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. 2,623 posts (40,940 including aliases). 3 reviews. 9 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

Withdraw and stealth is rules legal, but certainly abusive because there is no practical counter. There are some high level spells that can simulate the effects of Agent Orange and high level parties might have aerial recon, but outside that this is the sort of tactic that armies and gendarmeries have trouble countering.

Using guerrilla tactics when you outnumber the players is abusive to a degree that cannot be described remotely adequately without tripping the profanity filter. Save it for a kingdom building game when the players have enough armies to actually respond with counter-insurgency tactics.

Abusive? To the point you cannot describe it without profanity?

I was looking for the "/sarcasm" quote at the end of your post but there isn't one; was your post serious?

It is NOT "abusive" to challenge players with an encounter. It is NOT "abusive" to have monsters and NPCs care about their lives and try to run away instead of always fighting to ridiculous deaths. It is NOT "abusive" to have enemies use the rules, the basic, core, simplest rules of running and hiding.

Nothing, NOTHING about what happened here was "abusive". Not even close. Calling it "abusive" just about triggers my own profanity filter...

I agree. I think it is a valid tactic, even if it is annoying to the PC or player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malag wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Yes you can withdraw(rules definition) and stealth, but not in the same round that you attack.
They never did attack. While characters chased two targets who were constantly withdrawing, two other archers sniped them down. So attacking while withdrawing never really happened. They had advantage in numbers.

I was just answering the rules question I thought you were asking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malag wrote:

Hello paizonians,

It has been quite a while from the last time that I made any topic, but recently, I got shot with a blunt bullet right into my forehead for using „intelligent NPC guerilla tactics“ against the party. Although I was quite insulted for being told that the tactics were „abusive“ from my side, it nevertheless forced me to question the legality of those tactics and if I made something wrong in it so here comes a short summary of the last two fights. Please don't refrain from criticizing both me and the players, but keep it civil:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

Your tactics were not bad, but some rules may not have been applied correctly.

The players get a reactive(free) perception check to notice hiding enemies.
Some people think they get another check when the ambush begins, but that is up for debate.
Someone attacking also gives their position away unless they used the sniping rules which apply a heavy penalty. This matters because once they attack they are observed, and you can not restealth while you are observed. Sniping gets around that.

For the 2nd fight they also should have gotten the perception check since this was a new combat.

I do agree that leaving people behind is a bad idea. One of the things that most people know is that you do not split the party.

I am going to assume you mean withdraw as in "move away", not the game term. The game is definitely not legal, but neither is moving away, and making a stealth check for reasons already mentioned.

It is possible, just not easy to do this. Stealth is hard in Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

Scorpion Whip errata:

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1#v5748eaic9t9r

Basically: It's an exotic dagger with the performance property instead of 19-20 crit and throwing.

If you have whip proficiency in addition to scorpion whip proficiency it effectively becomes a 1d4 whip that always deals lethal damage and isn't stopped by AC.

Thing is, you still provoke, so you're still going to want Whip Mastery and potentially improved whip mastery for AoOs.

So at that point you basically have a whip that deals .75 more damage and has the performance property.

Am I missing something or this just... really bad now?

linkified


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Endzeitgeist wrote:
This is a steal in its non-price-reduced version. The Zeitgeist AP is a thing of beauty and awesomeness.

You are the super reviewer guy. I will read your review on it. At 9.99 I will likely buy it anyway though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Devoted is a descriptor, therefore, it only applies to personalties that can be described by it.

Kinda like how humanoid is a descriptor, therefore, only things that fit that description can be refered to as humanoid. Therefore you can't logically apply humanoid to things that don't fit the description. Devoted is the same way, it doesn't apply to every personality, because it defines a limited set of possible personalities.

Regardless of the words actually used, my original point still stands, paladins make sense being limited to lawful characters.

Your point does not stand. Chaotic people can be devoted(dedicated, committed, etc). You have given your opinion, and no hard rules or facts that prove otherwise.

It makes sense to you, so if you are saying it only has to make sense to someone then a lot of things make sense, and in that case this sub-topic is pointless. If you are saying it has to make sense to most people then I doubt you will get most people to agree with you, so by that version of "make sense" your argument fails.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:

I have zero interest in adventure paths.

I adore 3pp content but I think the 3pp publishers have tunnel vision.

