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. 2,581 posts (33,478 including aliases). 3 reviews. 6 lists. 3 wishlists. 25 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,018 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:


OK then, is it fair to the GM that now has to make up from scratch some kind of extra little nugget because one player doesn't like the already-established-in-lore item?

Is it fair to the rest of the players if the GM decides not to add in this potentially cool item because one guy doesn't like it?

Fairness is not a one-way street and should never be determined by the desires of one player.

It took me about 2 seconds to get the idea of letting people progress in their own class. It is not like the GM has to come up with a feat, spell, and so on just to even this out.

"ok, you have levels in _____"<---Done.

edit: and nobody has to go without getting something. See how easy that was.

And how does the GM give the player those levels. The other players have to hunt for some ancient relics to use, does this one guy get them by GM fiat?

What if the guy doesn't want the GM affecting his character at all? Is it the GM's job to make the guy take something just to keep up?

No quest is needed. Make the item do what the players want it to do based on what class they want.

Personally I dont see a difference between leveling up between by XP and a magic item as long as everyone does it at the same time. In that case the GM is not forcing anything on the player from my point of view, so unless the player is just not understanding the GM I dont see that taking place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Penalties from the same source don't stack. Even rikkan's quote says that. He just overlooked it. You take the worse of the two.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


I think being able to take a lot of damage so other people do not die makes him "not a sponge" I am sure that cure light wounds wand is cheaper than a raise dead or other spell had that same damage gone to someone else, or had the barbarian been dominated due to a lower will save and done the killing himself.
I would argue that not taking that much damage in the first place is a better option than get hitted and wait to not get killed or be affecter by a rider effect.

Of course not being hit is better than being hit, but if you want a barbarian with AC it can be done, and even a hit barbarian is less expensive than a dead party member. With that being said, if the bad guys realize they can't hit PC _____ then a tactical GM will have to change targets to someone they can hit.

No, I am not saying it is a good idea to have low AC. I am saying that the barbarian is less of a resource drain that other alternatives.

PS: Even when I run fighters I tend to go for two handed weapons because the quicker you kill the bad guys the less likely you are to take damage so the best defense can be a good offense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
I tend to think that when disparity between character ability score arrays happens it is less of a problem mechanically than proponents of point-buy make it out to be.

It can be a real problem and this is from the guy that normally rolls well. And I have a friend who always rolls poorly for them. It also does not help that my system mastery is a lot better than his. At least with point buy things would have been a lot closer. Just to be clear I am not saying it is always a problem, but when it is a problem, it tends to be very noticable when someone rolls very well, and someone is barely above commoner level. As a player and GM I don't find that it is worth the trouble. I mean I could fudge rolls behind the screen or do other things to even things out, OR I can just create less work for myself and use point buy or a stat array.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
I don't see why high Int and Wis people wouldn't rather make money via crafting as oppose to almost dying adventuring.

For some it is just the thrill of the adventure, and it is likely better money than staying home, assuming money is the main motivation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I noticed how he ignored every point you made also Tacticslion. Maybe he can come back and address the points instead of quoting you out of context. A mature discussion can't be too much to ask for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
I would think that something that important and centrally thematic to your character you would WANT to gain in a flavorful and story driven way rather than stuffed into a random loot drop.

As a player if I intend to make a story around an item how I got the item is not a factor. I could have purchased it, and my story could be the seller did not see how special it was. Or maybe it was supposed to be an ordinary purchase, but if it allows me to roll a few crits at the right time then I could later one believe it was my fate to have it, while in reality it was all luck.

If I got it from an enemy I killed I could work that into the story. I don't need all of the extra effort from the GM to work an item into a story, for the same reason I hand-wave shopping as a GM. I just want the item.

As an example I came into a game with a mw longspear, but due to some good luck I am now calling it the spear of destiny.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Remy I will ask a SIMPLE question. Is the weapon or the user of the weapon making the attack of opportunity if you dont have improved Sunder?

I will reply with my own.

