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. 2,609 posts (35,927 including aliases). 3 reviews. 6 lists. 3 wishlists. 25 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most of the rules use the same wording from 3.5, so it makes sense that the same words have the same meaning, unless Paizo says differently.

With regard to metamagic, they do stack unless stated otherwise. There is no rule saying they don't stack. There are actually feats and traits to reduce the cost in slots you use if you use more than one.

With a maximized intensified fireball the damage is 90. All intensified does is raise the cap on the dice. That is different from adding dice after the fact.

An intensified maximized empowered fireball would do 90 + ((15d6)/2)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes.

1. Taking away class features will make for unhappy players, especially in the last fight.

2. Do not use single boss encounters in Pathfinder. If you want a CR 17 fight as an example, it is better to use a CR 15 monster, along with help that adds up to a CR 15 for a total of 17.

3. I don't know what tactics you use when you GM, but having monsters that work well together and that may be prebuffed is a good idea. The bad guys should know that entering into melee with the paladin is a bad idea so they will try to avoid him and focus on taking out the other party members first. They may get in the ranger's face since he provokes, unless he has the feat that allows him to fire while in melee.

4. The stock(directly out of the book) monsters use average hit points. You may have to give them max hit points and allow them to use their treasure allowance to equip themselves.

5. Some monsters do not live up to their CR. Horned devils are not really all that good. They don't really do a lot of damage, and their SLA's are not impressive. You may be better off taking a good aligned outsider that has innate cleric caster levels and reskinning it as some type of unique evil outsider, or just say it is an evil celestial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LordSynos wrote:

Hmm, I wonder if we're on the same page or talking past each other. I really need to communicate better. Anywho, I see three ways of seeing this "Celestial" business ;

1. "Celestial" treats an armour as a specific category. "Celestial" from Celestial Plate treats armour as Medium, and from Celestial Armour treats armour as Light. This comes about from the use of the language "treated as" as opposed to "made one step lighter".
2. "Celestial" treats armour as one step lighter. This comes about from Celestial Armour being Chainmail (Medium) being treated as Light, and Celestial Plate being Full Plate (Heavy) being treated as Medium.
3. "Celestial" treats Heavy armour as Medium and Medium armour as Light. This comes about from the same language as 2, but interpreted in a different way.
I was going between 1 & 2, but I believe 3 is what you are getting at? New to me, and certainly different than the traditional nature of enhancements (being more across-the-board than different-depending-on-material-applied-to). Still, a valid interpretation, as far as I can tell.

As far as the Mithral Celestial Plate Armour goes ;
1. Would result in Medium armour, if you took "Celestial" from Celestial Plate, and Light armour, if you took "Celestial" from Celestial Armour, regardless of what armour you applied it to. This would be kind of a silly thing to do, and I don't think a GM should run with this interpretation.
2. Would result in one of two interpretations.
A. Light armour, for purposes of movement and other limitations, and Medium armour for all other purposes. Mithral moves the armour one step lighter, i.e. Medium, "for purposes of movement and other limitations." "Celestial" then moves it one step lighter.
B. Medium armour. Mithral moves the armour one step lighter, i.e. Medium, "for purposes of movement and other limitations." Armour category is not a limitation, so the armour is still Heavy. "Celestial" then moves it to Medium in full.
3. The same two interpretations as 2.

Nope.

I am saying there is no "Celestial" enhancement or pseudo enhancement.

The process for celestial armor treats the chainmail(medium armor) as light armor. Due to how it looks they called it celestial armor.

That process for Celestial plate treat the full plate(heavy armor) as medium armor, and it has similar features to celestial armor so they called it celestial plate.

The "celestial" is just the name of the finished producted. There is not one process.

I will put it another way. Celestial is not a process that makes armor one category lighter.

Each armor has magic applied that gives it a specific condition.

One process specifically says to treat chainmail as light armor which is not the same as "drop by one category"

Another armor treats full plate as medium armor, which also is not the same as "drop by one category"

Both processes give you a very specific armor. If they just generally dropped the armor by one category then it would be like any enhancement that could be applied to any armor.

The other thing is that the actual armor category never changes. So it is actually still heavy armor if you want to go with the full plate example. Heavy(celestial plate) + mithral = "treat as medium".

