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. 2,614 posts (36,583 including aliases). 3 reviews. 8 lists. 4 wishlists. 25 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And it's not "hate" most of us just think it is rarely useful and definitely not worth 2 prereq feats that are not all that good themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starglim wrote:
I agree, so if a rule says "apply your whole DEXTERITY bonus to your Armor Class", should I not conclude that that is a typed bonus and its type is Dexterity?

"Dexterity" is not a bonus type. Only certain bonuses have a type. If it is not one specifically called out by PF then it is an untyped bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
He was speaking of the PrC, not the assassin profession. Being an assassin does not make you evil.
If you are jaded enough that you will kill someone merely for a contract, you're evil in my book.

I should have given an example.I agree that killing for money/profit is evil. The non-evil assassins I was speaking of are those that such as government agents who kill people to protect their country, as an example. To avoid any hair-splitting we will assume the gov't is not having him kill people for bad reasons. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

So, apart from poison use (which is a core mechanic of several classes), what class features does the assassin offer? The only ones that really scream "I'm an evil black hat" are the ones involving corpse abuse (true death, angel of death). The rest are either enhancements to the death attack or class features shared with other classes.

So really, other than the ability to get a death attack four levels earlier, what does the assassin offer that the slayer does not?

It seems that, with the publishing of the slayer class, the only reason the assassin PrC is evil is because you have to kill someone for no reason other than to join the assassins.

I hate to say it, but you need to bring back the assassin's spellcasting ability, because you've made a base class that does all the same things, minus the ability to turn a corpse to dust without a handy pile of sticks and tar.

The assassin is evil for thematic reasons, not mechanical ones. Killing someone strictly for money(profit) is what makes the assassin PrC evil. A slayer doing the same thing would also be evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is no flat formula, and I would not change CR. What I do think you should do is be careful about the problems you give the players to solve, and be careful about which monsters you use. It is better if you keep the game at a low level unless you have other ways to compensate for lack of magic. Being permanently turned to stone by a medusa as an example might not go over well. IIRC you would need stone to flesh or break enchantment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KoalaRescue wrote:

Thank you all so much for your responses.

I think basically... I suck, LOL. I agree with a lot of you, I probably am not doing a good enough job challenging them and giving the other players their own spotlight time. It can be hard for me because the player with his cohort is so much more vocal than the others.

The group dynamics are 4 PCs. An alchemist, a magus, a cleric (who has the paladin cohort), and the fourth is changing at the moment but it was a wizard.

They are all pretty effective, everyone has been playing Pathfinder and D&D before that for quite some time. Perhaps the problem is that I'm not giving them each enough time to be at the forefront and shine on their own.

I think the main problem here is that people are tired of the cleric not being willing to help them. An example, they were in a tough fight and the wizard was done, in negatives/bleeding out and the cleric wouldn't cross the battlefield to help him. He wanted to stay near his cohort who was getting low on HP, just in case the cohort fell and needed to be healed.

Thanks again for all of your really great suggestions. I guess I just needed another person to talk this out with. So, I am going to change things up and see how it goes. I'm glad that most of you are against the idea of me killing the cohort. I really didn't want to believe that was a good idea!

None of those classes should have problems being effective in combat. If they can't get a spotlight moment it is likely due to the way they are playing the classes or the combats are accidentally catered to the paladin. I am not at the table so I can't say which it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rage does not prevent sneak attack. I think the players arguing that it does think you are just mindlessly attacking, but you still you are not making wild uncalculated swings and fighting like you have lost your mind. If that were so you would likely loose your dex bonus to AC if you were that "out of it", because you would not be trying to dodge any attacks. If you have enough sense to dodge incoming blows, then you have enough sense to strike at vital areas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For the time being do not make any changes. we need more information. What class is the NPC?
What are the other players playing ?
How do combats typically go in detail?
Do you normally use one enemy or several enemies?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wrath is partially correct. DPR alone is does not tell you the value of a character to a party in its own but it is a good metric to use to determine how a character performs in a certain part of the game, especially if he is designed to do damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think leadership id always a problem but it can be a problem for reasons already mentioned. I normally allow it but if everyone wants it then I tell the players there is a limit on how many people are in the party so they can decide who gets it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most people don't bother making up command words so this really does not matter, but RD did find another obscure rules contradiction so I will press the FAQ button, even though I am sure you are still limited to a standard action.