I think there is far too much "you are playing the game wrong" attitude on the boards.

I have seen enough "you are playing the wrong game", and enough people take things out of context to interpret it that way, that I may not agree, but I understand with the way some people only deal in absolutes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are going to make a silly thread that is not intended to be serious it is best to put it in the off-topic area. If you put it in the advice or rule area it will look like you are baiting people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mykull wrote:

The demons could make the head into a Beheaded:

In brief, "A beheaded is a severed head or skull animated as a mindless undead sentinel that silently floats at eye level as it lies in wait for living prey or is sent out into the lands of the living to terrorize everyone it finds."

From Resurrection: You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.

The players have the body (definitely a "small portion of the creature's body) so that should allow for the casting of Resurrection. However, since the head is now undead and hasn't been destroyed, I can easily see that being a reason the spell fails, thus engendering a quest.

I agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
coyote6 wrote:

You're playing in Golarion, right? As I understand it, typically no soul can be returned to life except by powerful spells (i.e., true resurrection or the like) once it has been judged by Pharasma. There is no defined time it takes for that to happen; the convention is that for PCs, it doesn't happen fast. But for an NPC? Yeah, you could just say that Pharasma judged Sosiel already, and he has gone to join Shelyn.

(Edit: maybe not even true resurrection will work; see James Jacobs post here.)

@ the OP: Golarion does not have any official alteration to the resurrection spells. The director may thinks its cheap but without a rule the players may feel like you are playing with surprise rules. I would make it into a house rule if it bothers you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, it's me again.

There is an FAQ request on the nauseated condition which I did not know about. It is similar to an FAQ request I made about being dazed and other conditions. If possible I was wondering if you(PDT) could handle all of those conditions at once since they have similar language.

If you need links let me know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
...

The FAQ does not say that. It still says threat. You keep adding the penalty portion to prevent take 10.

to help you with your next reply--->Give me a direct statement with no inference just like the take 20 rule is written. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

PS: I get what you are saying, but I am not asking for an interpretation. I want a direct statement that a penalty, not a distraction/threat stops taking 10.

edit: I see the fact that you are dealing with some powerful entity who can do bad things as the threat, not the penalty from failing.

Otherwise every skill could be denied taking 10, since it could have some possible penalty.

Here is a fun question. What is the difference in the logic between the following two assertions?

Quote:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
Quote:
Falling to your death from 300ft up is a significant and distracting threat, therefore you can't Take 10 on that check.
Since it isn't unreasonable to say that there is no difference in the logic between those two, then it would be reasonable to draw a a parallel and say that you can't take 10 on checks like climb, swim and fly when failing the check is life threatening, unless you seriously want to argue that getting killed is clearly less of a significant and distracting threat than becoming stupid and losing your spellcasting for a few days. Hence why the Contact Other Planes FAQ is dodgy - It is perfectly reasonable to justify ruling out take-10 on a wide swath of skills based on the same reasoning the FAQ uses.

I have seen many rules debates have two reasonable interpretations, but only one of them is correct. I understand his point. I just don't agree since there is no rules support for a penalty stopping "taking 10". The only rules supports says that penalties stop taking 20. If they want it to apply to taking 10 also, then it needs to be rewritten.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Before I head to Paizocon (and away from computers until Tuesday, most likely), just want to say that due to everyone being at the con, no FAQ Friday this week. Due to blog constraints, that probably means questions that need a blog like simulacrum won't be until a little while after Gencon at earliest (since blog slots are full 'til then).

With the blog FAQ's on hold for a few months who are the new top contenders for FAQ Friday?


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

That FAQ is saying you can't take 10 because you are distracted or threatened which is already in the rules. It is not saying you can not take 10 because of a penalty for failure.

If that FAQ was a catch all case then you could never take 10 and fail a check such as climbing or swimming which might lead you to be harmed which is not true. You can very much take 10, fail, and fall 50 feet. At no point does that FAQ mention "failure and bad things happening" as the reason, as some have done on similar threads.

That spell is also an ability check, and not a skill check, and the FAQ's are said to only apply to what they are specifically asked.

The FAQ says you can't take 10 because the penalty for failure is distracting and threatening you.

The FAQ does indeed proof you can't take 10 on checks such as climbing if you consider possibly falling to your death a significant and distracting threat.

Take 10 works in the exact same way for ability checks and skill checks, you're trying to make a distinction that is not there.