That is how I think the rules would apply to this 3.5 product.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zolanoteph wrote:

When I DM (and to be honest I no longer do), I have a few classes banned as well as most non-core races.

Banned Classes:

Bard: I've said it before and I'll say it again- I find the idea of a man telling jokes or strumming the lute or giving speeches while other people are chucking fireballs or hacking off limbs to be irredeemably corny as a concept. Yes, battle musicians were an essential part of ancient warfare, but ten men out of a thousand playing the drums strikes me as making sense. One man out of five just seems extremely ridiculous to my mind. Unless you archetype out to a bard that drops performance I won't allow it.

Skald: The same reasoning applies. And sadly there is no equivalent of the archaeologist archetype for bards, so I don't think I'll ever see one at my table under any circumstances.

Summoner: Not outright banned, but you need to have experience playing at least one other character and demonstrate phenomenal system mastery before I let you touch this one.

Gunslinger: My thought on guns has always been the following: If they're here, my beautiful little fantasy world is about to be changed forever by steam power, industrial revolution and the end of knights on horseback. This class is a world killer in my opinion and represents the hottest of potatoes.

Asian classes: There is no equivalent to Asia in my world. Unless you want a samurai/ninja for mechanical purposes and can re-flavor yourself perfectly I won't allow it. This in part comes from my aversion to anime.

RACES:

Any core race is acceptable. I also have a fetish for tieflings and (don't make fun of me) kobolds, and so they're allowed. Anything else is a case by case ask-me basis. I also make sure that tieflings, kobolds and half orcs are thoroughly discriminated against as I despise political correctness.

Ninjas and Samurai do not belong to Anime any more than annoying characters with high pitched voices do. No I am not trying to change you mind. Just making a point by comparison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In 3.5 where it was not an actual rule, IIRC I did not use it because it is too easy to do 50 points of damage.

I know the save is only 15, but a 1 will come up eventually.

In pathfinder it is an optional rule, that I never use.


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

A GM that lets you have an unlimited CLW item is playing a different game than standard Pathfinder.

The assumption in the standard game is that resources are limited, though some of them are renewable. Allowing a truly unlimited healing capability would eliminate this, and assure that all PCs were fully healed before every encounter without any expenditure of resources.

There comes a point well before level 20 when 15g per CLW charge is a trivial expense for the party. It would be entirely reasonable for a GM to let them craft their unlimited-use CLW item to eliminate a little bookkeeping. Unlimited out-of-combat healing is just another thing a high level party can do, along with Teleport, Plane Shift, Resurrection, Create Demiplane, etc.

What is reasonable varies by table, and the game is still not written to account for custom items. That is why they got rid of the level 0 spell from 3.5 that always cured 1 hp.


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

Guys I'm not saying that Celestial Armor(s) reduce the weight category by one. Mithral does. Nothing in the rules says that the magic enchantments placed on the armor negate Mithral's properties.

If you make a suit of Celestial Plate, it is considered medium by it's own description. If it is made out of Mithral, then rules regarding Mithral armor are applied and it is treated one category lighter. Order of operations is not part of the rules set. I am applying the rules from both armors simultaneously.

By the rules you have to make the armor before it is enhanced. That means it is crafted as mithral and made into celestial plate 2nd. That is in the rules because armor has to be masterwork before any it is enhanced. . Special armor and weapons don't have a rule to bypass that so they follow the same creation rules as other armor and weapons .

Okay, but that still doesn't invalidate Mithral's properties.

Celestial armor is medium armor, by the text. So we take that medium armor, and see that it is made of Mithral. Mithral armor is treated on step lighter.

When the armor becomes Celestial Plate, it becomes medium armor, which means that the Mithral on it takes it lighter, the order doesn't matter because the lightness is not coming from the same source.

What rules are you claiming that I am breaking now? And more importantly, how do they have any effect on the finished product?

Let me put it like this, and repeat myself. The armor is NOT medium. It is treated as medium. It is actually still heavy armor. If I treat A as B then A is still not B.

Since it is still A(heavy armor) that still means the mithral won't drop it another step.

