a good chance to solo the BBEG.
There are times a GM can give NPC's knowledge they should not have. That is different from adjusting the game for the good of the group.
While I tend to let the PC's have their own rolls I don't assume that every GM who rolls some dice for the players is trying to control them. Some people will metagame. Others will not. As an example, a disease does not show its effects until the next day after the save. If you roll a low number vs a disease carrying monster you should not be looking to cure a disease. The character does not know he failed the save.
DM Buckeye wrote:
Silence stops cackle. It doesn't stop all of the witch hexes. There is an FAQ on it.
I would argue that making bad decision in combat is actually poor roleplaying if you know better, and that is a hinderance to good gaming unless the GM is holding your hand.
I would also argue that my above statement does not promote good will between board members, but neither does calling someone a roll-player.