|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Also they might need to modify the rule to something like:
You are speaking as if there is a 0% chance this is not an error. Maybe that is not what you meant to do, but that is how it comes across. To say there is a high chance they intended it is one thing. To speak as if there is no way there didn't get past the editors when so many other things have just makes no sense at all especially since the books are not written with the precision of a technical manual, and the number of FAQ's and erratas that have been done, to include the ones that need to be done right now.
I will admit that it could be possible, but to say "this can't not be an error because they didnt' do it this way with any other traits" is not something that makes sense to me. That is like saying they will never miss anything when it comes to a trait bonus, not even if they write 1000000000 books.
Also the wording the book could be read as:
It could also be read as:
We all know this. The point of the thread is to know if not mentioning it is on purpose or an editing error. If they say ____ is the default then we know it was an error. If they say "trait" has to be mentioned then we know it was not an error, and that future traits that don't mention the "trait bonus" are also not an error.Considering the many errors and unclear rules in the game it is not logical to assume the premise must be wrong...
edit: If that logic held then haste would not have been errata'd to no longer say "held weapons" which by that wording meant it was not meant for natural attacks when it actually was.
If you watch a lot of fantasy movies such as conan or read fantasy novels there not many prisoners taken. Typically in groups nonlethal damage is not the order of the day unless the group is trying to keep someone alive to ask them questions. That is why doing nonlethal damage gives you a penalty to your attack, and you need a feat in order for spells to do nonlethal damage.
I have spared NPC's as a PC, but they were the low level mooks who I didnt think would come back to haunt me later. In such cases the group did not mind, but if the group was like "I dont trust him", then I would not have tried to stop them.
Sliska Zafir wrote:
I've run for at least one group where teamwork was not the word of the day ever. Some people also optimized harder when faced with restrictions, but are more likely to put some resources into flavor if given additional points. I would say your assessment works depending on the group, and is not an across the board truth.
Some power gamers do cooperate, and that can actually make it harder to GM than when they only worry about spotlight time. You could have had a powerful summoner casting haste on that gunslinger as an example.Also if that witch was using Prehensile hair it can not use weapons.
GTW was not speaking badly of those classes. She made that comment about not allowing those classes as a play on Derek's comments about the allowing the unchained classes.
His logic is basically that the unchained classes add nothing to the game since the original classes work fine so he won't allow the unchained classes.
The classes she named are played by many people because they are better than the core classes in many people's opinions so she is saying "by that logic these classes should not be played either".
Derek Dalton wrote:
Not everyone's games are the same. "Did ok in my games" does not mean they are ok.
I really doubt you are much better than most of the board members here at system mastery when it comes to Pathfinder and many of the better ones have had problems with rogues and monks. There are numerous threads on the topic. If you have a solution feel free to present it, but assuming people are weak players is 100% incorrect. Even the devs admitted the monk and rogue had issues. Normally when these topics come up the defense often comes up with a rogue is not supposed to be in combat, and/or to not rely so much on sneak attack.
PS: Most of those comments were about the core rogue and monk. Things such as the zen archer archetype tend to do well.
PS2: House rules to help them out or GM's taking it easy on those classes whether on purpose or by accident, does not help the case of them not being weak.
That is a different question than the previous one, but my previous answer still applies.
That is not the same thing as saying there is a race that is so behind the curve that you cant use it to make a decent character with any class.
To my knowledge all PC races can be viable with any class that is viable already.
I also dont think you have to intentionally make a bad character in order for it to be almost useless, but I do think it is rare.
I am sure you also know that a nonviable character is not pulling their weight. They don't have to be 100% useless. That is pretty much impossible even if you use an NPC class.
I am really having trouble understanding the point of your question also. It is almost like you are advocating that someone bring a character in that will endanger the party.
I agree they don't need to be equal, but viable on the forums means you are not dead weight in most conversations. If that is what you meant then being viable means you actually get to not die, and not hold the party down.
What's different between SKR's views and the FAQ in regards to Take 10?
The take 10 FAQ says nothing about it being used to like this. They said it was used a rule to help the GM pace the adventure.
When I say "unwritten" rules I mean the design rules that are in place, such as making sure characters of low levels dont get access to certain things or making sure PC's don't come into something they can't deal with.
It seems as if some people are not clear on how rings are activated so I am posting this FAQ in order to get a final answer.
The ring specific rules for activation are as follows.
Activation: A ring's ability is usually activated by a spoken command word (a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or its effects work continually. Some rings have unusual activations, as mentioned in the ring's specific description.