Now until you can find a rule saying that the actual armor category is ignored by Mithral per RAW you can't claim RAW is on your side..

edit: The entire time I thought this item had been reproduced in Ultimate Equipment. This item is a 3.5 item that never got updated to Pathfinder so this should not even be in the rules section. It should be in the advice or homebrew section. With that said it defaults to "ask your GM" on that alone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:


ut there are rules supporting it. The rules for Mithral are clear. All we are doing is using Mithral as the base metal, and applying the written rules to it. Implying anything further is not part of the written rules and therefore doesn't belong in the rules forum.

Not that your opinion doesn't matter, but I'm just going with what's written.

Actually the only thing written is that celestial full plate is treated as medium and celestial armor is treay as light armor.

You are assuming that it making something celestial drops it down by one armor category but the raws never says to treat celestial as a pseudo enhancement.
I do agree it could be read that way but the fact that each celestial(normal and plate) can be its own things you can't say that your interpretation is factual. That is why many of us are saying "ask the GM".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
LordSynos wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Then don't bother making Celestial Plate out of it and make Celestial Armor.
This actually makes the most sense, discussing it the way we are. It actually costs less and gives more benefit that the "Celestial" from Celestial Plate Armour anyways.

Not really. You are assuming Celesital is like an enhancement that always drops armor to one level lighter from the current form.

It could be that the process for plate makes it medium.

As an example if I cast a spell that gives you an 8 strength.

And then I cast another spell that takes your strength from a 10 directly to an 8, the your strength won't drop to 6 because the spell does not say strength drops by 2. It says it makes it directly into an 8. In that case one effect is duplicating another so there is no benefit to casting both.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To get things back on topic I think no class(older melee) is really obsolete even if they are less optimal. Simple classes like the fighter are a good way to bring someone into the game. Due to table variation and style of play I doubt any of the older melee classes will ever really stop seeing use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Celestial armor is not mithral—it's actually made of silver or gold (as mentioned in its description), and thus doesn't gain any of the standard modifiers for being mithral at all. It's its own thing. Its lower arcane spell failure and higher max Dex bonus are a result of its magical qualities, not what it's made out of. In addition, this magic allows folks to wear it as if it were light armor—the mithral versions don't do this because mithral isn't fundamentally magical like the enhancements on celestial armor.

Emphasis mine. It is made lighter by the magic involved.

All of this is solved by simply using Mithral Fullplate in place of Chainmail when crafting Celestial Armor, rather than Celestial Plate. No FAQ necessary, you guys are trying too hard.

James Jacobs wrote:
Reading the rules too closely is bad for your sanity.

Exactly "makes this armor medium" magic would make it one medium, but if it is already medium due to mithral then it is still medium. That in no way invalidates what James said because making heavy armor into medium armor, by using "make it one category lighter magic", or "you will be medium" magic still has the end result, so normally it does not matter how it was done.

With all of that said James word is not RAW, and is not even on the rules team so quoting him won't help you, even if he said it uses "makes the armor one category light" instead of applying a default condition.

With this logic in mind, screw Mithral. Just make Celestial Armor out of full plate and have it be treated as light armor with 8 max DEX because it "is considered light armor."

I am confused by what you mean.

I will give you some more information however.

A. This magic makes the plate armor one category light from its current standing etc etc etc

B. This magic makes heavy armor into medium armor etc etc.

My basic point is that there is no RAW to say how the flavor behind this magic works. If it is A I still think your idea does not work, but if it is B then you have no chance at all of being correct dropping 2 categories because the mithral is doing the same thing that magic is doing for the most part.

PS: Celstial Armor's magic could make medium armor act as light armor, but the magic that is used on Celestial Plate may only make heavy armor into medium armor. Just because they have a similar same name, that does not mean they do the exact same thing. We only know the end result, not how the magic is applied, so by RAW the answer is still murky. Which goes back to "ask the GM".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could be put to sleep by a witch and then coup de graced by minions more easily.

With this ability you have to be hit, and then fail a save before the coup de grace is even possible. I don't see this recurring enough to make it a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aceDiamond wrote:
I've been thinking about grabbing Celestial Plate Armor for my barbarian, so I can gain the benefits of fast movement. However, I realized that the armor never says it's made of mithral. Were I to get this armor in mithril, would it count as light armor and allow for a faster move speed?

