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. 2,630 posts (42,362 including aliases). 3 reviews. 9 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.

1 to 50 of 2,473 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No. The combat chapter said they must be rolled in order.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest

Out of curiosity, why would you want to do them out of order?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Claxon was saying devour soul is a standard action.

With that aside the energy happens on both claw attacks. If a creature delivers ____ as a claw attack or when attacking with a claw then that ____ happens on every claw attack.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Swiftbrook wrote:

With the latest release of errata, this time for Ultimate Equipment, it seems like Paizo has lost sight from where they came and who has built Pathfinder to be the premier RPG game. Pathfinder was born, literally, from the ashes of D&D 3.5 as WoTC tried to burn all traces of it. Lead by the visionaries from the core staff at Paizo, Pathfinder was built by its fans. Based on the OGL and SRD, a beta copy, available as a free download, was sold to eager fans at GenCon 2008. Through open play testing, feedback from hundreds of dedicated fans, and a dialogue between developers and gamers, Pathfinder was honed, refined and delivered at GenCon 2009.

Over the years, through additional play testing, the gamers and developers have continued to expand the Pathfinder game. Through play testing, author open calls and the RPG Superstar contest, we the fans and gamers feel empowered and take part ownership to the Pathfinder game system. The writers and developers of Paizo guide us and refine our efforts as the system grows. It’s our game, and it’s been a good partnership, gamer and developer.

Through the past few releases of errata, it seems like Paizo has forgotten how Pathfinder was built. With no apparent gamer input, chunks of our game have experienced drastic changes. Where many would say sharp chisel and soft mallet, or a fine brush and a steady hand are needed to reshape some item, class or feat, it feels like Paizo has swung a dull axe. Often missing the mark, destroying instead of shaping its target.

These drastic changes hurt. They hurt PCs, they hurt the players who have invested so much time creating and playing the PCs. They hurt the community-Paizo relationship. They hurt even more because the community seems to have no say in the changes. The pain is slow to subside because the Paizo developers rarely reply directly to the questions and concerns raised by the players in response to the changes.

These are opportunities lost for Paizo to make better improvement/errata with...

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:

The recent Ultimate equipment errata made me sad. A bunch of (admittedly strong) items were basically erased. It feels like this is a trend in Paizo erratas and FAQs. Now you might say: "just change it in your home game!" But I play using the PFSRD, and it's impossible to find old printings of items. If I did not already know about the Jingasa (for example) before today, I would never be able to un-patch it.

I don't think Paizo devs are bad at their job, so this made me think about why erratas always feel like this. I believe this is because Paizo is limited to only releasing errata when they reprint the book, and that is an expensive proposition. If an item is broken, they only have one chance to fix it, and its no secret that it is better to have an item that no one uses rather than something that is seen as abusive.

Pathfinder is after all not a video game where the devs can afford to patch every weekend.

My solution is this: Why not playtest the changes? Paizo already has a large number of players in PFS that are used to checking the available resources page when building characters. I am thinking that paizo could release a sort of Paizo Patch Notes, say every 6 months, where they would subtly tweak items and class abilities that are not working as intended. Over those 6 months, players and GMs that play with the patched features could write feedback on how the change feels in actual play. Paizo could even encourage feedback with PFS reroll-boons :)

Once a change has been play-tested for a few patch cycles, it could be locked in for errata for the next printing of the book. This way, no one would be surprised and the community would be more involved in how the game we love is growing and changing.

I think that this sort of iterative updating is expected by people today who are used to continuous balance changes from games like League of Legends or Diablo.


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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
TheJack388 wrote:


And what was wrong with the Jingasa? I mean, you didn't even change the most powerful ability it had, the crit negation. Making the AC bonus a deflection bonus was just a pointless nerf; the actual good part is still there, but now we just don't get that +1 bonus to AC anymore (because the vast majority will be going around with Rings of Deflection instead).

You didn't read the document carefully enough.

They did change the Jingasa's crit negation effect. It now only works once ever, making the whole thing a 3000gp single use ability tacked on to a non-upgradeable hat of deflection.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we need to define what we mean by "showing gratitude". I show gratitude(am happy) for games that are not run badly. If the game is objectively* run badly then I am not grateful.

