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 Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,631 posts (43,575 including aliases). 3 reviews. 9 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,776 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ranishe wrote:

Edit2:

Actually one final related thing. This concept is important for gaining new players. A complex and unapproachable system is intimidating to many, whereas a simpler or more organized system is not. This is also speculation, but I don't expect a superficially simple system to be a turnoff to those looking for more depth, so long as the knobs presented are able to provide that (think chess. Easy to understand piece movement, complex game).

Complex and unapproachable is subjective. I have always been able to teach new players how to play. That includes the time when I was allowing 3.5 material with much less restriction into my Pathfinder games. Now admittedly even some experienced(1st edition) players had trouble with things, but I also found out they had issues with 2nd edition rules.

In my experience, if I don't turn the dial up to 11 on difficulty when I GM for new people, and I run at least a decent game people stick around and learn(good enough to be sufficient), even if they don't master the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mudfoot wrote:

People say that options are optional...but if I can't play the latest AP without those options, they're not optional. I can obviously write my own stuff, and I can look up the 'options' on the PRD, but frankly I've got better things to do with my time. Paizo is/was supposedly a setting company that needed to do the Pathfinder RPG to support the Pathfinder setting (Golarion) so that it could continue to sell adventures. But if people can't use those adventures because they don't have (or don't want to spend all their time online looking up) the new splatbooks, Paizo jeopardises their core business, as surely as they would with a v1.5 or 2.0 or whatever.

There are no good choices here, though there are certainly bad ones.

What are you talking about?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pandora's wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
But why do we need to throw out all the old books for this when they may as well just release 'Magic Unchained'?

Nope. In fact, throwing them out won't happen. In my first post, I talked about why Paizo is in a hard place with their current magic system. They could add a new one, but it would have to be a really concerted effort to keep it supported. Another Words of Power won't help any. Because I don't think Paizo is really interested in going there, I said that in my mind Pathfinder 2.0 started with Spheres of Power, because 3rd party publishers are now tackling major sacred cows that Paizo can't or won't. They're making the major changes that a new edition could bring. If they're already doing it and the product is good, why bother having a new edition?

I focus on the magic system because it is the system that causes the most contention on the boards and therefore would be the best candidate for an update in a new edition.

Contention on the boards, and contention in actual play are not the same thing. I am one of the first to admit that magic can cause problems, and in theory it can be a large part of problems at tables, but in actual practice it is not nearly as problematic at most tables.

Using the boards as some standard for how things really are can be a bad idea. I've been called a powergamer more than once, but at a table I scale the character's power to whatever won't overshadow a party and/or having the GM throwing books at me.

The boards are the perception. The table is the reality.

I think an alternate magic system that is an option would be better than a forced one or an entire new edition. It's not worth the risk to lose a lot of people. WoTC was in a position to survive even if D&D failed. Paizo is not in that position with Pathfinder, at least not until they start pushing video games, movies, or some other method to give their bank account a cushion to offset any risk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Zarius wrote:

Several of the spells here (it's only the official Paizo lists):

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists---cleric

Which, reading further, have something in common... The ones that aren't listed as (Cleric Only) that aren't actually tagged in the oracle list are all side-book released ones that were released AFTER the Oracle class - such as the (Un)Holy Ice Blade spell.

Okay, looked up 'Holy Ice Weapon' and found it came from the Advanced Class Guide. I then opened up my PDF of the 'spells' chapter for that book and searched for 'oracle' and found 0 matches.

Going back to the Advanced Player's Guide, the rules for Oracles state 'An oracle casts divine spells drawn from the cleric spell lists' so technically speaking, there is no separate 'spell list' for Oracles: If a spell is available to clerics, it's available to Oracles as well (with the specific exception of 'meditative' spells from the Divine Anthology).

D20PFSRD, by the way, is NOT an official Pazio site: It belongs to a third party and may or may not be accurate.

It tends to in fact be more accurate. Especially when you realize the PRD still has not updated the Ultimate Equipment Errata.

They were saying it is less accurate with regard to how it reproduces the rules. They often take liberties with how they word or format the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:

Okay, just a little more.

Eberron kept alignments because they were obliged too - it's part of the core rules for D&D 3.x

Eberron kept deities because they were obliged to - it's part of the core rules for D&D 3.x

Even "Advanced" D&D Dopplegangers are as "genderfluid" as any Changeling. So not "progressive" IMO.