The devs themselves said an FAQ only answers what they say it answers. Take that up with them not me, not that it matters, because per my last post you still have yet to show me where it is attaching a penalty to taking 10. I keep seeing words such as "distracting threat". You have to show the word "penalty", and I don't think you will find it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Most hexes are supernatural. A few are spell-like, but I don't think most of those are combat offensive type hexes. Supernatural abilities ignore spell resistance entirely. They also have no arcane spell failure chance, as they aren't arcane spells. Grappling doesn't stop hexes, but you do generally need line of sight, although some hexes bypass this.

Scarred Witch Doctor is a Con-based caster, mostly, but is Orc only. Some permissive GMs will allow a half-orc to take the class.

Half-orcs are allowed to take feats and other things for orcs because they count as orcs for such things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like to have stats where ever the new _____ is mentioned. That means less page flipping. The page count should be the same, since they are just moving the information to another page.

I do not have the book, so I am assuming all that did was move the words to a different page.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In a thread similar to this one a few years ago GM's admitted to giving out less XP if a "tough" encounter was defeated too easily saying the players didn't deserve the XP since the effort was not put forth. Some of these same GM's said an easy encounter that turned out being much harder than expected did not deserve extra XP. The players should have done a better job. To me that is also cheating.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
So, flipping it around, as a player do you tolerate DM cheating? The most common example is, of course, rolls getting fudged so that the party always "just barely" wins every major fight. And, yes, it's controversial, but I maintain that the DM is not by definition "immune" to accusations of cheating. Sorry, but as DM, I don't do it. And as a player, I always ask the DM not to do it, especially in a sandbox-style game. I don't like being railroaded, and, similarly, I want my PC to die if I get in over my head. I know that houstonderek shares that view when he's playing -- it's one of the things that convinced us we'd be a good pairing for a long-term game.
Yes. DM fudging is integral to a fun game otherwise we can end up with 1 round boss fights or TPK's. This is not to say no one dies in our game--plenty of PC death is enjoyed by all--it just prevents complications due to the DM either under or over estimating what he's put us up against.

I wouldn't say its integral. It is useful if the goal is to not kill PC's as much and certain errors are made with regard to the party's capability to handle certain encounters. If the GM is very good at estimating the party's ability to handle fights then he may never need to fudge to avoid a TPK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Both of those links go to a $22 dollar book, so I am assuming it is a softcover. Most of the hardcover come in at around at least $40.


36 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Cowering: The character is frozen in fear and can take no actions. A cowering character takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class and loses his Dexterity bonus (if any).
Quote:
Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
Quote:
Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).

In the game the conditions listed above say you can not take actions. I am sure they mean you can not use the game term of "actions", but they may also apply to the non-game definition and other cases that are not directly spelled out.

In a game similar to Pathfinder that shall not be named there were other things you could not do. Examples follow from official sources:

Quote:
In general, if you cannot use a standard action during your turn, you also cannot make an attack of opportunity during someone else's turn. When the notes on conditions in Part One say that you cannot act (for example, when stunned), you cannot make an attack of opportunity.
Quote:
You can take a 5-foot step anytime you don't otherwise move across the battlefield. You usually take a 5-foot step before, after, or during another action. The rules don't say so, but it's best to assume that you cannot take a 5-foot step unless you can take at least a move action during your turn.

Here is my question for the PDT team, and for everyone who is curious to FAQ. Do these(cowering, dazed, stunned) conditions allow someone to take a 5-foot step, take attacks of opportunity or other non-actions such as delaying.

PS: The 3.5 rules are simply there for precedence in case anyone is wondering why others would make such statements. I do no leg in this race with regard to if they are upheld or not. I just want an answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Fascinating idea. I'd imagine you'd experience some table variation on this one, so be sure to have some backup plans, but let's see if we can tally up and eliminate some obvious ones:

1st level
Dire rat (no)
Dog (no)
Dolphin (no)
Eagle (no)
Fire beetle (no)
Poisonous frog (no)
Pony (horse) (no)
Viper (snake) (no)

2nd Level
Ant, giant (worker) (no)
Elemental (Small) (unknown, unlikely)
Giant centipede (no)
Giant frog (no)
Giant spider (no)
Goblin dog (no)
Horse (no)
Hyena (no)
Lemure (devil) (no, mindless)
Octopus (no)
Squid (no)
Wolf (no)