*showing favortism, being a jerk, trying to screw over the players etc etc.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

What's that got to do with my post?
You seem to expect the DM to get the right answer. I'm trying to point out that the ability of rational argument to get someone there seems rather limited.

Then you misunderstand what I was saying.

I was talking about when the GM doesn't even try to HAVE a rational argument (or even a polite dialogue) when questioned/corrected on a rule. The person I was replying to had noted that the middle of the game session isn't always the time to have such a discussion, and I was mentioning that, sadly, my experience of GMs not being willing to have a discussion has too often NOT been because we're in the middle of a game and not keeping things moving.

I said nothing of whether or not they arrive at the correct answer; in fact, in this whole thread, have I suggested such a thing even once? I haven't gone back and checked, but I don't think I have. Which would mean you're bringing that in on your own and ascribing it to me. Which would be pretty uncool. EDIT: Went back and checked all my posts. Never said a word even implying an expectation that GMs keep getting the right answers, and have made multiple statements in the opposite direction. So do you want to have a dialogue with ME, or am I a stand-in for some hypothetical set of beliefs you've got a beef with?

No, I was referring to things like the time I contradicted a 5-star VO in a rules thread and then received a multi-paragraph email cussing me out. Or the time I asserted that someone in the PFS GM forum got something wrong, and a different multi-star GM jumped in to tell me (and I wish this was hyperbole, but it's not) that I have no right to ever tell a GM that they're wrong. Or when a debate was already ongoing and another 5-star VO found the thread and popped in for no other reason than to name-call everyone who held a certain view (he didn't even address the topic or say why that view was wrong; he just called...

Not cool at all. Those stars don't mean nearly as much as they think they do when it comes to the rules anyway.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

The Alarm spell, it's first level that can completely shut down sneaky characters, non-magic users have no way of spotting it at any level, regardless of their Perception ranks or abilities like Trapfinding. Even magic users have no defense against it until they can cast or afford items that let them use Dispel Magic.

There are other spells that function like traps, but this one lacks that language for some reason.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It really doesn't matter how much damage you can deal out if you can't hit.

High attack bonus + decent damage per hit will trump Very low attack bonus with high damage per hit.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lack of consistency in the rules due to the GM.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Air0r wrote:

Things that bother me? People who insist that something is a rule and always has been (when it isn't and has NEVER been).

Example 1: I had a player claim that rolling 20 on initiative would make you go first no matter what AND doubled your result. "At least, it was like that in 3.5". yeah, no, I don't think so.

Example 2: Tie on attack rolls vs AC go to defender. except that it doesn't. oh and he even did this line again: "At least, it was like that in 3.5".
That is actually just the tip of the iceberg with that guy...

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.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
hasteroth wrote:

I've been encountering this a fair bit lately, the idea that a GM is basically incompetent upon the slightest mistake or smallest deficit in understanding of a rule or rules. And in some cases the slightest misinterpretation of (or disagreement with a player over) a thematic issue.

And I have to ask this general question, to what standard do you hold your GMs to?

At one extreme do you expect GMs to have a perfect recollection of the entire Core Rulebook (and perhaps the accompanying books like Ultimate Combat, APG, etc etc) and how every single rule could potentially interact with others in other books? And would you expect them to agree with you on every single thematic issue (even the Goblin Orphanage)? And would you be unwilling to forgive even the first mistake?
Or do have incredibly low standards and willing to excuse just about any problem?

Or are you somewhere in the middle? Obviously most probably go on a case-by-case basis but some may have a hardline set of standards.

Speaking as a GM who has made his share of mistakes, I'm usually quite forgiving even when the GM is wrong so long as they aren't a dick about it. (Though as both a player and a GM I prefer to keep all but the simplest and most urgent of disputes deferred post-session to minimize disruption).

I'm also interested in hearing anecdotes about disputes with GMs, both resolved positively and not so positively.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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
BAB 11
attribute modifier 7
weapon focus 1
feat +2
=20(basic attempt)

barbarian with strength surge, size modifers(non class specific), and other things can increase this number
skill 11+3(class skill)
attribute modifier 7
You can then go on to

=23(basic attempt)

add skill focus and other feats for another 10
mw item+2, and probably a few other things.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I would want more and better talents for rogues and slayers.