Quote:

The way you can tell is that none of Eberron's changes are the kind that have produced the backlash from recidivist players the way Paizo's have.

That's how you can tell if something is truly progressive... see if there is any backlash.

LOL no! There is no little backlash because so few play in Eberron to begin with.

thejeff wrote:
Golarion certainly isn't flawless, but I like its approach better than "You want to play someone from a traditional Arabic-style culture? Sure, our Arabs are lizardfolk. You can play one of them."

It's called production value. Baker's home campaign had very little of it and they didn't spend much time polishing it for publication when it became an official campaign setting. Golarian has had far more effort put into it.

Rysky wrote:

?

How is "we don't know if the Gods even exist" progressive?

cough Dragonlance /cough

The published version is not exactly his home edition. That was a large part of it, but WoTC changed a lot of things he wanted to keep.

Time /= Value.

Example: I am sure Jason and James will on average come up with a better product for Pathfinder than I will 9/10 times, and not take nearly as long while doing so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Werebat wrote:

Eberron is far more inclusive of race and culture than Golarion, regardless of "intent".

There is no question that Paizo really TRIED to be inclusive, or progressive, or whatever adjective you want to use to mean "accepting of and welcoming to people with traits outside of the mainstream".

That isn't what I asked about, though. I asked about which setting really WAS more inclusive, not which one TRIED to be more inclusive.

WRT the LGBTQ community, Golarion offers officially LGBTQ NPCs in positions of power and authority. WRT women, Golarion offers female NPCs in positions of power and authority.

But Eberron does that too. Changelings are by their very nature physically genderfluid, able to become male or female, cis-gender or trans-gender, or anything along a whole spectrum of sex and gender, at will. Warforged are asexual beings (and I am not certain that even Golarion has featured any overtly asexual beings in positions of power and authority) who (mostly) lack gender.

Meanwhile, Eberron's version of the Catholic Church is run by a young woman, the Blood of Vol was founded by a female, and there are several nations and Houses led by females.

So these are mostly a wash.

Now imagine that you are a foreigner, a non-White foreigner, sitting down to play an RPG.

Both campaign settings let you play humans of various ethnicities and cultures. While some of these may superficially resemble real-world ethnicities and cultures, none are exact matches, so this is a wash.

But look more closely. One of the campaign settings features humanoids -- people -- whose identity as people is so denigrated that they seem to exist simply to be killed by the heroes, their lives, land, and property forfeit to members of the PC races by virtue of their race. These people have little or no culture to speak of, no history of import, no contributions to the world they live in. They are "critters" who exist to be slain by their racial superiors.

The other setting has those same...

Depending on how you look at it either case can be made. From a "fantasyland" view I would say Eberron. From an real life or meta aspect I would say Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:


Either way, these don't prove much. Just fuel for a long burning fire mostly. Hehe.

I agree. I just want to see it happen though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I ran one of these by PbP before, and everyone submitted their characters to the GM, and then he submitted them to the "combat thread". That way nobody could metagame.

I think the OP should put a deadline on things by saying 1st level combatants need to be submitted by ____. The same goes for certain other levels.

I would do levels 1, 7, 13, 20. If he doesn't make things less free-form nothing might ever get done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My point is that you can be trained to noticed things that you would not have otherwise noticed. The fact that you learn to ignore certain things, and pick up on others does not take away from the fact that your learning is applying to how well you do with when perception comes into play.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You can learn to be more perceptive. When I joined the military I got a lot better at noticing things so I see why it is a skill just like being stealthy is a skill. When you are being trained how to clear rooms, and you get training on IED's you are taught things to look for. I can see the same thing going into not getting caught by a trap or how to notice that someone or something is in the room with you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you can choose the ranger bonus feats with the ranger bonus feat slot and ignore all prerequisites.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just here to watch and make this one observation:

The wizard can probably gate in things that can kill the fighter especially if he boost his caster level high enough to bring in CR23+ monsters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I don't think CdG makes sense from a tactics point of view if the enemy intends to win the fight why waste time when one enemy isn't attacking you anymore. The exception would be if you know that someone will heal him and get him back up fighting you.

Most holy symbols are not hidden away so its not hard to tell if someone may have a healer in the party or not.