You can make it Mithral per RAW, but since the armor is already treated as one category lighter, and mithral does the same thing the GM could rule that mithral acts on the base armor type, and only overlaps, but does not stack. Ask your GM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thormind wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


You're making a mistake here. Main hand and offhand take the penalties for TWF. You're at 18/18/18/13/13.

That being said, average AC for a CR 13 foe is 28. You need a 10 to hit on your highest attack. Aka, a 45% miss chance.

So, .55+.55+.55+.3+.3=2.25 hits per round against average AC of CR equivalent foe.

2.25*17.5 + 2.25*8.5*1.10=60.4125 before DR, miss chance, or other such things.

Average HP around this level is about 200 for monsters, meaning that it should take about 4 full attacking sneak attacks to kill a single opponent.

- No mistake, the numbers i gave included all penalties and bonus to hit (from Dex, from Swords, from weapon focus...).

- We are playing a premade module from Paizo (Jade Reagent). The average AC of foes we are facing is not 28. Plus as a rogue my main priority most of the time is to go after the casters/archers, they have lower AC.

-Again most foes we face dont have 200hp. And this is a module made by Paizo. I assume they created something appropriate for our lvl...

Your off hand and main hand attack should have the same attack bonus unless one weapon has a special ability such as a feat or magic applied to give it a higher attack bonus than the other weapon.

That penalty from TWF applies to both weapons, not just one or the other.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the devs would allow TWF'ing with a bow because you are still using both hands to make an attack happen, even if the bow is not a two handed weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone I have gamed with has had house rules no matter what the system was. Complaining does not mean they don't like the system. It means it isn't perfect for them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is better to have them at the same level and being 3 levels behind is too much. Your GM also needs to remember that unlike 3.5 which gave you more XP if you were at a lower level Pathfinder gives a flat amount, so they will never really catch up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:


If you want to play classes as flavorless stat blocks, be my guest.

Nobody is saying to do this. They ARE saying create flavor, and find the mechanics which allow you to best fill that flavor. As an example if I want to use a ranger as my "ninja" instead of the actual ninja that does not mean I am playing a flavorless statblock. It means that I like the ranger better for what I want to do and maybe at worst my view of what I want a ninja(insert other concept/idea as needed) to be is different from what Paizo offered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From what I understand pearls of power restore expended spells. The arcanist does not lost spells they cast so there is nothing to recall.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Neon Sequitur wrote:
kaboom! wrote:

.

YES

.

Pathfinder's rules are a bloated, complicated mess. Our group has to STOP PLAYING every two minutes to look something up, and we're sick of it. The only reason I'm still playing is to humor the GM, who loves this game. If it was up to me we'd be switching to something playable, like 5E or Savage Worlds.

I don't have this problem, and most of my players in more than one group don't either. What your statement means is that PF may not be the game for you, but that does not make it a "mess". As for the GM, offer to run a game for him under another system. That is how I got introduced to Mutants and Mastermind, and Shadowrun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
cfalcon wrote:

Ok. Thanks for your inputs!

I come from this mostly as from a DM. I normally try to quash things I consider a bit too powerful, and it hasn't been a big deal to just not green-light certain archetypes or whatever.

In the general case, the power level wasn't ramping in Pathfinder, I did not feel. In general, you guys have pointed to some moderate or high op builds and have said "well, this was already a thing". Which is valid, if you were already allowing that thing, or discussing the game as a whole.

As for wizard versus sorc, the fact of the matter is that these two play differently enough and have pretty big strengths and weaknesses, that I found that there's enough interplay. Sorcs are, over the course of a game, a bit weaker than wizards (just my opinion), but they also have some pretty clear moments of strengths. I feel it would take a very optimized sorc, or maybe none at all, to really compete with an Arcanist.