Uh... Do you realize this is a 5E thread?


I didn't. I should have noticed when I saw "PHB 2", but I think I automatically converted it to "book with more classes".

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have mindflayers, beholders, the dolgaunt from the Eberron setting, and I am working on adding psionics races from DSP.
There are also Azlanti still around, but they are very rare.
Kobolds, not goblins are the comic relief. Goblins can be a real threat.

Noble Drow have the "see in darkness" ability.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of people don't really like it, but it is how the game is designed. Pathfinder Unchained allows for alternate rules so you get most of the same bonuses without having the magical item.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would also refuse to be the other players mouthpeice. At best I would say what I wanted to say then relay the other player's comment after that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people like to argue for the sake of arguing. Some of the comments in the thread are proof of that.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like we are changing topics.

There is a difference between "_____ is not evil by the game's intended rules" and "This rule is not logical and it should not be a rule."

At various points people were arguing different points and not realizing it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Letric wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Letric wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

"..and may make ALL Knowledge skill checks untrained."

Everyone can make SOME Knowledge skill checks untrained... those up to DC 10. However, Bardic Knowledge allows ALL checks to be made untrained... regardless of DC.

If you read my post, you will see my arguments against it.

Untrained checks still have the DC10 limit.

I read your post. It does not explain this at all.

If "...and may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained" does NOT mean that you can bypass the DC 10 limit on untrained skill checks then what IS it referring to?

It's now RAW, it's RAI. The rules per se don't allow you to bypass the DC10, unless someone said they so in some occult post 5 years ago, that's how usually goes.

But untrained checks, are still untrained, with a limit of DC10

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?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Harleequin wrote:

Fighters cant have everything... the system has changed significantly in recent times to try and improve their lot.

They cant have.... all the HP, all the AC, full BAB, bonus feats, all the archetypes, extra skill points.... etc etc

If they want to be more of a professional soldier then fine... they might have to give up being a death dealing critmachine!!

Have everything?

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we are really talking about "need" as in can not keep up then no for sorcerers. Would it be nice for them to have some adjustments? Yes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
They both mean "This word sounds cool! Let's put it in the cover!".

That is how I have always seen it, just like the "complete" books from 3.5.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The sorcerer still holds its own in games. The fighter could use some help though, but I don't think it will get enough to matter.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.....".

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dark Die High wrote:

I have a very different opinion from the majority of posters on this subject.

My first question is whether the character really believes what he is saying, because unless he plans on going through with helping the Night Peddler he needs to make a Bluff check.

I do not believe that a GM should take away a cleric's powers ever. Essentially, this a meta-game issue. If you take away a clerics powers, you as a GM are basically saying "If you don't play your character the way I think you should I will take away your powers." Now the problem with this is that divine casters are the only characters in the game that have this restriction. So then you are creating a meta-game penalty for not playing the character in a certain way. If I'm playing an assassin, and I decide to become a pacifist, I don't lose all my assassin abilities.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not going to try to convince anyone of the correct answer, but what I did do was press the FAQ button on the opening post so that this can finally get an answer. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

Casting an Evil spell is like stealing money from the tip jar. It makes you a not perfect person but if the rest of your life is pretty good it doesn't make you Evil, just a jerk.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

"Why Is Evil Being Good So Important To Some People...": I think I'd ask, 'Why is evil being evil, no matter the circumstances, so important to some people...'.

For instance, take that infernal healing spell. So I'm a sorcerer, so I need no devil blood. I cast a spell that grants fast healing... No "pact with dark powers" even hinted at. The only negative is that "The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic"... So, no fire and brimstone, no tolls, spreading torment and devouring of souls. It sounds less evil than binding an angel and taking it away from it's fight against evil to clean your room...

SO why are you so invested in making it sound as nasty as possible?

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
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.

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

So if Tar-Baphon decides to spend a few years summoning hundreds of Celestial dogs everyday would you say he is a good character?

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.

Though I just remembered Mister whispering tyrant can't actually summon celestial dogs. But he can summon Lantern archons. And he can summon a lot of them, being a level 20 wizard with 10 mythic tiers. He could keep doing that all day whilst still destroying the world. And any day he doesn't spend doing lich things he can just summon Lantern Archons for an hour. And currently he has a lot of downtime being locked away forever. So in a thousand years would he be able to emerge from his prison with an LG alignment? Just because he spent all that time summoning lantern archons?

