|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It is for the safety of the group. If you go over WBL for too long some men with a purple golem on their shirts take you away, and you never come back. We are just looking out for your well being. :)
Armor Training is one class feature that improves over time. If a class feature is not traded out then you still have it per the rules. This is not normally a problem because many class features do not increase in steps. You either have it or you do not. Trapfinding is an example.
However with the way archetypes trade out steps of a class feature for various other features each step is treated like a class feature*, and I doubt the devs intended for you to come back around and pick up the steps later just by raising your class level.
Now if a magic item/spell/etc explicity just says you get ____ that is different, but I don't think RAI was to allow for you to trade out step Y of a class feature and then get it back by raising your level via a magical item.
*There is no rules text saying treat various steps of a class ability as a class ability when dealing with archetypes. However I think that when this FAQ is answered that it will go much like the ability scores are sources unwritten rule even though there is no written rules precedent for it. I think that will be done to avoid gaming the system in some way later on, assuming it can't be done now.
When Paizo issues a ruling that is not liked.....
Overacting forum member: Paizo devs are morons/idiots/etc. How could they do that? They are ruining the game for everyone. Now (insert catastrophic event that is not likely to happen) will happen. Continues rant with wild exaggerations, and more insults some of them passive-aggressive.
Overacting forum member: Why don't those lazy Paizo devs do their jobs. Why are we not getting more FAQ's?
I guess they feel like Paizo devs have to put up with verbal abuse. Nobody wants to put up with that. It is possible to disagree and not be a jerk while doing so.
He has not retracted the statement, but me not liking it does not make it "not the intent". Honestly I won't follow the intent, I think we will run it the same way.
It was also supporting an "FAQ" that was issued which takes the entire PDT to discuss.
We should not confuse what we don't like or what may not make sense with what the rule is or is not.
The once upon a time ruling of not being able to flurry with a single weapon comes to mind.
From what I understood the GM did not know he was wrong. That is why we were saying you were wrong to hold the game up, if that was a real life situation.
Even if he is being stubborn about a game it is not on the same level as breaking personal property.
And this is not even about rule 0 to me. That is different from the GM having the final say. That is just how the game works. Once the GM has made up his mind there is no point in arguing anymore. If this was the only time the GM ever did this I would just talk to him after the game, and try to find a solution. If this is a constant thing with him never admitting a mistake I find a new group.
I think Jason gave the RAI of the spell. If you fail the check you have to follow what is wanted. My problem with the spell is that if you are "convinced" to do something then you would do that, and not kill yourself instead, so the cha check should be to "convince them to do things they really do not want to do subject to GM discretion". Of course now you have to depend on your GM to be fair, but that is another topic altogether, but with dominate person they just do what they are told. Well they might get another save, but that is also another topic.
I personally hate RP'ing shopping. I don't want to haggle. I don't want to have a conversation with shop keeper 9F. Unless he is plot relevant I won't even try to remember his name. Actually I won't even ask. I want to mark X amount of gold off my character sheet, write down item Y, and get back to adventuring.
Now I am aware that everyone does not have that stance, but a factor in how well this goes over depends on how your players feel about shopping, and other game interactions. Even if everyone here said it was a great idea the players may not enjoy it.
Yeah I am with you on the summoned animals things. I understand if you hardly ever summon anything, but if you always summon things then have the stats ready. At least tell me in advance. I will just set up the monster for you while I am prepping the game. No, I am not prepping every possible monster, but I will do a select few.
Some people are just a lot better at learning the rules than others are. Now I do expect for them to know which dice to roll, and other basic things. I also like for them to know their character. I get more annoyed by people who don't level up between sessions. Unless someone is a caster and they have to choose spells, it should not take long.
Sorry I am just seeing this.
I would not make a scene I would just kick you out of the house.
Now if you come up with something that actually compares to a gaming situation, and not being a jerk then I would tell you how I respond to game related situations.
As an example if I as the GM yell at you, for you correcting me on a rule then that is a more of a me being a jerk than a gaming issue because I should not be yelling at another person. So if you respond by walking out of the game because you feel disrespected that is fine.