Are the methods to activating a ring limited to command words, the effect continually being in place, and whatever method would be described in a ring's specific description?
If a ring just says it has to be activated, but does not specifically say "on command" or have a special method of activation listed how is that ring activated?
An example of this is the ring of invisibility which just says "By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell".
The GM is not forced to add something just because you say it exist there. If he doesn't you to have random banter going on about the game then he should just say so instead of making up excuses for it.
Saying vampires are in Ustalav is not metagaming, nor does it force the GM to suddenly use a vampire encounter.
The specific FAQ question is bolded at the bottom.
The entry in the APG says that "Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a "trait" bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack".
However, there are traits such as Ease of Faith which do not specifically call out a bonus given by a trait as a trait bonus.
Your mentor, the person who invested your faith in you from an early age, took steps to ensure that you understood that what powers your divine magic is no different than that which powers the magic of other religions. This philosophy makes it easier for you to interact with others who may not share your views. You gain a +1 bonus on Diplomacy checks, and Diplomacy is always a class skill for you.
Are we to assume that all bonuses given by a trait or trait bonuses unless specifically called out as untyped or another type of bonus?Or, is a bonus given by a trait not a trait bonus unless it is specifically identified as a trait bonus in the rules text?
The game is turn based for us but combat in the game world is always going on. I would say you are denied dex until your next turn if you close your eyes, since you can't see attacks that are coming at you while you are also attacking those images.
There are no official rules for closing your eyes.
the figments go invisible also. They always take on the appearance of the caster so if he is invisible so are they. This is good because of if they stayed visible and the caster moves they would give his new location away.
I agree, and part of it is that SKR had some influence on how the rules were being made. With him gone I have noticed the design direction has changed so some "unwritten design rules" are not what they used to be, is what it seems like.
As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.
You obviously did not read my first post or could not comprehend it.
I will try again. There are game rules, and the rules of the social contract for that group. By stepping outside of the social contract the GM can cheat. Rule 0 does not cover the social contract, only the game rules.
Yes, but it really depends on the social contract of the group.
Mostly the GM makes all the rules, and most groups have an understanding that the rules will work a certain way unless they are told they will change.
Other groups don't care about the rules as much.
I would ask the GM does he intend to always go by the rules. I would also ask him to let you know about any rules he plans to ignore.
But it is possible to do both.When presented as an either/or situation we find the Stormwind fallacy.
I think this shows they need to look at that nauseating FAQ again. This is one where they should say certain free actions are allowed with GM discretion because the amount of free actions that not be allowed and still make sense vs those that would not be allowed is too large to list.
You can "turn off" Toughness, but not in the manner people are thinking. Toughness allows you to gain +3 extra HP to start, as well as +1 extra per level at 4th level and up (effectively +1 HP per level). Turning off toughness won't take away those HP any more than turning off the light after you're done in the kitchen meant you were retroactively preparing your sandwich in the dark. Turning off Toughness would mean that, when you level up, you retain the ability to not take the bonus HP if you choose not to (it's a poor decision, but it's yours to make). But after you've taken the bonus HP, it's there to stay. So no, dominating a creature won't allow you to reduce their HP by turning off their Toughness feat, but I can perfectly well see how you should be able to retain the ability to not use a particular feat in a given situation. In order for a feat to be "locked on", it would require an explicit statement to that effect, likely by explicitly stating "You must <whatever the feat does>."
You can't control to not gain hit points any more than you can choose to not take a feat or not to add skill ranks. The character creation section tells you what does happen, not what can happen. When you level you get hit points. They are tied to your class level.
Step 6—Finishing Details: Finally, you need to determine all of a character's details, including his starting hit points (hp), Armor Class (AC), saving throws, initiative modifier, and attack values.
Before the "It only says starting hits points" argument comes up.<--Kazaan I don't think you would have tried to make that claim, but someone else may have.
Characters advance in level according to Table: Character Advancement and Level-Dependent Bonuses.
The process of advancing a character works in much the same way as generating a character, except that your ability scores, race, and previous choices concerning class, skills, and feats cannot be changed.
Interesting. That should probably be FAQ'd.
Before I get started I want to make a something clear.
1. This post is not about which one is better. More on that below. It will be bolded.
2. If this is in the wrong section feel free to flag it and have it moved to another section.
The phrase "if you roleplayed instead of rollplayed" or any similar phrase is offensive, even if you don't mean for it to be, and it should not be used here. It implies a "one correct way to play the game" perspective. Aligning yourself more or less with the rules or being in character is not a better or worse way to play no matter where you fall on the spectrum. It is only a preference.
