|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Me too. I understand how it works now, but I am trying to think of a way to explain it without creating more questions. I am thinking it is easier to houserule the "in place of" and " add X to___" as working together, while only not allowing it on a case by case basis. I will inform the players it is a houserule so they won't expect it to work under another GM however.
I agree. To me the game is the mechanics. You can attach a story to several different mechanics, and the story might need some tweeking, but on many occasions the story can remain true to itself. If I say we are playing Pathfinder people will assume I am using the d20 rule set. If I run the same story, and I say we are playing Pathfinder, but I use the ruleset for Shadowrun the players will likely accuse me of false advertising.
PS: I also hate grinding. I am playing final fantasy 1 for the NES, and I want to advance the plot. To make this easier I am using a cheat which gives me more XP than normal, and does not split XP between party members.
The system will always be criticized, especially by those of us that like it. I don't really worry about it. If they are on the Paizo boards instead of the other forums then they have not really left yet. :)
Bane Wraith wrote:
Sorry mate. Unconvinced, and thus at a standstill. By your logic, Anyone that Fails a saving throw should be able to identify whatever hit them every single time, regardless of knowledge checks, because there's no text that explicitly states they can't.
That is not his logic so that is not what he is saying. He actually said a knowledge check is needed. Yes, I am aware this wont change your mind, but this post should clear up any misunderstandings, and avoid derailing due to misapplications of ideas.
Chess Pwn wrote:
The problem is that it won't be said, even if they see us constantly doing it incorrectly on the boards until someone makes an FAQ. The inquisitor double dipping was a common tactic here, and so was flurrying with a single monk weapon. They even had it in official products.Since they are saying this is not a rule change, the ability stat taking over as a primary source was the rule before they said something, so them not saying does not mean it is not the rule. It just means we don't know about it.
I would not say it does not work. I would say it does not work for everyone's game. One also has to consider that PF changes at certain levels, and that is part of the problem. It needs to be the same game from 1 to 20 for the most part, if the intent is for it to work for more people's games, while still allowing for playstyle differences. However in its current state the game changes enough that certain people are better off not going above or below level ___ depending on what they want.
Chess Pwn wrote:
so far the rule is there is only source changing if something is giving an untyped ability bonus so that it's not a ability source instead of what it was previously. There are no unwritten rules, and there are no other source hierarchy. Unless they say something this is the only time the source can change. So there aren't multiple nested sources, and no other sources have changed. Stop trying to make this seem like a bigger issue than it is. I feel like you're just trying to cause problems by willfully "misunderstanding" what is being said. If this isn't the case it's how you're coming off. So if you have unaddressed concerns please share those.
Questions have been popping up a lot, and with some abilities I definitely understand. This explanation(FAQ) is muddying the waters a lot. I understand that they don't want double dipping for an ability score, but I think there was another way to do it than by saying ____ is a source except for when ____, however a bonus equal to X stacks with a bonus from X.
I have a good idea for how this works out, but I still think it can be written so that it is easier to understand.
It is clarifying when ability based bonuses don't stack, from what I understand, but the "level based damage" is a good question.
So, the normal strength to damage dealt with a Shield Bash, does not stack with the damage done by Merciless Rush, when using Shield Slam, or are these considered separate attacks(Bull Rush/Shield Bash), and both damage is applied?
This is a good chance to test my knowledge so I will give you an answer and we will see if Mark agrees with me tomorrow.
The FAQ says " you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier."
Merciless Rush says "... you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier to that target."
A shield bash is a normal attack and the equipment chapter says.. "Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon"
Now going back to the FAQ you can add the modifier/bonus and a number equal to the bonus so these two should stack. Now if Merciless Rush said to add your strength bonus instead of "damage equal to" your strength bonus then they would not stack.
Mark Seifter wrote:
So how are we supposed to know what a "source" is? I always thought it was a spell/feat/class feature, not the bonus itself. Just to be clear I am not upset, but unless I am reading the FAQ incorrectly I have no idea on how to identify a source. If that will be in another FAQ I will be happy with that answer.