In this specific case the enemies were CE, and that makes it more reasonable for them to put being bloodthirsty over tactics.

PS: If there is no sign of a healer then I agree its better to not CDG someone from a tactical perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

If CdG was an effective tactic, PCs would use it all the time

I think I saw it only once and used as a mercy killing

In any given situation, if our favorite murderhoboing PCs would not have used a CdG, then NPCs using it is very unlikely

PC's don't do it more because it is not easily setup. Normally monsters go from alive to dead. Also many players on a metagame level know that Team Evil does not have clerics. When I have used healers for Team Evil, the PC's made sure the NPC's stayed down so by your logic, and my players it is useful for the PC's if the enemies might stand back up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Speaker for the Dead wrote:
My only comment is about the detect good/evil spell. The op commented in a spoiler that the since the sprites are using the spell they would always know which way to look. It takes three rounds of concentration before they would know the power and location of each aura. The first round all they should know is that auras are present. The second, the number of auras. Since the paladin was flying about it seems unlikely that he would have stayed in the cone area of effect for three rounds. Of course they could have made really good perception rolls.

That is not exactly right. The spell is a cone. If something is in the cone you know dont know where it is in the cone on round 1, but you know it is in the cone. On round 3 you can nail down the square it is in.

Now if you have the spell up, and it pings when a creature is in the area it makes sense to say that the creature in question is likely the cause of your "radar" going on. It is not 100%, but its a fair bet to make if you are out in the woods, and nothing else happened that might set it off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At low levels I take player skill into account with how much leeway I give them, but before I go any further I can't say you were objectively wrong. He may have just been expecting a different game than you were running.

He could also have had real life issues stressing him, and the character death just made him want to go home.

He likely assumed that leaving the map was a "safe space" since many GM's might have let him go, but he should have retreated toward the party anyway just so he would be there to help them.
I would have given him the "Are you sure you dont want to go that way(back to the party)?" hint.

Also many players feel like it is objectively bad form to coup de grace a PC. I don't agree, since different tables have different ideas with what is ok for that table's social contract.

As for the detect good/evil spells, you are correct.

edit: I do not find you to be at fault, and it may be good that he reomoved himself now vs later in the campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Your strategy(ability as a player), and what you are fighting will matter more than your build. I've seen some good builds die due to bad choices.

Having high saves and high armor for melee types is a good way to stay alive, and paladins do well in both departments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are either in a square or you are not. A GM can say you lean to bypass line of affect, but by the rules the square you are in, the square the target is in, and whatever is between you is what will determine if you have line of affect.

If the barrier give the target total cover then the spell can not pass through it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would not say either is more important. Ideally, the rules as written will convey the proper intent(how the devs intended for the rules to work at the table).

If you are asking which is better to use at the table I will say that using something as it was intended, whether it is rules or some random tool is the better option in most cases.

If someone goes directly by the rules, and reads them in the most literal way possible the game does not function.

As an example, the magic section calls out "spells", and not supernatural abilities with regard to using magic and "aiming", so a literal reading of the rules would allow someone to say that SU's are not restricted by the same targeting rules that spells use.<---A poster actually tried to use that argument before. This could lead to things like an SU that causes one target to be confused to work on someone behind a brick wall.

Another example would be reach weapons doubling reach so a colossal creature can hold a reach weapon sized for a tiny creature and its reach would double simply because the rules do not say the reach weapon has to be sized for whatever is using it.

There are other examples, if someone wants to be pedantic enough about reading the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tony gent wrote:
Isn't that why you have a party everyone has what they are good at so you have to work togeather to cover all the bases

I have seen and been in caster light parties. In those cases all of the bases may not be covered.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

It's been that way for over a decade now, and I(as a player) never found much wonder in magic items, and a lot of players feel that way. Making them rare doesn't translate to "more special" for everyone.
For the players that do see them as special, giving them something that is not in any official book still makes their eyes twinkle. What I plan to do next time I run a campaign is to use the unchained rules that allow enhancement bonuses to be built into the character. That way they can spend gold on magic items for the "cool factor" vs the "need factor".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The spell was not intended to be used that way so there are no rules on how it would work. Whenever you come up with something like this it really falls on the GM to come up with a solution.

Balance matters a lot for the game so the GM and players dont use things the devs didnt think of to unbalance the game.