3rd Level
Ant, giant (soldier) (no)
Ape (no)
Aurochs (herd animal) (no)
Boar (no)
Cheetah (no)
Constrictor snake (no)
Crocodile (no)
Dire bat (no)
Dretch (demon) (possibly, as it is formed from the soul of a "slothful, evil mortal")
Electric eel (no)
Lantern archon (n/a, it's a sphere of light, it can't hold anything)
Leopard (cat) (no)
Monitor lizard (no)
Shark (no)
Wolverine (no)

4th Level
Ant, giant (drone) (no)
Bison (herd animal) (no)
Deinonychus (dinosaur) (no)
Dire ape (no)
Dire boar (no)
Dire wolf (no)
Elemental (Medium) (unknown, unlikely)
Giant scorpion (no)
Giant wasp (no)
Grizzly bear (no)
Hell hound (n/a, it's a puppy, it can't hold anything)
Hound archon (our first solid "yes")
Lion (no)
Mephit (any) (I can totally see a Mephit doing this)
Pteranodon (dinosaur) (no)
Rhinoceros (no)

5th Level
Ankylosaurus (dinosaur) (no)
Babau (demon) (yes)
Bearded devil (yes, devils are known for their contracts, right?)
Bralani azata (yes)
Dire lion (no)
Elemental (Large)...

+1 just for going through the entire list of monsters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ozy wrote:
Take 10 is related to the current status of the PC in a way that should make sense.

Ok, lets go with that. How does one walking through a dark dungeon take 10 as opposed to roll 1d20 for their perception checks? What does the character do differently?

They do the task the same way. Taking 10 is a rule that saves real life time if the player thinks the check won't be difficult. It does not mean you come up with some new procedure based on how muchtiem you have. Also we are not our characters. I for one, can not pick a lock so I would have no way to tell you how my rogue/slayer/etc is doing it. Rolling the dice is forced on the player/PC when the character has some pressure on him. If you(PC) are about to be shanked by an unknown assailant the PC is still not under any pressure because he has no idea that attacker is there.

Now of course that brings us around to what counts as the type of pressure to prevent taking 10. Well you making a mistake(not rolling high enough) does not count otherwise many skills could reasonably deny taking 10, such as climbing. I would say as a general rule there has to be a known outside source threatening you or distraction that makes you not be able to take 10.

Example: You spot goblins 300 feet away. That will not stop your initial take 10 check to notice them, and it will not stop your climb check to climb a nearby tree. Those goblins are not an immediate threat or danger. Now if you notice a bear is charging you, "right now", then you should not be able to take 10 while climbing that tree.
Another example would be the ground around you shaking, and you realizing an earthquake is going on. That would also call for you to not be able to take 10 on a skill.

edit: I see I missed some post. Carry on. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jhan in other threads some have argued that you can not take 10 at all in the above situations. Potentially failing does not stop you from taking 10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I made a request for an FAQ here. I would like to know if it is worded well enough. If not I can reword it so that the PDT can give us an answer.


69 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems that different people have different ideas on what counts as immediate dangers and distractions that would make taking 10 not possible. I understand that every possible case can not be listed, but I think the following list can be answered and if possible we would like a good rule of thumb to follow.

Do the following prevent taking 10 while not in combat?

Swimming

climbing

Perception (to locate a trap)

Perception (reactive check to locate hiding enemy)

Disable device (disarm a trap)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:


Randomness is a much higher factor with a random skewing in a random direction when you apply the statistics to a small set of rolls, like in a particular game or a particular player.

This is one of the issues when determining averages for damage (typically when people try to determine which build is better).

I think most of realize this, and most of us realize that average damage is only one of many indicators of success. The idea with DPR is damage potential since it also assumes full attacks which may not even take place, depending on the enemy. My current character is doing pretty bad on attack rolls, and is not close to matching his DPR on paper. However for the first 3 sessions the dice were hot in combat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
One other point re: OP; it's the GM's job to adjudicate. If you think a fellow player has something wrong, I would speak to them privately or speak to the GM privately. Calling them out in middle of a game or in front of the table is pretty obnoxious. So is cheating. But one does not invalidate the other. Discretion is always a good a choice.

A lot of players operate under the assumption that it is solely the GM's job to catch any rules mistakes the players might make, either intentional or not.