From the way I read the FAQ a source is the ability score, not the feat/spell/etc that grants tells you to use the ability score, or are ability scores an exception to what the designers intend for us to use as sources?
Citation needed.PS: I think you are correct, but I did not see an example that matched up with this one. I don't care if it does not stack, but now it seems they will need to clarify what the "source" is. By the rules this also seems like stealth errata, which I don't think is a bad term, but it should be noted as such officially. OK, I don't expect for them to say "stealth errata", but sometimes the FAQ is used to change rules so noting it as a "rules change" would be nice.
Dark Immortal wrote:
If you never play a character up to his strengths they should not know, and if they see it as rude that is a problem with them. At the same time I think you should optimize for the group you are playing with, but within reason(don't be too strong, but don't put your character's life on the line because someone else sucks at making characters).
So yes, I have no problem with the temperature test, but at the same time nobody should think you are rude because you have a strong character. The idea is silly to me.
Remember we are talking about "making" a character not using it to ruin everyone's fun which is an entirely different topic. I am not saying it wont offend someone, but someone will be bothered no matter what you do.
As for your PFS example let say it is a home game that is similar to the PFS scenario where there seemed to be a lot of out of combat things to do. This player built his character to be an "out of combat" specialist much like a bard or inquisitor would have been, and he is decent in combat, but not great, much like a bard or inquisitor would have been. The problem was not the character, but that he just happened to have the perfect character for the scenario, just as if someone was running a paladin in an undead campaign. Now if Mr.OOC-Master was in a more combat oriented game he would not have done as well, and you and the others would have been more valuable.
When complaining about someone's character being too strong take all points into consideration, and also remember that sometimes the problem is with the person who is upset. Being upset does not automatically transfer the blame or fault to the other person. You can be upset and still be wrong.
Fighters are not just front line hit point bags. They also serve as the military, police, bodyguards, guards in general, and other things that need to be able to protect/guard people and things. Keeping those sneaky thieves/assassins/etc out is why they should have it.
Home rule a fumble rule. Roll a natural 1 and something goes wrong with the attempt. Because no matter your skill at something there should always be a chance for failure.
I disagree. I will never incorrectly install a CPU which is mundane for me but not for another person. Once you get to a certain skill level the difficult becomes mundane and 5% failure is way to high.
I know rogues get a bad rap around here, but they can be viable in a game. It depends on the table, and how well the player knows the game. If your GM is the type to be somewhat lenient, and you are not sitting at a table with optimizers the rogue should be ok. Otherwise I would suggest slayer(if allowed) or another class that fits the background.
Also make sure you have a willing flanker to help you get sneak attack off, and be sure to do something about your fort and will saves.
PS:You can actually do the same if not more damage with a rogue by using a two handed weapon.
Actually the idea from Paizo is that you should use what you want, and not use the rest, thereby making your own Golarion. As an example if I had a problem with technology then I just would not use that part of the campaign world. It takes almost no effort to not use something. It is no different than not using a certain class or feat.
The challenge is still there, and if they burn through expendable items it eats into their loot. Keeping wands of cure light wounds in stock is smart tactic. Also by the time a caster is 7th level they are not likely to run out of spells, and if they do and the fight is difficult then it is the noncasters that are normally in the most trouble. The game is not a movie or book, and while I like gritty games, the players topping off has not diminished my ability to challenge them. Ambush them, use combat that go against their weakness, use terrain, use ability damage/drain, etc etc.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Are you saying players should just be able to do whatever they want as long as they have fun, and the GM should allow it? I don't mean things like blatantly ignoring rules such as giving weapon focus a +10 when it is a +1, but let's say using wishing binding to get 1000 free wishes and anything else that is a loophole. Maybe using simulacrum to _____(insert option that trivializes the game).
To take this a little further and give another example, let's say a player finds a way to get an AC of 60 by level 10, and that is his method of fun. Let's say as a GM I wish to challenge the player so I find a way to get an attack bonus of +50 or higher onto a CR 10ish creature. Am I wrong for that because I removed his ability to only be hit on a nat 1?
Or welcome to the Paizo boards where some people dont know how telling a GM which things might go wrong is actually helping because it will help him to think of alternate solutions to problems, instead of being caught with his pants down.