I wonder if he sits home all day and looks for these. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cognizance crystals are a Terrible(yes that "T" is not a typo) investment. No player with system mastery and a decent knowledge of psionics put much if any money into those things. Even at low levels it is normally just better to suck it up until you get more power points. If your players are wasting money on those things be happy until they find decide to correct their mistake.

PS: The above post assumes "flavor is not the reason for buying the crystals".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope. Most of the spells in the game are combat related in some way. I am sure if Golarion were real there would be more spells dedicated to mundane things that don't involve combat directly or indirectly. As an example there might be a spell that cooks food for you, or even skins the animals that someone catches. Pregnancy is not something the game is really going to concern itself with. Lamashtu(spelling?) is an entirely other topic. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:

Your opponent knows exactly where you'll be if you are purposely getting hit by something.

Since the enemy knows where you are going to be, he should be allowed to attack vs your flat-footed AC.

Then is it that if two people are fighting a person can dodge all of their opponents punches, but a friend can grab them. Obviously it is because you get to judge who you don't want to touch you.

Now of course you might say the game is not real life so let's use your example with a cure spell, which means you have to be touched. Do you require the cleric to roll attack rolls? If not then the player has to be in a certain place to be touched. So they do lose AC for receiving a cure spell?

<waits for reply>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Go with the wizard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
The fighter specifically has his niches he can fill, and if you want a fighter that can do those things, the Lore Warden and Tactician grant extra skills, and the Lore Warden crossed with Martial Master essentially fixes the fighter, albeit at the cost of armor.

The slayer covers almost all of the fighter niches. He is non-magical, He hit harder, he have a lot of feats, he can hit hard all day long (AKA not nova class), he can master basically every fighting style in the game (mounted combat, TWF, THF, Archery, Swoard and board, and a lot more after inner sea combat). THe only thing the slayer can not really do is to use heavy armor and that is because rogue talents mostly sucks and the ranger feat are the obvious best option.

And yet the slayer have three times more skill points. In what world can that be balanced?

Maybe the problem is with the fighter. The fighter really should have 4 skill points and more class skills. In addition I think he should have had the ability to trade out feats or gain temporary ones without needing an archetype. If I had been a part of the playtest for PF Beta I would have pushed for it then since I said the same thing when I was playing 3.5.

As for hitting harder I agree that he might be ahead when TWF'ing, but I doubt that is true for two handed weapons.

edit: I know the fighter can trade out bonus feats on a permanent basis, I meant trade feats on a daily basis. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

Dispel Magic-- invalidated by Greater Dispel Magic

Protection from Energy-- still invalidated by Energy Immunity
Sleet Storm and Stinking Cloud-- same problems as Obscuring Mist above
Greater Magic Weapon-- still not worth casting; this spell exists only as a way to create permanent magic weapons
Fly-- if you can't cast it ahead of combat probably not worth casting
Invisibility sphere-- has uses, but I am not sure what its going to do to aid in fighting a 20th level foe
Ray of Exhaustion-- weak debuff typically not worth the action
Gaseous Form--can't take any relevant actions while under its effect
Heroism & Haste-- these spells don't give you the Wizard any real benefit; the Bard should be casting these as all they really do is buff the martials in your party; Heroism is so small that at 20th level its nearly insignificant

Lets put it this way. . . you are fighting a team of four pit fiends. If the spell isn't worth casting in that fight, its not significant at 20th level.

Are pit fiends the only CR 20 monsters worth fighting? Why do pit fiends alone get to decide spell value. As an alternate CR 24 encounter what if the monsters are 8 CR 18's? They would make for a tougher fight on average due to action economy.

Basically my point is that your method of assigning "what is worth casting" is borked. What is worth casting comes down to what situation you are in, and many spells are better cast before a fight. If you wait until you are in the fight to buff then you are not being efficient.

Haste as an example helps the wizard because it helps the martials kill things faster, and the faster things die, the less spells he has to use.

Now unless you are claimed upthread that you were only speaking of spells that directly disabled the enemy or buffed the caster doing the casting then you just play a very different game from everyone else. Actually even if you play that game then you still play a very different game because it means you don't see how the value of buff spells being precast actually helps you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
SRD wrote:
The default rule for the interaction of psionics and magic is simple: Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability. This is known as psionics-magic transparency.

The way the interchange is written suggest that you can-- a Psion picks up a meta-magic rod and it reads the words spells and powers interchangeably.