Does Mythic Shield Master explicitly call out sunder as a combat maneuver targeting the shield?

I will be glad to read your reply because I am sure it has some excuse built into it when you answer my question. If you can't answer such a simple question for fear of losing ground that tells everyone here exactly what they need to know. You don't even believe what you are saying, nor to do believe an official ruling will agree with you. You are just trying to win a debate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is part of my preference for point buy-->If someone rolls poorly enough they are normally allowed to reroll according to most posters I have interacted with on there boards. In that case why not just remove the inability to roll to low with point buy or stat arrays. For those worried about dumping then say no stat below ____ or not 2 stats below ____ or some other limitation that gives everyone equal points, but removes the dumping or at least limits it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Marthkus, you are aware that, at the very least, all of the Valeros Builds at level 9 have him wearing dex boosters so that he can get the Dex necessary to use his ITWF feat, right?

And those are from official sources. You're just wrong here, sir.

FACT CHECKED: You are correct here.

The rule is still nonsensical. I still don't see most GMs letting it fly.

EVERY GM I know allows it. That includes the hundreds of people I have met online, and the dozens I have met in real life. You are in the minority. Do I need to set up a poll?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By the rules the perception check determines if you get to act in the surprise round. Once they fail they have to use a move action to get a retry, so they would have to wait until normal combat and use a perception check unless the enemy attacks in the surprise round which is what is likely to happen anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The game as a whole does not matter because not everyone is make the argument presented in the opening statement.

The argument comes up when people of varying playstyles sit at the same table. As an example many of the things I allow as a GM are considered to OP at other tables and some people in this forum.

To continue with another example of table playstyle discrepancy I seem to be more willing to allow a PC to die than other GM's. How willing a GM is to allow a PC to die is also a point of contention, just like point buy vs rolling.

None of theses are "game" problems because they are not really problems, just differences in opinion as to what is fun/not fun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously the item is not making the AoO.. :P

So that leaves on other option. Take a guess. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the rules completely cover the situation. When the devs said you can't do it, they kinda expected for you not to try it, but now they may have to make an official ruling. I think a GM will have to make his own rules for it until something official comes out for deciding which properties stay active.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Powerful yes,OP no. Classes can't really be OP, but characters can.

Why-->Because you can have a ____ that just sucks, no matter what the class is. If the class itself was OP then it would always be OP.

Now are some classes easier to use with a lower level of system mastery? Sure.

OP=nobody can handle it without houserules. At best it can only be OP for a certain group, and in that case adjust it for your group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

The only thing that makes a Synthesist bad for the game is the fact that its mechanics can be exploited by the Point Buy System.

In fact, most problems inherent with class design comes in one way or another from there being a serious problem with the Point Buy System.

This is logic fail. If I roll for stats or use a stat array I just put my poor stats in the physical scores and put the better ones in my mental scores= Same results as point buy .

Taking advantage of the mechanics of the class is not the same thing as exploiting them, as exploiting is something you can only do when you have control over your stats which is only possible in a point buy system.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you misinterpret what I am saying is the real problem.

In both cases I control where the stats go. The fact that one gives me greater control does not change much.

It is pretty much the difference between me being able to cheat someone out of a random amount of money/rolling and me choosing to be specific about how much money/point buy I cheat them out of. Either way I am cheating someone out of money. Being able to choose the amount is really irrelevant for the sake of ethics at that point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It is like this, the game assumes certain things so unless you as a GM say no, players will expect them. If you are going to ban something or make it hard to get then just be honest about why. Some GM's wont like something, but wont be honest about why so they make up house rules to make it hard to work. Sometimes they dont even know why they dont like it.

Example: Some GM's don't like Tome of Battle. They say ___ and ___ is why. I prove that is not true. They make up more reasons. I debunk those. Eventually they just say "I still won't allow it because (insert real reason). Well if they had said that up front.....