How do you not know what the feats in the core rulebook do? Do you just get your information on them online and never acually read the book itself?
It seems that everyone has a rule they don't know about. Even the devs(those guys that wrote the book) have cited rules incorrectly from memory.
There is a feat in the APG that lets you change the energy type. If you wanted to have a permanent spell like that, you would have to research and create it yourself. This requires GM approval however. The rules for this are in the Ultimate Campaign book, IIRC.
New Earth Man wrote:
They might spellcraft it. Nothing stops a silent spell from being spellcrafted by the rules, and if you plan to make it a houserule I would inform them of this rule. Also if he just disappears they are likely to think he just teleported. In addition if they cast detect magic the aura of the spell he just used will be there. If detect magic only gives the strongest aura then arcane sight might work, but there is no reason to think "he is in the book". They might just take the book and leave also, and open it somewhere else.
Unless you modify the magic item they get a save or get pulled into it. Also once the first person is sucked in the other party members are less likely to go in because the equipment does not go into the mirror with the person. At level 13 they can get access to Analyze dweomer which would automatically identify the mirror. Suggestion is also a low level spell, and the chances of them failing a will save are not high.
Your entire plans works around you assuming you can guess what the players will do, and that almost never happens, especially with all of the things that have to happen for your situation to turn out like you want it to.
I never knew that, and it is a stupid rule which I will ignore, but thanks for the information. :)
When a spell has a costly material component it also has the price. That unholy water with no price beside it means the cost is neglible. There is no reason to have two options, with only one being free if the intent is to pay.
An example is this:
Holy water is sold by the "flask", not by the dose.
equipment chapter CRB wrote:
So let's look at the evidence. The option other than the unholy water is free, and they don't use a "flask" like the other spells do. I would say a dose was meant to be a "drop".
There is also this spell.
Once again we have a flask.
Your other post made it seem like your GM thought that by the official rules a wand could not be cast at CL 1. That is different from what you are saying now, and if you are introducing house rules into the rules section you should say so. People tend to avoid listing house rules here because it is assumed that the posters will be giving them the actual rules.
The problem is this statement "He (a more experienced GM than I am) interpreted that slightly differently. "
Later on you said "This makes even level 1 wands slightly more of an expense, and is more in line with our campaign setting."
That 2nd line makes it a little more evident that it is a house rule, but a house rule is different from a rules interpretation.
The rules interpretation is how someone thinks the rule actually works.
A houserule is when they just choose to run it differently at their table.
PS: Just to be clear I am only stating all of this to avoid confusion in the future.
Pathfinder is too complex for that. There are a lot of different ways to play the game. You as the GM have to decide what is ok, and what is not ok.
The only thing that should probably be put out is that a new GM should be sure he is comfortable before moving beyond the CRB.
It is not the devs place to tell someone how to run the game or make assumptions on what people will do. The fact that there are so many ways to play the game, even if I don't agree with some of them, is one of its strengths.
I also personally don't want to play "mother may I" when it comes to options as a GM or player. As a GM I let them know you can use certain books. As a player I ask for houserules and which books are open for use.
As players we should be the ones to help each other out. There are posters here who know the rules and how to optimize as well as some devs or close to it.
PS: I have heard of a book that does what you want, but it is not out yet. Just to clarify I am saying they can't comment on every option and how it relates to other options. That book, whose name I cant remember, will likely offer general advice, but don't expect for every piece of source material to be spoken about.
Don't use that part of the campaign setting or pretend it does not exist. I certainly don't run Golarion 100% as written. As an example I dont like the flavor for goblins.
As for "OP", that is subjective and varies by table. I have never had a problem with a gunslinger or 9th level casters which are much more powerful.
Why should a GM want to win? This is not supposed to be a contest between you and your players. If you mean you can not challenge the players then you should ask the people here for advice.
5th is also brand new. That is all.