I would say that you are expelled before completely forming. <---Not a rule, but that is how I would do it. It keeps a low level spell confined to its power level, and it stops the NPC from doing it to PC's since the games uses the same rules for PC's and NPC's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I took the Run feat on a 3.5 core monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also Zainale, neither of those has a cost. The spell cost for a "1 dose of unholy water". Holy water is sold by the flask.

If you want to FAQ it then go to this thread and press the FAQ button.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Pretty much. In the advice forum the "rule of cool" is good. In the rules forum it is an abomination most of the time. :)

The problem is that the rules work badly when applied to firing out of arrow slits.

The problem is imagined and does not really exist.

I was looking for that rule you quoted, but my search-fu failed me.

Good find.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Napier 698 wrote:
I spent much of my between-scan tour time yesterday doing research. Nowhere in the Core Rulebook does it say that Undead must be Evil. The descriptions in the Bestiary indicate Evil behavior. Open the CRB to the section where alignments are discussed, and compare it to the descriptive text of each Undead creature. However, if you want to houserule exceptions, be my guest. I won't stop you or tell you that you're wrong. It is your game, after all.

I dont think must(as in 100%) was the argument being made. The argument is that evil is the default alignment and it is rare that they are not evil for most types of undead. As an example most ogre's are terrible creatures to be around, and they will likely kill and eat humanoids which they can get their hands on, but that does not mean that somewhere in fantasyland you can't find at least 1 good or civilized ogre.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
There are people here who seem to think they can detect a 'suspicious sequence of rolls' during the course of just one game here.(shrug). I find that unlikely.

People are very, very bad at naive estimation of probability but often think they are good at it (there are plenty of academic studies of this and a large temple devoted to this phenomenon in the Mojave desert).

The thing about any series of die rolls is that they are random and thus will almost never be so improbable as to clearly indicate malfeasance. So I think even cultivating suspicion that the GM might be up to no good is a bad idea.

It is not just dice rolls. Normally it is a combination of dice rolls and bad tactics, which happen to occur at a convenient time for the party.

Example: We had been drain of resources, and came onto a boss fight, where we were severely outnumbered. There were multiple bad guys that were one level below the party so the CR was likely +5 over APL at a minimum. It got to the point where the result was pretty much known, and suddenly the bad guys could not hit us, and they resorted to melee attacks, and stopped casting spells. Had they sat back and used spells they could have killed us, and they had lower level minions to act as a meat shields so we could not just get to them in melee.
This was a case of the GM overestimating the party, but similar things have happened when the bad guys just get lucky and start out with crits, making a fight a lot more dangerous than it was intended to be.
The GM likely doesn't want a TPK to a random encounter so the bad guys go from being special ops level combatants to provoking AoO's and other things that are not needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Were this allowed, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and you should expect bad guys to start shooting arrows at you though holes too small to allow you to return fire, and similar shenanigans.
That is exactly the idea behind arrow slits, and those have been around for a few millennia.

You're missing something important; I specifically said "shooting arrows at you through holes too small to allow you to return fire". In Pathfinder, there's no distinction as to who is on what side of a gap. It's either big enough or it isn't. The shelter either provides cover or it isn't. If RD can't return fire through the hole, the shooter shouldn't be able to return fire through the hole. If RD's opponent can't pop a fireball through the hole, he shouldn't be able to get one through.

I get it how reality works. I even made comment that Pathfinder's simulation of reality doesn't get granular enough to make this circumstance realistic.

That is not accurate because the caster is using rule specific to spells, and bow or crossbow shoot is not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Pretty much. In the advice forum the "rule of cool" is good. In the rules forum it is an abomination most of the time. :)

The problem is that the rules work badly when applied to firing out of arrow slits.

I won't disagree with that. RD's group will have to decide how much they want to let the rules get in the way of the game.

As an aside if I were to say his hand can fit through the slit and bypass line of effect then I would say that if that back wall was not far enough back the radius of the fireball can come back through those holes that he put his hand through.

Also if the slit was not long enough his exposed hand could be hit since we would be already outside the rules, and that may force a concentration check.

I wouldn't say it was trapped because that might mess with the arrows or bolts.

It also makes sense to say they can see his hand and attack him. Depending on how the init is setup readying an action to disrupt the spell is not a bad idea. I can't think of any other reason to put a hand in that area.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much. In the advice forum the "rule of cool" is good. In the rules forum it is an abomination most of the time. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now that I am at a computer:

Quote:
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.