But the real reason is that they are close minded and prefer their fun over that of the other players (How does Jim being a Crusader affect the way you feel about you?) and that sounds terrible to say up front. I mean would you want to admit that upfront?

I agree, but I dont think they realize that they prefer their fun or that they are being close-minded. But if they did, I do agree they would not want to admit it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 2d6 is added to the weapon damage. It is not applied seperately.

So if your 1d3 is a 1 and your 2d6 is a 12 the math would be 1-3 + 12 for a total of 10.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It is like this, the game assumes certain things so unless you as a GM say no, players will expect them. If you are going to ban something or make it hard to get then just be honest about why. Some GM's wont like something, but wont be honest about why so they make up house rules to make it hard to work. Sometimes they dont even know why they dont like it.

Example: Some GM's don't like Tome of Battle. They say ___ and ___ is why. I prove that is not true. They make up more reasons. I debunk those. Eventually they just say "I still won't allow it because (insert real reason). Well if they had said that up front.....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
In a sufficiently large city anything is readily available.
Unless the GM says no.

That is common sense. We like to assume the normal rules here so that statement was not even needed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
So how bad is it if the GM randomizes loot and magic shop items? (Its assumed that this information is known at session zero.)

The melees will suffer more than casters will if the GM ignores the 75% rule.

Personally I would play a caster and likely take the item creation feats(not all of them) just to help the martials out. If you houseruled the creation feats into uselessness then I would be more like to make an optimized caster to make up the difference and help the front line out.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Every class gets powercreep when a new book comes out such as APG. Why is the barbarian getting harassed lately when he is like a toddler in caster town?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Teatime42 wrote:

I asked in Rules just to clarify that it was not pathfinder rules, and having received confirmation, am now here asking for help in rectifying the issue. :)

Other thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qth7?Spellbook-as-scrolls-and-related-shenanig ans#1

I'm gonna try and keep this short.

Wizard is using spellbooks as scrolls, and acted like it was how it was supposed to work. He was a player who learned in 2nd edition, so likely not malicious (Since that was a popular 2nd edition homebrew rule).

I'm now asking for advice because:

The wizard used this as part of a loophole that ended up with him getting near infinite Wish usages (Before the game even started!), and a crap ton of money/valuable items (I have no idea how it works, cept for "Pretty well actually"). This is part of the reason why he is has 30 int, he should have around 22 or so otherwise. The GM managed to incorporate this into the campaign (And that level 20+ Wizard is coming to get his stuff back :P), he did not raise many objections at the time, the Wizard being a good friend, the person who is GMing the other Pathfinder game we're in, and is supposed to be the second most experienced player in our group.

The Wizard is casting higher level spells (Those he has no slot for (Max of level 3 spells, spell is level 4), but could eventually cast when he levels), and saying it's fine because it's in the spellbook, he "Knows" it as a result. He does have the stat for it as a result. (Clarification, it was pointed out at rules that he can still ADD higher level spells to his rulebook. I think this is likely how he got the Wish spell, I bet he added it to spellbook somehow, and then cast it from his spellbook, since his interpretation was that it was reusable).

I don't think the Wizard is being malicious, he's just very mistaken. The GM is new, and learning, and got steamrolled by an experienced player. Aside from this, the game is going GREAT, and most everyone is really enjoying themselves. :)

I am a neutral third party, and...

The book tells you at what levels you can cast spells. Having in your spellbook does not mean you can cast it.

Spellbooks do not work as scrolls, and there is no rule that says it does. The rules are permissive, and they tell you what you can do, so if there is no rule saying he can, then he can't.

As for casting spells from a spellbook he has to be able to prepare that spell. He can't do it without a spell slot of that level, and the book has a chart that says when those slots become available. For wizards 9th level spells become available at level 17.

If he wants to argue otherwise tell him to quote the rule from the book that he is using. Pathfinder is not AD&D so he can't go by the way things "used to be".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is the simple truth--> 99.9999% of the time "______ is OP/broken" is false. For that to be true _____ has to cause a problem at most tables. The only problem is that the OP of such statements does not like ____, and wants to use their playstyle as the baseline of what should be. Once they realize their style of play is nothing more than their style of play, they can just adjust _____ for their group and keep it moving.