If you say or imply that if someone were to be less mechanically efficient and/or worry more about the personality aspect of the character they would have more fun as if it is a fact, that is not much better.
In case anyone wants to try the, "but it's not against the rules or guidelines so it is ok" approach.
community guidelines wrote:
There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our messageboards, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there’s another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!
That is all.
PS: That is not nearly as long as I thought it was going to be.
If a player will curbstomp an AP with a 20 point buy they will do it with a 15 point buy. The point buy alone is not enough to warrant a CR increase.
There have been 1000 post here on why people like point buy.
1. It removes situations where one person has super stats and someone else's character has terrible stats, which can have an impact on making combats for the GM.
2. It allows more choice for the player to make the character they want. The character is the only thing they really have full control over so I at least try to give them that.
3. You can't force anyone to RP anything no matter if you use point buy or if you roll. The fact that some people might dump down to that -7 is actually a complaint some have against point buy. On the other hand it is very possible to not roll low enough when rolling to get any negative numbers even after racial adjustment. I have rolled more than one character with scores no lower than a 14, more than once.
Going back to my first point:
1. After everyone rolls a person can choose to use the rolls made by someone else if they want.
2. Just use a stat array. That way you don't have to worry about buying down points, and you don't have to deal with rerolling.
People avoid relationships with family members so they can control who they fall in love with by not being open to the idea at all.
As for objective fun, that is hard to prove, but we can likely show that it is likely a bad idea, which I think is the point being made vs "every group and player will hate this idea". Has Sundakan made the latter argument?
I really dont see how it would make sense.
No, but they still bypass Adamantine DR. I would ask do they bypass adamantine DR if that is what you want to know.The wording of the question matters.
There is no one "this way is correct" with regard to how much to enforce rules.
Personally, I prefer consistency. If you let a player do something, and then later tell them they can't do it, it can cause problems so I just prefer to follow the rules except for special cases. As a player I also like for the rules to not change. It keeps in world consistency for me, which helps with immersion.
It will depend on the feat. There is no general rule that is official that points to yes or no. The game assumes you will do whatever is to your advantage, but there could be corner cases where using certain feats could work against you.
As an example, there is a shield feat that says you get a bull rush attack. It does not present it as an option, but if bullrushing the person puts them out of your attack range then it would not be a good idea to use that feat. That is a feat that I would say is optional even though it is not written as having a choice.
The difference is level of effectiveness, but if you can actually pull your weight then I don't think people would care. It is not so much about "I lost my class features" as it is about "Can I not be a strain on the party?".
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
A stupid wizard is going to be assumed to have an intelligence below 10. He is basically dysfunctional if he can't cast spells, and role playing alone will not keep you alive except for in corner cases. Most campaigns have enemies who will attack you on sight so you will not get a chance to bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate your way to victory.
If you have an idea as to how a wizard that can't cast spells can be useful I would have gone that route, or if a stupid wizard is not the same as a stupid non-wizard that might have been a good angle to go after.
You may want to give some concrete examples if you have not done so already so people have a better idea of what you mean.
This question comes up from time to time. The answer is that it depends on who you ask. Some people still want more. Others feel like we have had enough for a few years now. Personally I like having more material to get info from, even if I might not run a campaign in that part of Golarion.
As an example, if there is some rogue's guild or ninja clan in a certain area, I can borrow that info. Why they are doing business in some area that is far from their base of operations? Trying to find out that out can be a good subplot. It can also be a break from what they are normally used to. Having someone with tech gear show up in Magnimar is another example.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I agree. Paizo has no authority over a table, and <insert game designer X> might get some leverage if a rule is unclear, but if I am knowingly changing the rule it won't matter nearly as much.
Bane Wraith wrote:
That is strange. I don't even know why that exist. There is nothing to stop you from summoning another creature of the exact same type.
Charisma is more about "appearance" than it is about being attractive. It never mentions attractiveness. That is just an assumption people make. James Jacobs explained more as how memorable your appearance is.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Therefore no houserule is needed since it is a non-problem/issue.
I thought you were talking about the Star-Spawn. I didn't notice the ** so I thought the sentences were connected.
Just because someone gives you the stats that does not mean they have to use them. <----That is likely their counter, but we know from 3.5 that if you give something stats the players will try to kill it.
Personally, I don't agree with them since he is an actual creature, and not even the top guy despite being the most famous.
I don't see it as blaming the GM, so much as disagreeing with how to use Cthulhu. What they want Cthulhu to represent can not really be done in Pathfinder unless the group buys in with their idea.
It is more of a "you're doing it wrong" than "this is ALL your fault", and yes there is a difference.