|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I dont like how stealth combined hide and move silently. I also dont like how spot and listen were combined.
It makes for silly situations such as someone that is invisible in the same room you are in being more difficult to detect than someone on the other side of a wall or door with would block sight and at least muffle sound to some extent, while being invisible has no effect on sound.
It is flat-footed, which is not the same as being denied dex. Being flat-footed means no attack of opportunities. What they did not do was add something like "normally you can not be flat-footed once you act".
Basically here is how it works. You have the penalties(can't make AoO and no dex to AC) associated with being flatfooted, but only against the person who used the Shatter Defenses ability.
I do think it should be rewritten, but it is not the only ability in the history of 3.5/Pathfinder to apply the flat-footed condition after combat starts.
Examples of being flat-footed once you have already acted:
Dr Styx wrote:
Summoned creatures don't have a choice, and if you use the calling spells you have to bargain with them by using gifts. Bringing them to the material plane is not a factor. Whether you bring them to the material plane or another plane the payment is the same. That assumes the plane is not one they would hate to go to.
I would just give them a good stat array. They dont have to worry about someone having super hero stats while another looks like a commoner. It also removes the problem they have with point buy.
I would also look into whether the stats were the real cause of their problems. It could have been poor builds or bad tactics.
Complex and unapproachable is subjective. I have always been able to teach new players how to play. That includes the time when I was allowing 3.5 material with much less restriction into my Pathfinder games. Now admittedly even some experienced(1st edition) players had trouble with things, but I also found out they had issues with 2nd edition rules.
In my experience, if I don't turn the dial up to 11 on difficulty when I GM for new people, and I run at least a decent game people stick around and learn(good enough to be sufficient), even if they don't master the game.
What are you talking about?
Contention on the boards, and contention in actual play are not the same thing. I am one of the first to admit that magic can cause problems, and in theory it can be a large part of problems at tables, but in actual practice it is not nearly as problematic at most tables.
Using the boards as some standard for how things really are can be a bad idea. I've been called a powergamer more than once, but at a table I scale the character's power to whatever won't overshadow a party and/or having the GM throwing books at me.
The boards are the perception. The table is the reality.
I think an alternate magic system that is an option would be better than a forced one or an entire new edition. It's not worth the risk to lose a lot of people. WoTC was in a position to survive even if D&D failed. Paizo is not in that position with Pathfinder, at least not until they start pushing video games, movies, or some other method to give their bank account a cushion to offset any risk.
They were saying it is less accurate with regard to how it reproduces the rules. They often take liberties with how they word or format the rules.
Quark Blast wrote:
The published version is not exactly his home edition. That was a large part of it, but WoTC changed a lot of things he wanted to keep.Time /= Value.
Example: I am sure Jason and James will on average come up with a better product for Pathfinder than I will 9/10 times, and not take nearly as long while doing so.
Depending on how you look at it either case can be made. From a "fantasyland" view I would say Eberron. From an real life or meta aspect I would say Golarion.
I ran one of these by PbP before, and everyone submitted their characters to the GM, and then he submitted them to the "combat thread". That way nobody could metagame.
I think the OP should put a deadline on things by saying 1st level combatants need to be submitted by ____. The same goes for certain other levels.
I would do levels 1, 7, 13, 20. If he doesn't make things less free-form nothing might ever get done.
You can learn to be more perceptive. When I joined the military I got a lot better at noticing things so I see why it is a skill just like being stealthy is a skill. When you are being trained how to clear rooms, and you get training on IED's you are taught things to look for. I can see the same thing going into not getting caught by a trap or how to notice that someone or something is in the room with you.
Most holy symbols are not hidden away so its not hard to tell if someone may have a healer in the party or not.
In this specific case the enemies were CE, and that makes it more reasonable for them to put being bloodthirsty over tactics.
PS: If there is no sign of a healer then I agree its better to not CDG someone from a tactical perspective.
The Raven Black wrote:
PC's don't do it more because it is not easily setup. Normally monsters go from alive to dead. Also many players on a metagame level know that Team Evil does not have clerics. When I have used healers for Team Evil, the PC's made sure the NPC's stayed down so by your logic, and my players it is useful for the PC's if the enemies might stand back up.
Speaker for the Dead wrote:
My only comment is about the detect good/evil spell. The op commented in a spoiler that the since the sprites are using the spell they would always know which way to look. It takes three rounds of concentration before they would know the power and location of each aura. The first round all they should know is that auras are present. The second, the number of auras. Since the paladin was flying about it seems unlikely that he would have stayed in the cone area of effect for three rounds. Of course they could have made really good perception rolls.
That is not exactly right. The spell is a cone. If something is in the cone you know dont know where it is in the cone on round 1, but you know it is in the cone. On round 3 you can nail down the square it is in.
Now if you have the spell up, and it pings when a creature is in the area it makes sense to say that the creature in question is likely the cause of your "radar" going on. It is not 100%, but its a fair bet to make if you are out in the woods, and nothing else happened that might set it off.
At low levels I take player skill into account with how much leeway I give them, but before I go any further I can't say you were objectively wrong. He may have just been expecting a different game than you were running.
He could also have had real life issues stressing him, and the character death just made him want to go home.
He likely assumed that leaving the map was a "safe space" since many GM's might have let him go, but he should have retreated toward the party anyway just so he would be there to help them.
Also many players feel like it is objectively bad form to coup de grace a PC. I don't agree, since different tables have different ideas with what is ok for that table's social contract.
As for the detect good/evil spells, you are correct.
edit: I do not find you to be at fault, and it may be good that he reomoved himself now vs later in the campaign.
You are either in a square or you are not. A GM can say you lean to bypass line of affect, but by the rules the square you are in, the square the target is in, and whatever is between you is what will determine if you have line of affect.