That is assumption is false.

Actually, if you bothered reading my entire short post, my point was it was better to call out potential rules violations with discretion whether through the GM or a one-on-one conversation with the fellow player. A lot of people assume that calling someone out on character sheet problems in front of the table is not rude and obnoxious.

That assumption is false.

It is not really objectionably right or wrong, but the manner in which you do so can be wrong. "

Not rude: "Hey if you use rapid shot and deadly aim those penalties stack".
Rude: WTF is wrong with you. Stop cheating. You know rapid shot and deadly aim both subtract form your attack total.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lazar nobody said you could take 10 on perception rolls in combat. I specifically said you could not. I am saying that before combat starts a perception check would need to be made to determine who can participate in the surprise round if combat does start. That roll is still out of combat, and there is no rule saying you can not take 10 on it.

If you have a rule to support your post on out of combat checks then quote it. So far your last quote only concerns in combat checks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have to make a save, unless the spell is "willing". That is the rules. I do think this needs to be FAQ'd so it can be fixed however. One can argue that the personal spells cast on someone else are automatically willing, but that is not the rules. If my assumption that the devs did not see this coming is wrong then at least we will know it was intentional to do bad things without allowing a save.

So if we are going by the current rules you don't have a choice. However I do think an FAQ will bring up errata to say the receiver can choose to not accept the spell.

The current OP's post is not written in a manner to ask a specific question so we can't really FAQ that one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You should be able to. It is just another editing error in the book that it is not mentioned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That wand would be overpriced, but it is legal. Unless you just have money to throw away I am sure there are better options.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hit Points are a life meter just like in video games which is what I said in the other thread. The flavor is spread out between actual damage, minor scrapes, luck and so on for the sake of immersiveness. If you don't like the idea of someone surviving a full on fireball then maybe taking 40% of their hit points only resulted in minor burns, and the following crit from a great sword was a good hit, so now they are really worn down. The next hit represents them getting impaled through the heart.

It is actually better off left vague so each GM can flavor it however they want.

I think what you need to do is decide what you want hit points to represent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You cant use ghost sound to talk. It makes noise but it cant duplicate speech. There is either an FAQ or dev comment on it. IIRC


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

Rodney Thompson (WOTC designer) on bounded accuracy:

"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels.

Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained.

Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases."

Bounded Accuracy was never about restraining the RNG. Simplified math, story over mechanics, and having a fixed challenge rating system.

In D&D 5e challenges are fixed, no more punching above your weight, because it's impossible to take on more powerful creatures outside your 'challenge rating'

Thanks for this quote.

To me the ability to more easily defeat a skeleton or wolf lets me know how much I have grown, and have far I have come. Sometimes I will throw old enemies at players, that gave them problems before. By defeating the same encounter much more easily they know they are different.

PS: I am not using your post, not saying you agree or disagree with the quoted statement.

I wish these things had a longer edit time, even if the deletion time was removed. That is supposed to say " I am using your post, not saying you agree or disagree with the quoted statement"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have never created the map of a city, even when I used to homebrew. There are probably some 3rd party options for cheap(less than $5) maps that are premade.

You can probably also find maps of fantasy settings and just tweak them, but if the actual drawing is what takes time, then you might be able to have the maps blown up if you can find good resolution online, and then laminated, or just laminated if you think they are big enough already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Epic Meepo wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Shake it off makes mooks into walking saving throw buffs without even needing to use Aid Another (it totally stacks with aid another though).
How are you using aid another to buff saving throws? In the Core rules, aid another has no effect on saving throws.

Maybe it is this:

Quote:
You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check.

I did start an FAQ to try to get some clarification on what that meant, but I dont think too many people were interested in it.

If you want to help out here is the thread. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

From an immersion point of view, I don't expect anyone who can take on balors, great wyrms, arch dukes, and so on to actually have trouble taking on kobolds, not unless they have class levels anyway.

I would hope the lizardfolk would have better sense than to think those kobolds have a real chance at anything significant with regard to direct combat, and choose to use them in a more intelligent manner. As an example the kobolds can harass a local village, maybe even poison their water supply. That might distract the PC's so they(bad guys) have more time to do ____. However, to directly assault the PC's with such low threat enemies should not be a viable option after a certain point.