My example of you ending the game as a player is more comparable to you breaking my personal property because we both have issues with the way the other behaved that was not good, and not entirely game related.
At no point should a person be disrespected, and accidentally killing your character is not being disrespectful.
PS: Just to be clear I am not calling you a jerk. I was saying the breaking of personal property is jerkish behavior.
Marco Polaris wrote:
Oh man, that thread. The worst part is, even as you're complaining about his arguments being flanderized, there are people in that thread saying the same rules are exactly true. Clowns to the left of you, jokers to the right.
Yeah I saw some of those, and I am sure he will see those and miss the others that don't agree, thinking "See MOST of you do exactly like I said".
I agree that per RAW/RAI it works, but to me that is the domain of dominate person.
Charm person should only go as far as what someone might do for a best friend/family member.
In my games--> The +5 DC makes you more convinced, but it still has limits. As an example you(an NPC) might, depending on your level of loyalty let the PC's in through a secret opening into the castle and that may lead to the king being killed, but you might not directly assist in the killing because that is way beyond your event horizon.
I just got reminded of another meme. People who go on rants about things, as if they were common board truths, when the rant is very inaccurate.
Examples: The policy of healing should not happen in combat... is taken as "Don't heal in combat ever".
Example: You should take power attack was changed to "You must always take power attack even if you are using TWF with a rogue".
I am not going to say that nobody ever said that because someone probably has, but that is not the general message. You have every right to vent, but do so accurately.
It's true, with the advent of the investigator, the rogue has a lot of wind taken out of her sail, but they are still useful characters. Can they run around consistently breaking 300 damage a round at level 10? No. But I don't think pathfinder characters were ever meant to do that. People don't like rogues because they are not as good at staying alive as fighters, and they don't deal their redonkulous damage consistently.
300 is not a realistic barrier. I dont know if you were being facetious or not.
But here's the thing. Rogues don't have to. A lot of people slot rogues into the 'melee' class because they need to be in melee to get flanking, and that's were a lot of their sneak attack comes from, and then they compare them to fighters, paladins, etc. Of course they are going to come up short to pure melee classes. They aren't a pure melee class
Nobody has ever said they were a pure melee class build, and if that is what you are getting out of all the rogue threads then you need to reread them.
I think this is true. The common opinion is that other classes do this better, and also fight better.
Could they be made better? Yes. Are they viable? Also yes.
Whether or not they are viable is a point of contention since "viable" varies by game table. The common baseline is does the GM have to help you out, and can you meaningfully contribute against stock monsters, which is actually a low baseline, but a fair one. Some people report having trouble with stock(straight out of the book with no adjustment) monsters in combat. Now we do have the sap master, but it still relies on sneak attacks and flanking which is hard to set up depending on how tactical the GM is.
Once again you are misreading things. The idea is that the conjuration route is the best or at least one of the better ones. Nobody is complaining if you go Universalist as long as you play it well. At the same time if you play a conjuration wizard badly they might complain.
You are starting to look like one of those people who only sees the extreme end of arguments. Don't be that guy.
Wrong wrong wrong. Nobody who is half-way competent is saying always take power attack. Also if you are two-handing a weapon you attack bonus can be so high that even with power attack you only miss on 5's or less, and the penalties are nowhere near "massive". Stop exaggerating.
An example of when not to take power attack. I am sure you wont find most of us saying combine power attack and two weapon fighting. I think I just found my next meme to add to that other thread. Thanks.
It does(to an extent), but once again nobody who is competent is saying do 1 thing and only one thing well, such as hit things hard. Being good at only one thing in this regard is why people look down on the fighter, so if that is what you learned you were listening to the wrong people or did not understand the message.
I actually had a thread on this to clarify that most of us are NOT saying NEVER EVER heal. Some do hold that stance.The common stance is that you are not being efficient by focusing around building* because being proactive is better than being reactive, and by being proactive you can actually make it less likely to have to heal.
If you need a link to the thread let me know.
*I am aware that there may be some builds that heal really well, but barring those every few builds you should be trying to make sure the damage is never dealt, and even those build should not stand around twiddling their thumbs if nobody is hurt.