It doesn't say that sticking your hand in the hole stops the barrier from blocking line of effect. It just says that the barrier provides it unless the hole is a certain size, and no other exception is given.

So no, putting your hand in the hold per a strict reading of the rules does not allow you to ignore the barrier. If we are really going to go by RAW that is how it works.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The rules go by what square you are in. The exception is a barrier with holes of a certain size, which has been determined as not qualifying in this case.

Those are the rules.

Now if the GM is willing to reward creativity and ignore the rules then we can discuss that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
Can you quote where it says being dead your Con is zero?

I misread the dead condition. The above statement I made was incorrect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jengada wrote:

The text of Power Word Kill does not say it does hit point damage, as others have noted. Therefore, RAW, this is an assumption. It is equally possible, but equally an assumption, that PWK drops Constitution to 0. This is a kill according to Ability damage RAW.

OK, you say, but regeneration is still functioning - that's true, again, RAW. However, regeneration does not heal ability damage AND "a creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability." So reducing a regenerating creature's Con to 0 kills it on two counts - cancels that regen, and any amount of regen would leave it at Con=0, anyway. Dead, and dead again.
So all else aside, knocking Con to 0 kills the creature. But does PWK do that? That's an assumption of equal magnitude to the assumption PWK does HP damage.

PWK, kills you. That much is true. If you are dead then your constitution is 0. That is in the rulebook.

From here we have to decide if we are going to follow the idea that you have to shut regen down before applying PWK, or can we kill the troll while regen is still up.

If we go with the former the troll is alive and PWK does not do anything since he can not be killed while regen is in effect. If we go with the latter the troll is dead, and he stays dead.

Edit: I am checking to see if regen shuts off at Con 0 or Con -. They are not the same. One means you have a number set at 0. The other means you don't have a con score at all.

Edit 2:

Quote:
A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.

0 is a con score.

Undead don't have con scores at all.

Undead trait wrote:
No Constitution score.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
you need to explain how regeneration is going to bring the troll back when it did not die from hit point damage.
There's nothing to explain. You don't need to be brought back when you never went there in the first place.

I doubt the other poster is saying nothing can kill the troll. They are just saying they wont let it work because they don't like it.

So yeah they do need to explain unless they just say "nothing can kill the troll except fire and acid" which shuts down regen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually both feats do not add. One replaces strength. It says "instead of your Strength bonus". The other just adds dex to the final roll.

Are you saying that adding to the final number which is what one does is the same as replacing one of the contributing number which is what "instead of your Strength bonus" does?

One of them is saying replace X(strength) with y(dexterity).

Example A+X=CMB is now A+Y=CMB

The other is saying add y(dexterity) to the final number not in place of.

This one is A+x+y=CMB

With both feats it should be A+y+y=CMB.

So yeah it does fit. You just don't want to concede the point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
quibblemuch wrote:
In a recent AP, it was recommended that PCs who might not be able to overcome an enemy's regeneration could hold her underwater till she drowned, that being sufficient to kill her.
This has come up before, and I said this then and I'll say it again, taking a troll to an arbitrary number of negative hp and sticking it's head in a bucket of water isn't going to kill it any game I run.

Suffocation kills, and it does not require hit point damage. You can rule however you want in your game, but if we are speaking of rules then you need to explain how regeneration is going to bring the troll back when it did not die from hit point damage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also they might need to modify the rule to something like:
"You can not die due to hit point damage as long as regeneration is functioning...
"...Effects that do not cause death via hit point damage such as drowning or death effects kill the creature, and regeneration can not be used to bring that creature back to life unless otherwise stated in that creature's entry."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think some people are arguing RAW, and others are arguing intent(what you think the PDT will rule). In order to avoid an "I'm right, you're wrong", endless loop you might want clarify which one you are arguing from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Line of effect is from you to the target so putting your arm in there does not remove that.* You are still in the square you are in, and the target is where the target(target space) is, however as quoted from the fireball spell you are allowed you to try to shoot into the hole.