If DSP has made a ruling to the otherwise that isn't really applicable based on the rules as written from the 3.5 books.

Interacting with a spell is NOT the same as interacting with a feat. PP's don't use slots so metamagic does not work with them. If that was the case psions would just use metamagic feats instead of the psionics version to avoid spending their psionic focus, which would also allow them to stack metamagic feats just like casters do. You have never seen it because in any optimization guides by anyone that knows the rules because is not possible.

What that quote means is that dispel magic also dispels psionics, and that if there was a psionic version of remove curse that it would remove a curse caused by magic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

What exactly do you expect a Wizard to be doing that its so "underwhelming" against?

Time stop and cast three low level buffs? That's your play?

People keep saying the Wizard option is so much more powerful, so what is it?

(And Simulacrum is not the answer-- its gone for this discussion)

Also-- you left of the ones from Complete Psionic including Urge Extermination which is a more powerful version of Power Word Death-- that's right a Psionic power that's straight up better than its 9th level Wizard equivalent.

Do you really want to use splat books while comparing magic to psionics? <---think carefully before you answer this

And with time stop wizards can gate in creatures that can defeat the entire party especially if they have boosted their caster level.

Gate 3.5 wrote:


In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD do not exceed twice your caster level.

XP Cost
1,000 XP (only for the calling creatures function).

That means creatures from the epic level handbook that can likely take on the entire party.

Dream Larva, CR 31, 40 HD:

Dream Larva
Size/Type: Large Outsider (Chaotic, Evil, Extraplanar)
Hit Dice: 40d8+390 (710 hp)
Initiative: +3 (Dex)
Speed: 80 ft.; fly 240 ft. (perfect)
Armor Class: 52 (-1 size, +3 Dex, +40 natural)
Base Attack/Grapple: +40/+60
Attack: Bite +56 melee (4d8+16)
Full Attack: Bite +56 melee (4d8+16), 1 gore +51 melee (4d6+8), 4 pincers +53 melee (4d6+8), 4 claws +53 melee (4d6+8)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./10 ft.
Special Attacks: Worst nightmare, improved grab, sending, spell-like abilities, summon nightwalker
Special Qualities: Abomination traits, sonic immunity, regeneration 15, fast healing 15, SR 44, DR 15/good and epic or lawful and epic
Saves: Fort +31, Ref +25, Will +29
Abilities: Str 42, Dex 17, Con 29, Int 16, Wis 24, Cha 36
Skills: Concentration +52, Craft (dreamweaving) +46, Diplomacy +60, Escape Artist +46, Hide +46, Jump +36, Knowledge (arcana) +46, Listen +50, Move Silently +46, Search +46, Sense Motive +50, Spot +50
Feats: Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Flyby Attack, Great Cleave, Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (prismatic spray), Weapon Focus (pincers), Weapon Focus (gore), Weapon Focus (bite), Weapon Focus (claw)
Epic Feats: Epic Toughness, Epic Weapon Focus (pincers), Epic Weapon Focus (claw)
Environment: Any
Organization: Solitary, pair, or solitary plus 1-4 nightwalkers
Challenge Rating: 31
Treasure: Standard
Alignment: Always chaotic evil
Advancement: 41-65 HD (Large); 66-84 HD (Huge); 85-110 HD (Gargantuan)

It is not listed as a unique creature so it can be used.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

Whatever, you guys win. Simulacrum and garbage with explosive runes trumps every argument.

Hasn't budged my opinion of Psionics and has only made me more certain that anyone trying to use them are just trying to exploit.

So, to try and keep posters on the pro-psionics are balanced (can we just call it "more balanced than the normal magic system" already?) side from devolving into the same tactics that Nathanael Love is being accused of, I'll go ahead and ask some questions that he clearly has, and see if I can get some answers.

1. Why is novaing an unsustainable tactic?

2, Why wouldn't being able to throw out 24 9th level powers be overpowered? Even if it is weakening you for the rest of the day, isn't that still an absurd amount of power to throw out?

3. What are the broken tricks in 3.5 psionics?

Please answer questions without delving into claims that evocation/blasting is doing it wrong.