Basically you just ranted about things that are minority issues on the board. I am glad I could clear things up for you.
You being correct(about the rule) does not mean you get to hold up everyone else's fun. So you are wrong in that(holding up the game) regard. It is not about shifting the blame, but you handling the situation improperly. The GM may have screwed up your fun, but when you keep arguing you are now messing up everyone's fun. So no matter how wrong the GM is, you are still not justified in your behavior. Sometimes life and the game is not fair. This would be one of those times.
It is not hate at all, but different people have different views on the line between charm person and dominate person. That causes arguments as I am sure you have seen during your research.
Also fun is subjective, as well as what is "ok".
I think they do support them, but companies making official statements when it serves little to no purpose is not generally a good idea. At best people will stay where they are since Paizo is positive on this topic so far. Of course something could always be taken out of context and it can back fire on them. Then they have to try to explain their way of out the situation, and hope nothing else is taken out of context. The ability of people to intentionally and accidentally read between the lines when there is nothing there, is astounding.
PS: I am sure we agree. I was just using your post. :)
It is relevant because in a discussion we often need to know how someone may handle a situation, and while it may have been in Kain's head it is an event that takes place in real life. Had it been something that has never happened, and/or is likely to never happen that would have been different.
If I was Paizo I would not say anything. As a company it is sometimes best to stay out of fights that don't require you to speak up. Since Gencon is very important for RPG companies going against them would be a bad business decision, and in this case it would make Paizo look "fake" since they have openly had homosexual characters in AP's. IIRC they may have had a transexual character also. Not looking genuine is never good. <---- They don't need a PR person to figure that out
He is making a general statement, and using you as an example. In your group it may be ok to do that, but in most groups it would not be ok. He does not know your group so he was not dictating how they would respond.
I agree that the spell may be marked as /evil/ by its descriptor, but I also disagree with it. Also, who cares if it is /evil/?
Well the GM may care, and depending on the setting and your class the deity may care. The nation you are in may care, and throw you in jail even if you have sound arguments that the law is wrong. So the answer to your question depends on various factors.
I don't want to derail this with a rules debate, and there is already an open thread on this. Basically it depends on whether or not a GM thinks you need something all of the time, or whether he thinks "Access at will" should suffice.
TLDR:The rules are silent in either direction.
My last comment on it in this thread.
With that aside a fair GM will bring you back to life once he finds out he is wrong. And as a player you should not hold the game hostage, even though I understand you being upset. I would however point out the rule between sessions. If the GM does not admit or know he is wrong then you have a decision to make.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
As a GM I will say that rule is about your ability to make the rules. It is not rule 0 when you just have no idea what you are talking about.
Rule 0: If you are wet fireball does 3 less dice of damage. <--Intentional rule change.
GM is just wrong: If you are wet fireball does 3 less dice of damage. <--GM actually thinks that is how the rules work.
I think that with the elemental his mind is not attached to the golem. The golem is just leeching of off the elemental's life force. If the caster had a domination type affect over the elemental then I could see the golem always being intelligent.
From a flavor point of view as a GM a golem going beserk should be able to use some intelligence, since he is somewhat free from the golem, just not 100% free. To explain the creature being out of control it is so filled with rage it attacks anything it sees unless the creator is there, and in that case he gets priority. I might use that. :)
For undead some are are direct transformations, and some are just bodies animated with negative energy.
In either event I would say the soul is somewhat bound since you can't raise someone whose body is currently in undead form. <---Not a rule completely, but it makes sense to because by the rules you cant bring an undead creature back to life.
Some say that intent also matters, and how you handle the situation. undead(specifically zombies) left to their own devices tend to attack people, so animating an undead not destroying it seems evil to me since you know what will happen. Also if you happen to die then you have put others at risk, so at the least a necromancer should keep his undead locked away, so as to protect others, if he wants to avoid the evil tag.
Thank you, Divinitus. You seem to see what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about the RAW so much as whether the RAW is actually right. I feel like animating a body is no different than animating a mud golem. There's no soul in the body anymore, and it may as well be used to kill some bad guys, rather than just sit there.