If the barrier give the target total cover then the spell can not pass through it.
I would not say either is more important. Ideally, the rules as written will convey the proper intent(how the devs intended for the rules to work at the table).
If you are asking which is better to use at the table I will say that using something as it was intended, whether it is rules or some random tool is the better option in most cases.
If someone goes directly by the rules, and reads them in the most literal way possible the game does not function.
As an example, the magic section calls out "spells", and not supernatural abilities with regard to using magic and "aiming", so a literal reading of the rules would allow someone to say that SU's are not restricted by the same targeting rules that spells use.<---A poster actually tried to use that argument before. This could lead to things like an SU that causes one target to be confused to work on someone behind a brick wall.
Another example would be reach weapons doubling reach so a colossal creature can hold a reach weapon sized for a tiny creature and its reach would double simply because the rules do not say the reach weapon has to be sized for whatever is using it.
There are other examples, if someone wants to be pedantic enough about reading the rules.
It's been that way for over a decade now, and I(as a player) never found much wonder in magic items, and a lot of players feel that way. Making them rare doesn't translate to "more special" for everyone.
The spell was not intended to be used that way so there are no rules on how it would work. Whenever you come up with something like this it really falls on the GM to come up with a solution.
Balance matters a lot for the game so the GM and players dont use things the devs didnt think of to unbalance the game.
I would say that you are expelled before completely forming. <---Not a rule, but that is how I would do it. It keeps a low level spell confined to its power level, and it stops the NPC from doing it to PC's since the games uses the same rules for PC's and NPC's.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I was looking for that rule you quoted, but my search-fu failed me.
John Napier 698 wrote:
I spent much of my between-scan tour time yesterday doing research. Nowhere in the Core Rulebook does it say that Undead must be Evil. The descriptions in the Bestiary indicate Evil behavior. Open the CRB to the section where alignments are discussed, and compare it to the descriptive text of each Undead creature. However, if you want to houserule exceptions, be my guest. I won't stop you or tell you that you're wrong. It is your game, after all.
I dont think must(as in 100%) was the argument being made. The argument is that evil is the default alignment and it is rare that they are not evil for most types of undead. As an example most ogre's are terrible creatures to be around, and they will likely kill and eat humanoids which they can get their hands on, but that does not mean that somewhere in fantasyland you can't find at least 1 good or civilized ogre.
It is not just dice rolls. Normally it is a combination of dice rolls and bad tactics, which happen to occur at a convenient time for the party.
Example: We had been drain of resources, and came onto a boss fight, where we were severely outnumbered. There were multiple bad guys that were one level below the party so the CR was likely +5 over APL at a minimum. It got to the point where the result was pretty much known, and suddenly the bad guys could not hit us, and they resorted to melee attacks, and stopped casting spells. Had they sat back and used spells they could have killed us, and they had lower level minions to act as a meat shields so we could not just get to them in melee.
That is not accurate because the caster is using rule specific to spells, and bow or crossbow shoot is not.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I won't disagree with that. RD's group will have to decide how much they want to let the rules get in the way of the game.
As an aside if I were to say his hand can fit through the slit and bypass line of effect then I would say that if that back wall was not far enough back the radius of the fireball can come back through those holes that he put his hand through.
Also if the slit was not long enough his exposed hand could be hit since we would be already outside the rules, and that may force a concentration check.
I wouldn't say it was trapped because that might mess with the arrows or bolts.
It also makes sense to say they can see his hand and attack him. Depending on how the init is setup readying an action to disrupt the spell is not a bad idea. I can't think of any other reason to put a hand in that area.
Now that I am at a computer:
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.
It doesn't say that sticking your hand in the hole stops the barrier from blocking line of effect. It just says that the barrier provides it unless the hole is a certain size, and no other exception is given.
So no, putting your hand in the hold per a strict reading of the rules does not allow you to ignore the barrier. If we are really going to go by RAW that is how it works.
PWK, kills you. That much is true. If you are dead then your constitution is 0. That is in the rulebook.
From here we have to decide if we are going to follow the idea that you have to shut regen down before applying PWK, or can we kill the troll while regen is still up.
If we go with the former the troll is alive and PWK does not do anything since he can not be killed while regen is in effect. If we go with the latter the troll is dead, and he stays dead.
Edit: I am checking to see if regen shuts off at Con 0 or Con -. They are not the same. One means you have a number set at 0. The other means you don't have a con score at all.
A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.
0 is a con score.
Undead don't have con scores at all.
Undead trait wrote:
No Constitution score.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I doubt the other poster is saying nothing can kill the troll. They are just saying they wont let it work because they don't like it.
So yeah they do need to explain unless they just say "nothing can kill the troll except fire and acid" which shuts down regen.
Actually both feats do not add. One replaces strength. It says "instead of your Strength bonus". The other just adds dex to the final roll.
Are you saying that adding to the final number which is what one does is the same as replacing one of the contributing number which is what "instead of your Strength bonus" does?
One of them is saying replace X(strength) with y(dexterity).
Example A+X=CMB is now A+Y=CMB
The other is saying add y(dexterity) to the final number not in place of.
This one is A+x+y=CMB
With both feats it should be A+y+y=CMB.
So yeah it does fit. You just don't want to concede the point.
Suffocation kills, and it does not require hit point damage. You can rule however you want in your game, but if we are speaking of rules then you need to explain how regeneration is going to bring the troll back when it did not die from hit point damage.
Also they might need to modify the rule to something like:
Line of effect is from you to the target so putting your arm in there does not remove that.* You are still in the square you are in, and the target is where the target(target space) is, however as quoted from the fireball spell you are allowed you to try to shoot into the hole.
*Your limbs do not determine where you actually are. That is why you can't ready an attack on a limb without the strikeback feat.
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.