You(general statement) don't like _____. Well that is fine, but don't think what you don't like is "wrong".

On the recent sub-topic, the system is not perfect, but having players together with highly different levels of optimization and ability to play the game can(not will) cause a problem so the fault does not lie 100% with the system or the players. The problem is a result mechanics and players to include the GM at time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
A character without mythic tiers should not be able to stand against an optimized tier 10 mythic anything.

An yet, a 20th level non-mystic full-caster can make a mystic pretty-much-anything-except-another-caster his b%*%# with a spell or two.

Seriously, look at all the absurd stuff casters can do at high levels. You are saying Barbarians are overpowered because they have good saving throws... ¬¬'

A well built MT 10 fighter will wreck ANY non mythic level 20 caster.
How exactly? Is there a mythic champion power that creates an antimagic field? Because without the support of his own mage, how exactly does any pure martial character do ANYTHING to a 20th level caster?

hahaha. Champion is for un-optimized fighters. Guardian + mythic vital strike is the way to go.

Basically you are invincible, your ranged attack does like 120 damage and your melee is instant death. So you get within throwing range, mythic initiative and chop off 240 hp from the caster.

The caster has to go full batman mode to even begin to handle you and one mistake leads to them being dead.

If they are ever foolish enough to get within 30ft, they die.

** spoiler omitted **...

Not impressed. Caster will go first. He goes into timestop. Cast gate a few times. He can get a caster level of +24 at minimum to control being in a few CR 23 and higher monsters. They throw spells at the fighter who eventually rolls a 1. Game over. They can also sunder his gear or any other number of bad things. Actually he can cast maze and quicken gate and keep bringing in monsters until the fighter escapes maze. The fighter then has to bypass miss chance and mirror image assuming he can even get to the mage.

PS: I can guarantee at minimum an init of 30+ for the caster.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
A character without mythic tiers should not be able to stand against an optimized tier 10 mythic anything.

An yet, a 20th level non-mystic full-caster can make a mystic pretty-much-anything-except-another-caster his b%*%# with a spell or two.

Seriously, look at all the absurd stuff casters can do at high levels. You are saying Barbarians are overpowered because they have good saving throws... ¬¬'

A well built MT 10 fighter will wreck ANY non mythic level 20 caster.

Is that level 20 fighter with 10 mythic tiers? If so my money is on the non mythic caster. The fighter is getting his arse kicked. Don't let some fancy mythic label fool you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Monsters that push their CR Rating or even go above what they are assigned. That is as a GM and player.

I also like classes/ways to play that force GM's to think outside the box a little and get rid of conventional strategies.

I also say this as a GM and player.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
J-Gal wrote:
I'm not bashing the way anyone wants to play their homebrew settings, but when you're in what one could call the "typical D&D setting" these races should be incredibly rare and specific to a location. How all these weirdos come together in one group all the time is just ridiculous at best and absolutely immersion breaking at its worst.

You know that not all "D&D" settings are human-centric nor do they require all of the "other" races to sit in their own little corner of the world right?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
J-Gal wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Welp, that seals it. I wouldn't want to be stuck in such a "classic" game and am grateful it's not the default assumption.
It's a matter of realistic roleplay to me. If it were up to me entirely, I would only allow humans in my game because I find them the only race someone can relate to. However, I am giving up some ground, and I'm usually okay with one person to play a "weird race", if they actually roleplay what it MEANS to be such a being. I find that most players play the same way whether they are a human or an elf or a Half-Dragon Half-Demon Half Angel monstrosity.

What it means varies by each person and the setting. Being a different face does not mean they have to act differently. The other races are also humanoids, and while the books give background on the typical elf or dwarf as an example I sure the entire race is not cookie cutter, just like humans aren't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I know that the rules for reach weapons don't allow them to attack adjacent foes, but can I use the improvised weapon rules to say that the weapon my longspear most resembles is a club and therefore use it to attack adjacent foes? I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?