*Your limbs do not determine where you actually are. That is why you can't ready an attack on a limb without the strikeback feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are speaking as if there is a 0% chance this is not an error. Maybe that is not what you meant to do, but that is how it comes across. To say there is a high chance they intended it is one thing. To speak as if there is no way there didn't get past the editors when so many other things have just makes no sense at all especially since the books are not written with the precision of a technical manual, and the number of FAQ's and erratas that have been done, to include the ones that need to be done right now.

I will admit that it could be possible, but to say "this can't not be an error because they didnt' do it this way with any other traits" is not something that makes sense to me. That is like saying they will never miss anything when it comes to a trait bonus, not even if they write 1000000000 books.

Also the wording the book could be read as:
"most bonus will be "trait bonuses" which equates to the bonus may or may not be a trait bonus.

It could also be read as:
"the function provided most of the time will be to give a trait bonus", which equates to "sometimes we will give you a trait bonus, but other times we may give you something else besides a trait bonus."
As an example there is a trait raises your CL when casting a certain spell. It is not a "bonus" though. Another example is the trait which lowers the cost of using metamagic when using a specific spell. This is also not a bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:


As I wrote in the spawning thread:...

Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a "trait" bonus.
We know many bonus types: enhancement, circumstance, inherent, and so on. The bonus given by many of these are a new kind called "trait". There is no changing of the rule that a bonus that does not list a type is untyped....

If the rule was unlisted became "trait", then why list "trait" in so many of them? That does not make sense, so the premise must be wrong.
/cevah

We all know this. The point of the thread is to know if not mentioning it is on purpose or an editing error. If they say ____ is the default then we know it was an error. If they say "trait" has to be mentioned then we know it was not an error, and that future traits that don't mention the "trait bonus" are also not an error.

Considering the many errors and unclear rules in the game it is not logical to assume the premise must be wrong...

edit: If that logic held then haste would not have been errata'd to no longer say "held weapons" which by that wording meant it was not meant for natural attacks when it actually was.
Another example of this is that most rings that use command words say "on command", but the ring of invisibility does not. <--An FAQ will eventually show that also.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you watch a lot of fantasy movies such as conan or read fantasy novels there not many prisoners taken. Typically in groups nonlethal damage is not the order of the day unless the group is trying to keep someone alive to ask them questions. That is why doing nonlethal damage gives you a penalty to your attack, and you need a feat in order for spells to do nonlethal damage.

I have spared NPC's as a PC, but they were the low level mooks who I didnt think would come back to haunt me later. In such cases the group did not mind, but if the group was like "I dont trust him", then I would not have tried to stop them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Crayfish Hora wrote:


A wizard starting at level 1, with either 15 point buy, or 20, or 25 point buy, will have a 20 intelligence regardless.

Not really.

You only make that 20 possible with certain races and even then it involves buying an 18 which actually cost 17 points meaning every other stat is likely to be a 10 or lower to include con.

Your experience may be different from mine, but having a low con leads to death, and I have seen characters die at exactly the con needed and saved at 1 hit point away from death.

When I play a wizard at 15 point buy, I dump charisma and strength. That gives me 23 points to work with. 6 after int. Which I split between con and dex. I don't have to put con at 10 or lower.
I try to avoid dumping too many stats because monster abilities and poison can reduce stats, but you are correct, and if the GM doesn't use those types of encounters there is not much of a risk involved.

A potion of delay poison is 50 gold. So is a potion of lesser restoration. That covers most ability damage in the game.

And while those monsters do exist, they aren't common. Certainly less common than monsters you will have to use intelligence against as a wizard or constitution as anyone.

I know they are not common, and I was not just talking about ability damage, but also ability drain, which can happen through supernatural abilities. Undead such as shadows and wraiths tend to be in adventure paths on a regular basis, but those two only affect strength and constituation depending on which one of the two you are dealing with.

This PB thing basically boils down to how the group plays and how the GM runs his games more than anything else though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Crayfish Hora wrote:


A wizard starting at level 1, with either 15 point buy, or 20, or 25 point buy, will have a 20 intelligence regardless.

Not really.

You only make that 20 possible with certain races and even then it involves buying an 18 which actually cost 17 points meaning every other stat is likely to be a 10 or lower to include con.

Your experience may be different from mine, but having a low con leads to death, and I have seen characters die at exactly the con needed and saved at 1 hit point away from death.

When I play a wizard at 15 point buy, I dump charisma and strength. That gives me 23 points to work with. 6 after int. Which I split between con and dex. I don't have to put con at 10 or lower.