1 and 2 It really depends on how your group plays as to where or not it is sustainable. Now the game is set at 4 encounters a day, but in my experience higher level groups can take on more than 4 encounters a day. Also augmenting a spell by uses 20PP does not equate it to a 9th level power for purposes of effectiveness. You can make a power drop 20d6, but it is still not going to match some powers simply because damage is not the end all of everything. It is like saying a cleric who can cast 7 9th level spells has more high power value than a wizard casting 4 9th level spells.

3. There are the theoretical characters that should never see a table such as pun pun. IIRC he can be done with magic or psionics.
Other than similar rules exploits you might have to define "broken".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And as for the all day nova it is only a problem for GM's whose world's revolve around the character and allow them to use the "I nova, I rest" pattern. But in that game the sorcerer or wizard can nova also once the players figure out the GM lets them "auto replenish" their resources.

If you sleep in the dungeon while monsters are still there don't be surprised when the monster break the door down to attack the party.

Psion: I don't have any power points.

GM: The monsters don't care. They actually prefer it that way.

Psion: <hides in the back plinking away with his crossbow>

--------------------

Not a secret--->Psions have traditionally been better blasters than wizards, but a wizard has many more options, and the spell version is often better than augmented power version pushed to the equivalent of a 9th level spell.

In either case a psion, sorcerer, or wizard can be useful, and any of them in 3.5 can cause a GM problems, but the wizard is still at the top of the mountain in 3.5, if you optimize it. Otherwise its ability to have a variety of spells that solve multiple problems is not matched either, and you don't need Schrodinger's wizard to do it because in a real game the "perfect spell" need not be memorized.
You only need a spell than can work.

Disintegrate as an example is often used to attack people, but it can also clear dungeon walls, and summon monster ___ can bring in an outsider that has spells that you do not, such as heal, even though it is primary designed to be an attack spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is not a new topic. There was a time when psionics was hot button topic here, just like paladins and psionics are. I really doubt anyone can raise any points not brought up in the past.

Here is something written that can save people a lot of trouble.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Over and over and over again I see players and GMs alike talking about how monsters are often weaker than classed characters. Supposedly this is because their options are more limited, whereas a classed character can be optimized with a plethora of items and options.

Why?

What is keeping the dragon from wearing armor, or the ogre from using a potion of enlarge person? Why aren't monsters using the same tricks and tactics that classed characters often use?

They have treasure values; why aren't the intelligent monsters making use of it? Why aren't they every bit as selective and discerning in their tools and tactics as the adventurers they so often fight?

How is it that such an imaginative and outgoing community fell into the mental rut of "monsters couldn't/shouldn't/wouldn't do that."

Please. Answer me that.

Because giving them armor takes them outside of their CR range. As an example throwing even a chain shirt on a monster give it +4 AC. A +1 cloak of resistance gives it a boost to all saves. Give it an amulet of might fist or a weapon, and its average attack and damage go up.

If you look at the monster creation chart even boosting AC, attacks, an saves by as small as +1 is enough to warrant a boost to another CR category.

I am not saying it makes someone a bad GM. I am just answering the question, and if a GM runs for an optimized group I actually recommend the monster using the treasure.

Now some monsters such as giants use this treasure to meet their CR ratings, but improving on it still bumps them up a CR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The player might just invest in skill focus(fly), or just take the hover feat to sit in one spot and fire arrows at will.

Coincidentally there was an ranger harpy in 3.5 in the D&D that used archery. It was not represented as having a problem with shooting a bow and flying. The same goes for Erinyes(3.5 and Pathfinder monster).

It seems to me like you are applying a penalty for having poor flight which is a penalty already, instead of having a penalty for flight specifically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the players know that the NPC's can do anything they do sometimes a reminder is all they need. If that does not work then actually do it.

I do think that for a more casual group it can be annoying, and/or if the GM does not have a lot of time to customize encounters. In both of these cases it may be better to not allow it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A paladin activating his bonded weapon is an SLA, so it provokes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:

For myself, it was the sense of entitlement that really set me back when I first started playing/running a game again. Maybe that's the fault of video games?

But when Players learn that they can have as much fun without the "Christmas tree effect", then things get so much easier, and everyone can have fun.

Anyway, back to the OP question: I have very little available, maybe 25% chance, based on the town size, seldom going over something with a 2nd lvl spell equivalent. Mostly just scrolls and potions - which the players can craft for themselves. Just no permanent magic items - weapons, armor, rings, staves,etc. Instead of Item Creation feats, they can take another Feat.

But my campaign is meant to make being an arcane caster hard. Magic is drying up, and so there are VERY few who can work magic.