Actually if you want to go away from the rules animating golems should be evil in my opinion. It from a non-rules POV is worse than animating undead at times.
The process of creating a golem binds the spirit to the artificial body, merging it with this specially prepared vessel and subjecting it to the will of the golem's creator.
Note this is not voluntary, and is no better than binding the soul of a person to something.
Is it possible to play a good character who practices necromancy, or is the act of raising the dead evil in and of itself? I would argue that no magic is evil unless the casting of the spell required an inherently evil act, such as murder of an innocent.
Not all necromancers raise dead. Some just focus on negative energy based spells, but if you are raising dead, many GM's will consider it to be evil. In Golarion it is definitely evil.
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
I don't have an official house rule saying the 24 hour period is ignored. I just turn a blind eye to it unless someone find and tries to use a way to swap stat boosting items in an abusive(yes I know this is subjective) manner.
Some Guy again wrote:
If we dont know why you dont like it is more difficult to help. Many times someone not liking the class is based on misconceptions and a wrong idea of how the rules work, or they read something online and thought it was true.
I like the slayer because it fills the ninja/assassin/fighty-skill position well, and the assassin PrC sucks, and I don't care for the actual ninja class. He also does it without relying on magic.
He fights well in combat, and he does skills well so I am never just twiddling my thumbs during a combat or non-combat scene. Some people just dont like the name, and I feel like fluff is mutable. I dont see what is not to like.
By the rules free actions can not be taken when it is not your turn unless it is called out as an exception so no on the AoO, even though many GM's might allow it.
For a readied action it you would get to use grab, and the barbarian can not attack with that two-handed weapon.
If the barbarian was using a move action and not charging he might be able use another weapon depending on how the readied action was worded.
Admittedly I have not seen this on in a hwile:
Poster 1 completely misreads a rule.
Poster 2 responds along the lines of "That is not even remotely possible".
Poster 1 "My idea is just as valid because all ideas are equally valid"
Just to be clear they were using valid as in "might possibly be correct", on a factual issue, not some corner case not covered in the book.
I don't know you from any other forums that talk about Pathfinder such as Enworld or RPG.net, so I really dont know how familiar you are with the system. I also noticed this is the only post you have here. You might want to do some research by reading various topics, and if you are sure that you still want to do this then you will need tough skin. The Paizo devs do a good job with the game now, they still have a tough time keeping us happy. Collectively I think we are a good forum, but many of us are also highly opinionated so be ready for whatever comes your way when you post here.
This is my last post unless you make another comment or someone directly responds to this.
I did not know sex before marriage as a bad thing was really being pushed all that hard. I know many consider it a sin, but nobody I have met, barring 1 or 2 people waited, or talk about it like you have done some great wrong. Yeah I realize I could have just met people that did not care that much, so to me it seems strange.
I think it is really good to have. Many times the party has to stop adventuring because they have gotten beat up and the cleric is out of cure spells(adventuring day extenders). With fast healing he can use less on cure spells, and channel less. Alternately he can use the other types of channeling for more options. Fast healing is not just about the healing, but the other options it opens up which allows you to make problems into non-problems.
I am TN with NG tendencies because I go out of my way to help people, but I won't risk my life to save people.
On the forums I would say LN or NG.
Yeah I know I just broke a rule. Sometimes the chaos takes over.
Kthulhu maybe I have not read enough of your post but you seem to be LN on the boards. <----I don't know if that is breaking a rule or not.
OP, if you are still here part of your problem is that there is a ceiling on what non-magic is allowed to do, while magic basically has no limits. If you have a car that can go 1,000,000 mph it still won't match a car that can go any speed the driver wants.<---Simplification of the issue, but accurate.
One further note - depending on your God's specific Paladin Code and/or oaths you take as a paladin you may have further restrictions (i.e. some gods aren't big fans of any form of servitude/slavery and familiars might be interpreted as being forced service - those Paladins probably also don't take the mount form of Divine Bond.
I have never seen this. If someone told you this tell them to show it to you in a book and then let us know about it.