Not all enemies are going to be of the same threat level even if one of them has a very large number. If you want the game to have novel based realism where even the greatest heroes can not defeat an army, I still don't think this is the way to do it. I would still expect a single high level hero to be able to take on 10 to 12 kobolds.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess I should add more information

haste wrote:


Targets: one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart

That "target" is telling you how you are aiming the spell.

Magic chapter wrote:


Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

An invisible creature can not be seen so your only other option is to touch them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:

Rodney Thompson (WOTC designer) on bounded accuracy:

"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels.

Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained.

Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases."

Bounded Accuracy was never about restraining the RNG. Simplified math, story over mechanics, and having a fixed challenge rating system.

In D&D 5e challenges are fixed, no more punching above your weight, because it's impossible to take on more powerful creatures outside your 'challenge rating'

Thanks for this quote.

To me the ability to more easily defeat a skeleton or wolf lets me know how much I have grown, and have far I have come. Sometimes I will throw old enemies at players, that gave them problems before. By defeating the same encounter much more easily they know they are different.

PS: I am not using your post, not saying you agree or disagree with the quoted statement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

Ashiel's post puts me in mind of something else I always wondered. I haven't really hunkered down and thought it out, so the answers are probably pretty obvious. ^_^

A lot of people seem to want a system where magic items aren't calculated into PC power level. I always wondered, in a system like that, how can you drop fabulous treasures into the game? Wouldn't it make the PCs slightly and/or wildly overpowered?

Thank you in advance. (So sleepy - will follow up tomorrow)

Well, uh, one idea might look like this...

(Or, if you prefer, in the insomnia thread.)

I mentioned 18% WBL, by the way, but I wouldn't really run it that way myself (and even if I did, I'd take the caps off for 19th and 20th level, because you've already "paid" for what you're getting gold-value wise).

Basically, pull a wraithstrike, and do something like,

wraithstrike wrote:

Not really. If the power, as in +1's and 2's, are built into the character then it gets rid of the need for the magic items. That way things such as slippers of spider climbing, wind fans, wings of flying, or an instant fortress become items people will actually pay for, or keep if they find them.

Since the items won't be needed you can either reduce WBL by at something like 75% or get rid of it altogether since you won't have to worry about choosing the +5 armor to stop you from getting hit as much. Instead you can keep the +1 flying armor of disguise that is cooler thematically, but it wont help your frontliner live as long.

The other alternate option is, as Ashiel pointed out, spells combined with the idea of constant or continual durations. Some of these aren't cost effective, comparatively, while some are.

The only problem with this is that it takes up game resources and real life time to cast all of these spells. I think both solutions can work however. You just have to do what is more immersive for your group as a GM.

One thing I am looking at is reflavoring the +1 bonuses in Unchained to be "you are better at using armor", and it won't stack with any enhancement bonuses, just like keen and improved critical don't stack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:

I see that folks still don't fully get the point of bounded accuracy.

It's simple enough that I think almost everyone gets the point. They just dont like how it was done, at least those who prefer PF anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

Ashiel's post puts me in mind of something else I always wondered. I haven't really hunkered down and thought it out, so the answers are probably pretty obvious. ^_^

A lot of people seem to want a system where magic items aren't calculated into PC power level. I always wondered, in a system like that, how can you drop fabulous treasures into the game? Wouldn't it make the PCs slightly and/or wildly overpowered?

Thank you in advance. (So sleepy - will follow up tomorrow)

Not really. If the power, as in +1's and 2's, are built into the character then it gets rid of the need for the magic items. That way things such as slippers of spider climbing, wind fans, wings of flying, or an instant fortress become items people will actually pay for, or keep if they find them.

Since the items won't be needed you can either reduce WBL by at something like 75% or get rid of it altogether since you won't have to worry about choosing the +5 armor to stop you from getting hit as much. Instead you can keep the +1 flying armor of disguise that is cooler thematically, but it wont help your frontliner live as long.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a problem with feat trees as long as each feat is worth taking. What I do have a problem with are tax feats that are normally not good enough to stand on their own.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hit Points are basically a life meter just like it is in video games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't even notice it was a wight. I was just focused on the CR. I never use wights on 1st level parties. That is just insta-death waiting to happen. Ghouls maybe, being paralyzed is a scary things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Morzadian wrote:


APs are marketed to people new to the game? Is there any evidence of this.