The casters already have the magic. It is the classes without magic that suffer more. Unless you have other houserules in place I would be more likely to play a caster in your game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Thank goodness Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, Frodo and Bilbo Baggins, Robin Hood and pretty much every great character from fiction didn't feel that way, eh?

Yoda: "If all jedi lightsabers have, none special will feel, hmmm? A butter knife for you is good enough."

Museum: "Sorry, Dr. Jones. I know you believed this to be the Lost Ark of the Covenant, but then we'd need magic rocks or something for the next movie, and we simply can't have so many magic goodies floating around. So what you recovered is, in fact, a brass-covered box with some plain stone tablets in it. But it has a backstory!"

Gandalf: "Yes, there are legends of the Ring of Sauron, that makes men and hobbits invisible to all except His eye... but what you have there, what your uncle Bilbo recovered, is my aunt Mildred's engagement ring."

Sheriff of Nottingham: "Yes, of COURSE you can defeat all my schemes with a mundane bow... we're only 4th level, after all, and this is an E6 campign."

Ummmm... what does any of that have to do with the characters being motivated solely by financial reward, as stated in the post I quoted and responded to?

That was the in game reason. The OOC reason was likely that the GM was too stingy with the loot.

If you tell people up front, "I am deviating from the norm by ___", they accept it a lot better than finding out by accident.

PS: No I can't presume he would have agree to play if he had known, because I don't know the poster personally


3 people marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:
A more interesting question is, if the rules somehow allowed you to ride the Lich's respawn ability back into the land of the living, could you use that as a poor man's phylactery? It wouldn't be particularly powerful, but it would be amusing.

From a story point of view this is interesting. This is going outside of the rules, but the lich/ghost could use this to keep you alive forever, which seems like a good thing, but then you have the immortality is a curse trope. He might even create a personal curse that enforces the one from the item. He could kill himself at random times, just to mess with you. Dealing with that for eternity would be a terrible thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
The magic mart is primarily a GM problem. I rarely see players complain and have found that more often than not, you'll never make magic feel special. Fantasy is too mainstream right now, with video games and movies and books flooding the market.

+1000

I think that what happens is the players give a sigh of relief when the GM finally gives them something, and the GM mistakes for it "wonder", so he keeps the same pattern going. I have never heard a player say, "You make it too easy to get these items. Send us on a quest.".

The 75% rule does a good job of not getting them everything they want, but normally giving them enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zedth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Yea! I mean... I know you have a +1 sword, and I know the Mage just told you that +3 swords will get through his DR just like it was made of cold iron, but how could you possibly know about +2 swords! FREEKING metagamers! This is getting out of hand!

What do you mean you want a +2 cloak of resistance. You mean a "gracious cloak of avoiding harm of the 2nd circle?" Well you don't know about those! Metagame cheat game ruiner!

Rod of metamagic quickening? Are you insane? How does your character even know about that? Oh? You have the feat? And you have extend? And a rod of extend? Natural conclusion?!?!! NO WAY!!!!!! NO MOAR MAGIC ITEMS! Magic items are the special precious flowers and snowflakes that litter my campaign world like a bad Longfellow poem. From now on you will take only what you get, and you will equip it, and you won't try to sell it, and you will like it, AND THERE WILL BE SANITY ON THE MATERIAL PLANE!!!!!! ROWAR!!!!

Nowhere did I infer players wouldn't know about magic items. I inferred players having the full knowledge of the extensive array of magic items in the CRB and other books is the very definition of metagaming. You're free to disagree, but your attack on my opinion is extremely childish. You may have missed the "Help us keep the messageboards a fun and friendly place" rule.

Why couldn't the characters know? In a low magic setting where magic or magic items is rare maybe, but in the standard setting I don't see how they could not know. As someone in the military, I knew about military equipment used by other services that I never got to see in person.

In the game you can use knowledge checks to know about monsters and other things that way outnumber magic items.

It makes sense that someone would let the PC's know about these items especially if they are the trained PC's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since I don't know exactly what it is supposed to do I don't have any expectations. My guess is that it will be Unearthed Arcana:Pathfinder Edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

People notice when magic forces them to make a save. Now of course he won't know what it is without a some divination spells so I would suggest doing this quickly. In addition I am sure he can easily make a 23 will save. The other issue is that he is a ghost so it may not matter, but you already know that.