And balance issues aren't really a theorycraft one. My table will feel robbed if I allow stuff that they consider way more powerful, after all, as such choices make their iconic choices taste bad. I thought that Paizo had been doing a solid job with power levels, and now I kinda don't. Which is unfortunate, because the same state I ended up with in 3.X is in danger of happening here- that is to say, the core stuff is considered only useful if properly extended, and parts are considered obsolete, and the message boards become incoherent if you have to walk into the conversation saying "ok I need advice on a bard, but I'm not allowed to use X, Y, or Z". I'm sure you all saw that happen in 3.X when Nine Swords game out- if you walked into giant's forums and asked about a fighter (this is probably still true to this moment) you would get at least one guy who was like "If you are the one who banned warblades, I will fight you. If it is your DM, tell him X such that I can fight him through you."

Anyway, it sounds like you guys are generally of the opinion that these...

The CRB is the worst offender of power disparity. Many of the later classes are in the middle and better balanced. I have learned over the years that some things look a lot better on paper than they really are, and until someone runs an actual campaign with arcanist we won't really know. We can just guess. That is why it is theorycraft at least until someone experiences it. Even then it will depend on the table's playstyle.

If your players don't like certain things then the group can agree to not use them, at least until a new campaign starts up. That way a new player does not have any real or perceived advantages because they came into the group later on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are trying to choose any sla you want then you are probably out of luck. If you just want any sla then i don't see the point.
to answer your question classes get sla's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
kaboom! wrote:

To Vote, simply *favorite* a post below:

In >THIS< article, Erika Mona says he'll do Pathfinder 2e if the fans ask for it.

"People are always asking us when we're going to do a new edition
of Pathfinder, well, we'll do that when the players want it."

.

POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder (Pathfinder 2e) ?

.

Honestly, unless you're objection is that you don't want to spend more money (which is completely reasonable), then I don't see a reason to say "no."

I mean, we haven't talked about what the new edition is going to be like yet. For right now, a new edition just means the game becomes exactly what I want it to be. So, since I want the game to be exactly what I want it to be, I'll vote yes.

Just because there is a new game that does not mean it will be exactly what I want it to be. It might even be farther from from I want than PF is right now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. They don't stack but I don't think allowing them to stack would cause any problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MidgardSerpent wrote:
Berti Blackfoot wrote:

[Snip!]

The only real problem comes in if they repeat this with a size Large or larger creature, they may try to argue against even the 50% miss, since they know the monster must fill up the whole space.

My counter to this is usually that the 50% miss chance by concealment (specifically because of invisibility) isn't just missing the person entirely; it's also not being able to anticipate / react to their specific position / parries / dodges / etc. Some of that would apply to large or larger creatures, and some wouldn't. Even not being able to see the best angle to swing to land a solid rather than glancing blow on thick skin plays into this. Sight is a large component of successfully landing a hit, even if you know exactly where someone / something is.

To add to this taking up more than one square does not mean you take up all of the space in those squares.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Attacks of Opportunity

Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.

Can the caster attack the square with a melee attack? Yes

Is he armed? Yes

So by RAW it works. I am not sure if it is RAI or not, but RAW there is nothing to stop it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the GM says the rule is X then the rule is X however I.from what you said I dont think he likes to admit being wrong. An increase in price is different from a decrease.
In the spirit of fairness if he is not making mistakes which I doubt, he should give everyone a list of the house rules up front .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess I should also clarify that in order to gain access to greater exploits you only need to count as an 11th level arcanist, and wizard levels count as arcanist levels for exploits in all ways most likely as RAI.

A strict reading of the RAW may disagree, but for the purpose of the rules I think the wizard qualifies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This one really has no rule. It will be left to table variation until Paizo makes an official decision. I allow them to cast spells for now. I just assume they have hands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Improving overall plot cohesion, fixing errors on statblocks, improvements/additions on continuing the AP past book six. I think the 32 player companion book should cover that. If they do a hard back, they may as well do a RotRL type deal and give us the entire AP with fixes/improvments in it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

(without the power attack house rule it becomes)

PA: +16/+16/+11/+11/+6 2d8+23 first, 2d8+21
Ah I see you think that is a house-rule (really was curious with what you meant by that). It is not. The minutia is boring. The rules forums would be more likely to indulge in that. I'm sure cases can be made for both rulings, it's just irrelevant because at the end of the day the GM will rule it how he or she wants to because the actual rules are whatever the GM says and no amount of rules lawyering should change their decision.

The rules are what are in the book. The rules for "a specific group" are what the GM says they are which makes them houserules.