I'm currently playing ROTRL Anniversary edition and it is very hard. Close to a TPK a few times.

The one complaint seen elsewhere, over and over is the AP's are too grindy, to TPK happy and take far to much system mastery to play for most people.

This is interesting. Most AP's have that one or two TPK level encounter but overall I see them as normal or easy. I know my current group would has no trouble with the encounters as written. I always have to buff them up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:

Wow, I am surprised by the amount of edition warring going on in this thread. I expect better from the Paizo community than hating on a game. You'd think this was RPG.net or something.

Yeah, I'd like to see Pathfinder 2 steal from 5e. Just like I wanted 5e to steal from Pathfinder. And I'd like to see Pathfinder steal from Fiasco and Fate and the FFG Star Wars. Because good ideas are good ideas.

I dont see any hate or edition warring. I see a conversation on how things from game X may or may not be a good thing for game Y.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
1: Something akin to Bounded accuracy. I want the mods cleared out, reduced and the math capped. It need not be done in the same way as 5e, but the lack of balance, rocket tag rules and the sheer amount of work at high end and with optimization drove me away from 3.x at last.

1. IME Rocket Tag is a problem with playstyle, not the system. I've played several games into the low 20s where rocket tag never happened. The idea that offense trumps all leads to an emphasis on "glass cannons" who have to win initiative and kill the foes in one action, because they can't endure the counterattack. That is rocket tag, but you don't have to play that way if you don't want to. It's entirely possible to make balanced high level characters who will dish out less pain, but can also survive a few counterattacks. If you don't like optimization, don't optimize. It's not needed.

This is a system problem. You have to go out of your way to not rocket tag. A warrior NPC class just by virtue of being a full BAB class and pushing strength, and grabbing power attack, is not optimizing, but it can do a lot of damage.

A wizard just with energy drain can turn a fight into mop up mode.

There are other spells that do so also, just by how they affect the game.

I have seen confusion win fights, along with black tentacles, and those are lower level spells.

If you have to go out of your way to make weak(er) than normal characters then you could have a system problem.

Saying you dont have a problem, does not make it a "non-problem". I have run level 20 games also without a lot of issues, but just because I can do it, that does not mean it is ok.

Many people here have said they stop playing between levels 13 and 15 because the game gets out of control for them. I don't think everyone is building glass cannons, and you don't need to have a glass cannon, for it to be a cannon, so the "glass cannon" analogy does not really apply.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Ok, beside the bounded accuracy good/ no its the work of arch devils argument. I am gonna go ahead and put down what I feel PF 2e should go in. Recall guys this is just my opinions based off my own taste.

1: Something akin to Bounded accuracy. I want the mods cleared out, reduced and the math capped. It need not be done in the same way as 5e, but the lack of balance, rocket tag rules and the sheer amount of work at high end and with optimization drove me away from 3.x at last.

2:Spells need heavily redressed and the caster/non caster divide closed. Caster should not rule the game

3: BAB needs fixated and the ever worse extra attacks need dead. If you grant an extra attack its just that. Not a way worse attack

4:No more magic xmass tree/no need to have magic items. Magic should be cool and fun, not required.

5: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.

6: Fewer classes but more customizable/ robust classes. Bake in the archtype concert and allow for broader classes

7: Please for the love of all that is holy, if you can not kill the evil that is Vancian casting. At the very lest add another non-vancian spellcaster class option.

8: Feats should be cool, not a +2 to this or a +1 to river dancing. They also should not be traps and all should be about the same power level

9: Some of those "feats" should be basic class abilities

10: Fix freaking saves

11: Ditto wth sklls DC and make fewer, but broader skills

I don't think I have seen you post in over 2 years.

I agree with some of these to varying degrees, especially 4, 9, and 10

What I would also want is for the dev to specifically say that flavor created by them is just the generic example, and flavor is not a rule, nor is it their intention that you have to go by the printed flavor in the book. Some people really need to hear this. Now of course a GM can say "no changing flavor", but he wont be able to say "this is the game's intent".

I would also want a way to get FAQ's done for books that not created by the rules team.

I figure if a new edition ever comes around other issues might as well be taken care of along with it. While not being rules, some of them affect the game just as much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think there is a rule for this. I would vary it by spell. Physical affects would be on the body it was cast on, but mental affects would travel with soul.

1 to 50 of 2,134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.