As for the lich, Arazni has a phylactery, and while your souls are linked the item does not destroy her soul. Nothing in the item says it dies any special way. It just says the target dies so there is no reason she won't be back and highly upset in 1d10 days, assuming the save is failed.

In either case you have two mythic level characters after you because I am sure they have a way to get to the participant's soul, and then they go after whoever came up with the idea, so yes you can kill them with a lot of luck, but I don't see it as perma-death.

Yes I know the souls are linked, but it never says they have the exact same status all the time. It only says that if one creature dies the other one dies.

PS: Upon returning to life/undeath they break the enchantment, and then go after whoever did did it. If it can be stopped by a simple remove curse I don't think it is all that powerful. Also--> Even if they make the save they go after whoever did it.

This is your evil entity known as Wraithstrike advising you to never use this item against him. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kevin_video wrote:
Whether I win or lose, my main concern, and I told this to Sean, was that we all get constructive criticism on our entries, regardless of how good or bad they are. Never having done this with you guys before I don't know how you usually do it, but I've sent other kind of entries in before and had them mercilessly torn asunder. It makes you hesitant of entering other contests with other people.

SKR has destroyed my submissions in RPG superstar. The key is to take it as advice and not a personal attack. All he was doing was telling me what I did was wrong and anytime you present something to be written you should be prepared for the feedback even if your name is well known.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Master of Shadows wrote:

I guess what I'm saying is that the rule already is unambiguous, there is nothing there that allows it. If the design intent was otherwise, as Jason's post suggests, then I would welcome an FAQ or an Errata.

Until then, RAW does not allow it.

I think you are really disliking that the rules are not conveniently in one place, and spread too far out. That is different from RAW not allowing it. So far nobody has been able to use RAW to dispute the thread where I said it was RAW.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I learned when myself and a few posters tried to write a rule for how negative energy affinity worked was that it is very hard to write a rule so that almost nobody gets it wrong. At that point, the PDT team earned even more of my respect. I was just trying to make one rule. They have to try to write and reference several other rules at the same time.

Even now you just tried to change two rules, and got them wrong. It does not mean you don't have a good grasp on the rules, but it does show that the job is not as easy as some of us think it is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

I expect Occult Mysteries to be amazing though, because so many of the people at Paizo love the concept. They've been planning and ruminating on something they love and are excited about, and love is where the real magic comes from.

Fear not, your damning praise will be quickly silenced by all the "ha ha Failzo hates point-based psionics so they're giving us another vancian system where casters rule and martials drool' people ;-)

I hope not. I am a psionics point guy, but I understand the reluctance to do a similar system, and I am hoping this one succeeds. In my games I will look at psionics and psychics as closely related, but still different, but I think some will use it as a replacement. People just need to realize Paizo can't always give them what they want AND still appeal to the broad fan base.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

JB's clarification is just that - a clarification.

The current Stealth rules work as outlined above (contrary to what Master of Shadows keeps claiming). You needn't pour over thousands of threads to find the answer - it's already in the PRD. JB was simply confirming everything, even going so far as to mention that it could have been made clearer.

There's a difference between personal opinions of how a rule should be run and a clarification of how a rule actually works.

+1

Yes, basically Jason was not changing a rule. He was saying ""This is how I intended for it to be read. It just was not explained well enough for everyone to easily understand."

A person not understanding it does not make it "not a rule".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Unbiased viewpoint:

The fighter does more damage until I see proof otherwise. On the flipside the swashbuckleris not that far behind and it has a comparable AC to a fighter with a shield so between the AC and parry and riposte it "should" get hit less.

Well you can push the fighter's AC. That is true, but if the fighter goes sword and board it loses the damage race.

Yeah the swash has evasion, but barring dazing spell which is really doing the heavy lifting, a d10 class will normally be okay failing the save. If the caster is specializing in evocation then you are in trouble because you will likely fail the save and even half of 250+ damage a round will hurt.

The swashbuckler has more skills. No argument here.

The fighter can master more than one way to fight, and still be decent at another such as archery thanks to extra feats and weapon mastery. True

Basically if you compare the core swashbuckler and the core fighter, the swashbuckler is the better class all around. However the fighter has enough archetypes that if you want to focus on something it can pull ahead in that area, but not for one weapon fighting. The lore warden as an example is good with combat maneuver abilities. If you combine it with the archetype that can change out feats every day then you can ready for a lot of situations if you plan it well.