It doesn't make sense to call summoning spells evil just because they have the evil descriptor, because that means it would apply to good as well.

So from most perspectives it doesn't make much sense to force an alignment shift just for summoning. If a player wants to roleplay the spell as corrupting their caster to the way of evil that's fine and a decently interesting idea, but it shouldn't be the go to consequence.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Back on topic the adamantine golem does not pass adamantine based DR. I was about to houserule it for my own games, but then I saw that it was made out of a combination of metals, and not just adamantine.

Eh, that feels like a cop out. It's not a precious metals golem, it's an adamantine golem. It requires more than a single planet's worth of adamantine to build. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's predominantly adamantine :)

Back off topic, here's a question along similar lines:

Do a glass golem's attacks bypass a fext's DR/glass?

It isn't a copout. I thought the think was %100 adamantine. So now I think it is just called an adamatine golem, but it not even 10% admantine.

A adamantine golem's body is made of more than 4,000 pounds of adamantine, mithral, gold, platinum, and other metals

That 4000 pounds is the combination of all of those metals. It is not even 4000 pounds of only adamantine.

It probably weights over 10000 pounds.

That means the rest of it is just regular metal. I see no reason to give it a pass by the rules or even for flavor reasons.

The flavor text might say most worlds don't have enough adamantine to build one of them, but I am sure no actual math was done. Even, so with the adamantine taking up less than what might be 15% of its body there is no bypassing DR.

10,000 lbs seems high. Clockwork leviathans are on the high end of Huge (25 ft long) and they only weigh 6,000 lbs. I can easily see a creature closer to humanoid proportions, and animated by magic rather than bulky gears an whatnot, coming in closer to two tons.

And even if its not entirely composed of adamantine, its the business end that counts, right? An adamantine tipped arrow is mostly wood after all.

Huge adamantine fullplate only weighs 250 lbs, which means there's enough adamantine in that 4000 pounds to cover the golem head to toe.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
fearcypher wrote:

So if Tar-Baphon decides to spend a few years summoning hundreds of Celestial dogs everyday would you say he is a good character?

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:

It is a serious question because it is a major sign of an overly controlling GM. And they do not want players, they want an audience to ooh and ah at their amazing story.

Also, what makes you, or any other GM, more immune to metagaming than the players? Don't say that it is not metagaming when the GM does it, because that is a bald faced lie. GMs may not do it with skill checks, but they do it with PC abilities and tactics.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Buckeye wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Silence stops a witch from cackling. If you can't here the witch cackle (because you or the witch is in an area of silence) then it doesn't work.

Also, getting more than 30ft away from the witch will get you out of range.

Thanks folks.. Couple thoughts.. Is there an erata or rule someplace that states silence blocks a witch's supernatural effects? My player states Supernatural isn't impacted by silence.

As for bashing the living pulp out of it, I agree if you can get to it with the invisibility, flying etc. d8 arrows aren't all that sexy. ;)

Silence stops cackle. It doesn't stop all of the witch hexes. There is an FAQ on it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would reflavor the spider as some type of abberation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Witches just like other poor BAB casters tend to have defenses vs being bashed, and things can go south if the bashing takes too long.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The PC's shouldn't know they got a 1 on the dice roll. I think if you keep rolling until you get a high roll it is metagaming.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Something to consider is that the Pathfinder RPG does not have a mechanic that rewards sub-optimal play. If your backstory says you're scared of zombies, then the first encounter against zombies, you cower for a round as your action (by choice), there's nothing that rewards you for this, other than positive reinforcement from your GM or fellow players. The system itself though will punish you, by giving the zombies two turns. Instead, the system's reward would be for violating your backstory and just attacking the zombies.

I would argue that if you're looking for a mechanical reward for all role-playing decisions that you make for your character, you're likely a roll-player.

If the negative stigma around the term roll-player can be reduced, then people who are roll-players won't feel the need to not claim the title.

Which will ultimately make it much easier to form cohesive groups and have successful campaigns.

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.

1 to 50 of 2,473 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.