I try to avoid dumping too many stats because monster abilities and poison can reduce stats, but you are correct, and if the GM doesn't use those types of encounters there is not much of a risk involved.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say anything that kills it by bypassing hit point damage keeps it dead since regeneration says that attacks that don't generate hit point damage can not be healed by regeneration.

A spell(also other effects) that says "you die" does not care about hit points.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sliska Zafir wrote:


That said, I'd absolutely encourage a 10 or even 15 point buy because it takes the focus off the stats, encourages teamwork, and makes the campaign more thrilling.

I've run for at least one group where teamwork was not the word of the day ever. Some people also optimized harder when faced with restrictions, but are more likely to put some resources into flavor if given additional points. I would say your assessment works depending on the group, and is not an across the board truth.

Quote:

Not for your power gamer types, but I don't like to game with those anyway. Not anymore anyway, after having seen the worst of it in Pathfinder Society convention tables. I love Pathfinder Society, by the way. But when my white witch gunslinger fires 10 pistol shots in one round with her hair, you have to ask, when does power creep and over-the-top builds ruin the game for others? I encourage teamwork.

Some power gamers do cooperate, and that can actually make it harder to GM than when they only worry about spotlight time. You could have had a powerful summoner casting haste on that gunslinger as an example.

Also if that witch was using Prehensile hair it can not use weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:


And definitely do not allow anyone to play: Archaeologist Bard, Brawler, Ninja, Slayer or Vivisectionist Alchemist. Because they steal their niche pretty blatantly.

Really? Ninja, Brawler, Slayer, and Vivisectionist Alchemists are all totally fine. Slayer in particular is probably one of the best written classes. You'd really force someone to be a Rogue or a Monk if they wanted to play a different class that fills the same niche? Would you force someone to play a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid if they wanted to play a Witch? Would you force someone to play Sorcerer if they wanted to play a Psychic? What about a Fighter if they wanted to play a Paladin? And I guess Barbarian is out since it has Trap Sense, and Swashbuckler since it's a Dex attacker, so those steal the Rogue's thunder, too.

Sure, I'd probably discourage one of those and a Rogue/Monk in the same party since they do fill approximately the same niches (though not exactly; Slayer can fill different roles depending on build; Brawlers don't use Ki, have far different archetypes, and fill a different thematic concept; Ninja is somewhere between Core Rogue and UnRogue for usefulness; Vivisectionist works quite well in a combat medic type of character) but not ban them entirely. The only classes I think I'd ban outright would be Wizard, Arcanist, and non-archetyped Antipaladin.

GTW was not speaking badly of those classes. She made that comment about not allowing those classes as a play on Derek's comments about the allowing the unchained classes.

His logic is basically that the unchained classes add nothing to the game since the original classes work fine so he won't allow the unchained classes.

The classes she named are played by many people because they are better than the core classes in many people's opinions so she is saying "by that logic these classes should not be played either".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Derek Dalton wrote:

I've read all the Unchained classes and will be banning them from my games when I GM. Nothing and I mean nothing about them makes me want them anywhere my game. The only class chosen to be unchained that did need help was the Summoner. The issue was spells and the lack of them. From what I read they nerfed their spell list even more. The Spiritualist is essentially a Summoner their Phantom slightly less powerful then an Eidolon. What makes them superior to a Summoner is their spell selection.

All the others show me not weak classes but weak or inexperienced players not playing them well. I have played Rogues all through 1st ed D&D, 2nd, switching to Pathfinder. Never ever had a problem holding my own in a dungeon. Same with the Monks.

Not everyone's games are the same. "Did ok in my games" does not mean they are ok.

I really doubt you are much better than most of the board members here at system mastery when it comes to Pathfinder and many of the better ones have had problems with rogues and monks. There are numerous threads on the topic. If you have a solution feel free to present it, but assuming people are weak players is 100% incorrect. Even the devs admitted the monk and rogue had issues. Normally when these topics come up the defense often comes up with a rogue is not supposed to be in combat, and/or to not rely so much on sneak attack.

PS: Most of those comments were about the core rogue and monk. Things such as the zen archer archetype tend to do well.

PS2: House rules to help them out or GM's taking it easy on those classes whether on purpose or by accident, does not help the case of them not being weak.

1 to 50 of 2,776 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.