Master of Shadows wrote:
I don't really know why there is all this hate on the rogue in this thread? I have played them, and I have never found a well played rogue to be subpar, and never found it difficult to arrange sneak attacks every single round (as long as the enemy is not immune). Its on the player of the rogue to build a fun rogue, and yes, in theory a highlevel wizard can sing the "everything you can do, I can do better..." song but only if you assume he has completely free reign over his spell selection. If a campaign actually adheres strictly to the guidelines for how wizards learn new spells, its not as easy as you think. Especially if the GM limits the availability of Spell Scrolls and the campaign down time it takes to research new spells.
It is not hate. That word is used way too much, and I dont like the idea of limiting one class to help another one. If you want to know why people advise not playing rogues there are a lot of threads on it, but I dont want to turn this into a rogue thread so I will stop here.
I think balance means different things to different people. I like the idea of niche protection within limits. However I don't think all classes should be equally effective across the board, or that one class should not be more powerful than another class. Power disparity is fine. At the same time the gap between classes should not get too big, and yes I realize "too big" is a matter of taste. I have never known a snowflake to ask for compensation, and to me that is a different topic from the balance topic. If you play certain things you just have to deal with the consequences. Likewise I would not expect the half giant to be as stealthy as the tiny creature. He just has to accept that the small creature will be stealthier if they both play rangers.
FAQ Request: Can I use a standard action to perform actions that are faster then normal standard actions (like Swift and immediate actions)?.
the secret fire wrote:
He was writing it in a humorous fashion. It was not meant to be taken seriously. :)
1. RAI is rules as intended, not playing loose with the rules.<---I am just making a correction. I am not saying the playstyle is invalid.
2. The group needs to come to a concensus on how tightly they are going to follow the rules. Are you not following certain rules because you did not know the rule, or because you dont care to follow those specific rules?
3. Once that is decided that should help take care of it. If the new player wants things to be tracked more tightly he can suck it up or find another group if the GM does not want to enforce certain rules. In the future however it is probably good for a GM to put certain things in writing so a new player will know what to expect before joining.
Personally I dont really track weight unless you are really far over it so I can understand ignoring it.
The player might also not care what the rule is, but he may want some consistency. Talk it out. At the least talk to the GM, and let him handle it.
The reason is that each version of fantasyland in a novel or movie has its own limitations. D&D/Pathfinder draws upon all of these. As an example the "death" spells are a common trope. That is how we get the SoD spells. Invis and flying are common magic tropes.
Because the game tries to include so many elements it will never support any contemporary fantasy without a lot of house rules.
FAQ Request: Can I use a standard action to perform actions that are faster then normal standard actions (like Swift and immediate actions)?.
Readying an action burns your standard action for that round. What you may do with that readied action is do a standard, move, or swift action. If the rules intended for you to be able to use a standard action to perform an act that requires a swift action then there would not be a need to ready a swift action. You could just ready a standard action and use it to perform a move or swift based act. So when you choose an act that calls for a swift action you are actually using a swift action.
Breakdown: You are allowed to perform a standard or lesser action but you are still using the action that is required for that act.
I hope I explained this well.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Now this is a good point since the spell only checks for qualification when the spell is cast and it is not doing a continuous check likr feats do. However if you are dead before the spell is cast you may not qualify.
basically people are mad because it actually balanced the class. I have seen a ton of theory crafting arguments that it is now one of the worst class and doesn't hold up to paladin or inquisitor. I assure you that in actual practice it just as powerful. Advanced Class Origins is coming out Oct 22nd. I assume that war priest will be plenty powerful after some of the options in that book for the theory crafting crowd.
What makes you think I have not actually made one or seen one in play? Don't be so quick to shout theorycraft.
Does anyone know why they decided to not give the warpriest a full BAB progression in the advanced class guide? I would understand it if they balanced it more like the magus but it does not appear that they did.
They thought it was too good to have full BAB. I think it should have kept full BAB to stay in competition with the inquisitor. Allowing the warpriest to buff himself with spells by using swift actions does not make up for the lost of full BAB IMHO.
By the rules I think you are not valid for a spell targeting a creature(something that is alive) since you are no longer alive, but I think this is one of those things that not many people enforce depending on the situation.
As an example if the party is on the verge of defeat and you want to teleport away not many GM's will count your buddy's corpse as an object instead of a creature in my experience.