However being better than the fighter is not really an accomplishment, and I still prefer the slayer, barbarian, and ranger over both classes, and I have not even played the slayer yet. I have however built a slayer and a swashbuckler.

Basically the people in your group will have to find reason to play a fighter. There are no blanket ones I can think of to always choose a fighter because there are several ways to play a fighter, and until the swashbuckler gets more archetype there are only so many ways to play a slayer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bioboygamer wrote:

Well, I've got some info from the player's character sheet:

Ifrit Sorcerer 3

STR 10
DEX 17
CON 17
INT 12
WIS 8
CHA 20

17 AC (4 armor + 3 from DEX)

FORT 4
REF 4
WILL 4

Unfortunately, it seems like the player in question uses his character sheet as more of a quick reference for the session, and he keeps the rest of his character info at home. All the same, it looks like he's not going to be nearly as overpowered as he was before.

If there's any other info you want, I could probably just ask him, but I'm not sure if there's much else to say at this point.

Players need to have the character sheet with them every session because it is easy to forget things. You need to require that everyone have a complete sheet before the 1st session even starts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do have issues with the open close eyes as free action because while we take turns in real life, in fantasy land things happen all at once. If you close your eyes for a full round attack they stay closed until the beginning of your next turn in my games.

For a single attack I just let it go because making your blind for only using a standard action is more of a penalty than I like to give.

As for closing your eyes and swinging vs keeping them open, I see closing your eyes as you trying to take up as much space as possible with your weapon and hoping you get lucky, as opposed to striking at a specific image. Blind-fight is helping you swing into the corner part of the 5 foot square. It is not different than movies where a blinded fighter has gained the ability to fight without seeing. It is actually a trope. Behold the blind weaponmaster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just assume the uncommon races are known(heard of) but rare. With of the strange things going on in Golarion I see no reason to hide it. I would guess they at worst, get treated like teiflings in a GM's game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have always allowed for aid another on skill checks but I think per RAW it only works on skill checks, attack rolls, and boosting AC, and some spells(Don't ask me which ones, I am going by what the book says.) :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The feat seems to have forgotten about reach weapons because it assumes the charger can attack while adjacent.

I think the intent is for the charger to attack when you are in range.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ulgulanoth wrote:
Surely if your tactic is always disable the caster first, you would stack up on thunderstones, smoke sticks, ect to blind/deafen/ect the caster at a range to then deal with the marshals, especially since getting hit on purpose (with AoOs) is just as dumb

IIRC thunderstone are only a DC 15 fort save. Unless you are a low(1-3) level caster they are not a threat unless you throw a lot of them. Depending on how many minions are around throwing them could be a terrible use of your actions.

If they(PC casters) can't target someone there are always AoO's. In addition many casters cause problems with buffs and summons. Smoke sticks won't normally stop those.

From a PC perspective if the entire party opens up with thunderstones, then it might work, but I think think it is less efficient than trying to use your casters to shut down the other caster if possible, hopefully in conjuction with your meat shield so he takes less damage while getting to the caster.

I think the problem here is that "go after the caster" is being presented as "rush in with no matter what", but I doubt Ashiel or the other posters would do that. More than likely some of the meatbags protecting the NPC caster will be disabled, and the PC meatbag will be buffed, so that his path to the caster is less painful than it would be otherwise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

I would really just like a real aplology and not the kind where I'm told I didn't like the book because my standards were too high. Preferably a statement more public than a PM or post in this thread.

My standards are pretty average and thats why I even own RPG books in the first place, I expect some level of balance issues and rules errors. I don't believe that the ACG was bad because my standards were too high, I think it was bad because Paizo can and has done better. When people hear a core Paizo book they hear that they are going to get a quality product worth their money and it was advertized as such. I wouldn't go far enough to say that it was false advertising, but I do feel lied to and betrayed after all those blog posts hyping up a product that doesn't deliver.

I thought so, but you can't force someone into a "legit" apology. It is like when your parents force you to say sorry to your brother or sister but you dont really mean it, if they do it just to appease the fans/customers.

I am in no way implying that is what Paizo would do.

I purchased a bestiary where an entire paragraph was just gone from the book, among other errors, so I understand how you feel after getting a hardback that could have been better.

If you have an end point to your questions I guess you should get to that point*, but I don't think they dropped the ball on purpose.