No you can't. They made an archetype to specifically allow it at the -4 penalty to start off. If they intended for you to be able to do it anyway they would not have made a special ability that allows you to do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Your point is that the strongest feat in the game does a lot to level the playing field. This is true, but taking Leadership is in no way limited to martial classes.

Agreed. But feats that level the playing field must be considered.

The playing field is not all that level. The fighter picked up a caster. The wizard can grab a cleric, and that cleric(cohort) might actually be better than the fighter. The wizard with a cleric supporter just pulled farther ahead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The closest you can get are the rings of fortitude in the ultimate equipment guide that I know of. There is no spell that does what you want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:

Well, to be frank, I think it's beside the point. I can certainly see how "going berserk, hitting a bro, and then calming down" every turn seems weird.

People are too focused on the word "rage", and read it as angry or berserk. It never says the barbarian gets angry. It is not much different than the focus you see in an MMA fight when one fighters gets the chance to go "ground and pound" on an opponent. They are not upset. They just enter a hyperstate of "finish the opponent".

As soon as the ref ends the fight those guys are back to normal again. I see no reason why a barbarian can not enter and leave such a state voluntarily.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
aegrisomnia wrote:
The whole concept of being able to selectively turn your "rage" on and off is immersion-shattering. The real solution is for the GM to decide when the conditions are satisfied for a Barbarian to rage,

That is a solution for you. If a GM told me he had that houserule I would simply not play a barbarian, and that has to do with control over my character since I have never rage cycled anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Riuken wrote:
Resource management is the reason this play style started, and why it works, but the end result looks like arrogance and/or laziness.

How so? Would it be better to keep slinging spells and find yourself and the party in a bad situation because you wasted all of your useful spells on a fight that was already won?

That is just smart gameplay. Even when I a martial I don't like casters blowing spells if it is not needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It will not always get save. As an example telling the evil NPC might not allow a second save. It just depends on his personality. If he is only there for gold he may have no problem killing someone that is on his team. Against your nature is not the same as "I don't want to do this right now".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
it's unfair to fighters, and other martial characters, especially fighters whom have one weapon they specialize highly in. it doesn't do much to archers, but it cripples melee builds, especially 2WF fighters.

That's what DR is designed to do though. . . DR is there to tone down the damage of Fighters so that fights can last longer. If having random + weapons overcome DR negates that, then DR isn't having the game effect it was designed to have.

That's like me saying its unfair for Spellcasters to have to overcome spell resistance-- thing put into the game to hinder spellcasters hindering them is as intended, not unfair.

DR hindering martials is as intended, not unfair.

There is only 1 SR. There are many types of DR so it is not the same. They don't even work in the same manner. One is all or nothing, and the other is a reduction, but a caster can almost autobypass SR if he really wants to. Martials can't.

PS: Before you even ask me how. A caster can get close to +10 bonus to his caster level through various means.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes it is called the golf bag affect because in order to overcome DR you needed a weapon for every alignment(evil, lawful, chaotic, good). You also need one for piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing. You also need to over come silver, cold iron and adamantine.

Now some of these could be combined so you don't have to carry 8 or 9 weapons, but just like a golf bag you needed a different weapon(golf club) for what you need to do. It is less costly and more realistic to not have to carry so many weapons.

edit: As the rules are now one weapon can overcome almost all of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
osopolare wrote:

If one of my players started Rage Cycling I'd first tell him or her to stop it 'cause it's obvious cheese.

In PFS you might be stuck because it seems to be allowed per RAW. But that's hey, organized play is full of stuff like that.

Would you prefer he play a caster and do a lot worse things?

Btw cheese is subjective so it is not always obvious. This is not even all that powerful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

Nobody here is objecting to barbarians being able to spell sunder and so forth; just questioning whether a GM should allow them to use a loophole to do it every round when that's not RAI.