*At some point they will move on to other things beside this thread, simply because they probably do have other things to do, and then you might start to feel ignored, even if that is not the case.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Do you know the main reason? Because I refuse to send a book to the printer early just to hit a release date. If my staff doesn't feel it is ready, then we won't ship.
Was the ACG an exception to that rule?

It seems you are being antagonistic now, but it could be the internet. Since Gencon releases have more errors typically the answer is more likely that, they did not notice the errors for (insert reason, to include lack of time to completely look over the book as needed)*, which is different from "I know these errors exist, but instead of fixing them we will ship it to the printer anyway".

*I will expand on this-->Being on a time crunch and not actually having time to playtest the final version of the book could make it seem ok when it is not. So you could give it the "thumbs up" when you shouldn't. Typically not playtesting the final version has been working. This time it did not.

Do I wish the book had turned out differently? sure

Hounding them about the process won't help though. The next book will be a sign of whether this is a trend or an anomaly.

I think you want an apology, but if they give it to you just to get you to stop complaining, does it really count, and how would you know if it was sincere or not?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdtothe3rd wrote:

Ok so I personally feel 9th level casters and potentially manifesters are just too powerful for your normal campaign setting. Often times I hear stories of the Wizard, Cleric, or Druid doing insane stuff at higher levels that just seem like why would you play any other class when you can just wish for more wishes or warp the universe to your desire, or heck make your own!.

So I wanted my new setting to be strictly limited to 6th level casters.
For arcane this means: Bard, Magus, Skald, and Summoners.
For divine this means: Inquisitors, Hunter, Paladin, Ranger, and Warpriest.

Alchemist and Investigator not being proper 6ths but allowed.

So to the advice for this part.
1. Do you think with those options the parties won't feel like they can't cover all their needs? Healing, DPR, Tanking, Skill-Monkey, Party Face, etc.

2. Do you think 9th level psionics are as broken and op as 9th level spells? I am fond of the psion and psionics in general so I feel my love for the style is blinding me.

I was considering running as a Dragon Age like Inquisition style world where Divine magic, their churches and armies have begun to persecute arcane casters and this is why we do not have witches, wizards, sorcerers and the like. To explain why no Clerics or Druids. Not every god agrees with this overly aggressive kill all arcane users way of thinking so they deny their clerics their full powers, which is why we get Paladins, Inquisitors, and Warpriest(Clerics basically). As even the gods who support these views don't want to give too much power to their followers when it might turn against them. Druids do not exist because nature is about balance and with the world shifting to divine over arcane the balance is thrown out of wack reducing them to the Hunter class.

Do you think this would be a good idea?
Can you give suggestions for fun plots to take place in a world Arcane users have to mostly hide what they are doing. Sure the churches know what they are doing and that the bards and so forth exist but only go after them if they begin to upset the status quo(?). At least till they are ready to wipe out all arcane users in the end.

EDIT: It was an oversight and I am banning them. I was going to ban the Summoners, but that just leaves Arcane with Bard, Skald, and Magus and that seems very pitiful when it comes to magical support.
ALSO I cannot make new posts for some reason.

Every setting I have played in has had things more powerful than the PC's. I don't think they can be too powerful for any setting. They can be too much for a GM, depending on the GM.

Also it is better to play and experience it for yourself than go by hearsay. Some tables have them wrecking GM's encounters. Other tables don't have a problem with them. Some tables also are ok with them, but only up to a certain level. Some table are ok with some of them, but not others. Basically how much trouble they are depends on the group.

Psionics are more balanced than spells, but the do nova a easier so whether or not they are better depends on playstyle. As an example if the world goes on independently of your PC's then the problem will self-correct. If they use the "nova then rest" combo, and they never have to fight while depleted on resources they will continue to do so.

With that said players are more of a problem than classes in my experience. If a player has really good system mastery he can trivialize encounters and still give the GM headaches even playing partial casters.

There is no one plot that I can recommend, but the game is easier with full casters for players. You will probably need to compensate for certain things if certain spells are no longer available and/or they come later in the game due to not having full casters.

As for the summoner, the class is not inherently broken, but it is an easy class to optimize, and it has a lot of rules exceptions. Most of the builds that cause trouble are due to rules errors on the part of the GM or the player. If you and your group are new to the game you might want to avoid the summoner for now, and bring it in later on. Definitely avoid the master summoner for now.

1 to 50 of 1,381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.