I'd probably invent a house rule that these powers cost X rounds of rage every time you use them.

It does work by RAI. You not liking it does not make it RAI. Even if it was an unintended consequence it would still be RAI just means the RAW matches the intent, which it does. Being able to combine it with something from 4 other books for a greater affect does not make it NOT RAI. It might however mean a restriction is needed, but in this case I am not seeing the problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
VisionTron wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Really? THE ONE NICE THING MARTIALS GET and people complain??? Do people REALLY hate martials that much...

LOL actually I prefer martial classes myself to the cowardly mage types, but rage cycling is NOT the only nice thing available and I have yet read anyone post anything to CONVINCE me it is not OP.

You have said nothing that proves rage cycling is a problem. So far all I hear is that you don't like it. What exactly is the problem?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In case the topic of the GM killing you after you held back comes up:
If I hold back the GM should not kill my character since I could have survived. A brand new blank character sheet is not a good reward for being a team player.

PS: "I" is not referring to me specifically. It is referring to anyone who is being told to hold back in certain situations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Malachi are going against the "official" ruling again?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Thank goodness this is a campaign trait; at least rogues remain viable outside of Mummy's Mask.

How does the trait make them less viable? If I want trapfinding I can just go with two ranger archetypes or a bard achetype. If another class having access to trapfinding makes a rogue not viable then it was not viable before this trait was created.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlord wrote:
memorax wrote:
Before the publication of this trait The Rogues had the class feature of being able ability to disarm magical traps. With this trait you don't even need a Rogue. A bard with this trait is imo better than a Rogue. Sure sneak attack damage is great. Except you have to specialize in ranged version of that. Or get torn apart in melee. The trait: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finder
Actually this trait isn't as bad for the Rogue as it looks at first glance. Sure, it may be one more Rogue thing that Non-Rogues will have access to... but it's also available to the Rogues and it is awesome for actual Rogues. It allows them to drop Trapfinding with an Archetype and get it back with a trait, giving them freedom gain some of their more powerful archetypes with only the cost of Trapsense.

That is how I see it also. The rogue gets the best of both worlds this way. It would cost a trait, but it is only a trait.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There is no such thing as cheese across the board, only what your group does and does not like, so no it is not cheese. If you don't like it, then it means it does not suite your playstyle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It seems the problem is like it was in 3.5. Some of us want our martials to be strictly martial, anything we consider to be magic or too far beyond "normal" makes us not like it. Others of us want our martials to be able to do extraordinary things and we can see accept that level X martials can do these things without being magic because they are that damned good.

The core game is not being rewritten, so an add-on system such as the mythic system or TOB's would fit. That way GM's/groups the want it can have it, and those that don't care for it won't have to worry about it.

What do you mean by strictly martial?

Anything a normal person in our world might have trouble doing, such as punching people and turning them into stone, hitting the ground hard enough so that nearby enemies fall down and/or turning the area into difficult terrain because you punched it so hard = That must be magic so martials should not be able to do it to some people.

And saying play E6 or E8 is not what most people want to hear, and it wont help both sides resolve their differences in versimilitude.

I am all for extraordinary things, but as the game is now, the modular/optional approach is the best way to do it in order to satisfy both sides.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems the problem is like it was in 3.5. Some of us want our martials to be strictly martial, anything we consider to be magic or too far beyond "normal" makes us not like it. Others of us want our martials to be able to do extraordinary things and we can see accept that level X martials can do these things without being magic because they are that damned good.

The core game is not being rewritten, so an add-on system such as the mythic system or TOB's would fit. That way GM's/groups the want it can have it, and those that don't care for it won't have to worry about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Improved Trip and the spiked chain should have been left alone. Power attack was nerfed also.

I never know any GM's let you hit something that was beyond your reach. If it was a houserule they should have kept it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Due to the 1/day encounters expect for players to catch on and nova. If I run this again I am going to make those fights more difficult.

1 to 50 of 1,018 << 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.