And if for no other reason than people should use the same terms, when in the forum "house rules" = changes made to the system for your enjoyment, and the "rules" = the official rules per RAI.

In addition "house rules" is not a bad term. We all have house rules, and anyone who gets upset about it is being way too sensitive.

What is flamebait/annoying is ignoring the standard definition of something, when you know what everyone else means. No I am not accusing you of this. I am just informing you so you don't become the "wrought" guy.

Short version: We had a poster using words but he used them as his group used them, instead of how most people understood them, and was surprised that nobody knew what he was talking about.

So when we say "house rules" it does NOT mean "you are doing it wrong", it just means you are not using the rules as intended in the book.

At best(not that I think this will happen) people will just say "your rules...." or some similar phrase which basically still amounts to "house rules". There is no need to come up with a new phrase that means the same thing as an old one however.

edit: In my 5+ years here I have never seen anyone get upset about the term "house rules". I have also never seen it on any other site. It is quiet common here. So even if there is some site where it is a problem, it is not the case here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:

My major problem with uses per day isn't so much the fluff (of which I shall keep my opinion on it close to the vest, though it seems to differ from many in this thread)... It's the gameplay consequences.

In short.. It reinforces the fifteen minute work day. At least from what I've experienced. I know very few who would actually want to be the truly epic big damn heroes that continue on despite being tired and worn out.

I am sure the those heroes wanted to rest also, and they will if given a chance. If you read a novel where someone is fighting on fumes it was because they had no choice, not because they thought "Man, if I fight with nothing left I will look really cool".

Quote:


I can understand resting for HP... But when entire parties are resting because people are out of x/day (this includes x/rounds, x/anything, x/etc), despite having good HP and casters still have a handful spells left... Totally breaks my verisimilitude.

Define "handful".

If you mean 7th level casters and they still have 3rd level spells then I don't know why they are resting barring very extreme cases. If they are level 15 and they only have a few 3rd level spells left then I understand, but a 15th level party can normally take on enough fights to not call it a "15 minute work day" before they are pushed to 3rd level spells.

Quote:


I can get the tactical advantage of fighting the BBEG at totally topped off everything... But there's no effing thrill to the story when the heroes plow through a dungeon, rest for a few hours inside said dungeon, then go off to fight the final boss as pristine as the day they left town!

That depends on how tough the BBEG is. Personally if they end their last fight right outside of his door/entrance before resting he would know. If they take too long to show up he should know and adjust accordingly. Resting right before a boss fight can be blind luck if the players dont know where he is. However the boss should have plans in place to deal with such things.

Quote:


And usually, due to how most of these 'Boss Fights' are designed, these fully fresh characters often trounce said boss... Because there's nothing in the module that states the boss would rather harass them while sleeping, than sitting in his sanctuary wringing his hands evilly and twirling his mustache.

That is a GM problem. Unless you are in PFS you are not bound to what is in the books. Many people run home games and still fall prey to this. I have had bosses change locations, and I don't mean in the same dungeon if they had too. Give your BBEG a preferred place to fight, but he does not have to have a mandatory place to fight.

Quote:


Don't believe me? I've seen it, I've been in parties that do it. Several times. One of my worst groups would practically boycott and derail the game until they got to do it, which is not a good experience for a new GM (who was only doing it because none of the usual GMs wanted to, despite only having been playing for a year beforehand), which made her vow never to GM again, mainly due to the fact, that they vehemently argued with very raised voices they 'Should' be able to ONLY so the casters can re-prepare their spells, and the barb can get rage rounds ("By not letting us sleep, you're just trying to pull a TPK!"). After only ONE and a HALF combats at level 2 (they retreated, and the nature of the dream labyrinth prevents things from leaving their assigned rooms).

It's why I've started to shake off the rust and DM again. There's nothing more of a buzz kill to me than having the psyched momentum grind to a freaking halt just so the barbarian can sleep and be pissed off tomorrow. Fortunately, those who I DM for (though that number is small) happen to agree with me, so though I'm not a player, I'm getting the BDH feeling through DMing for them ^_^.

I have no problem with Use Per Day features. I find them to be rather fun to use, and depending on what they are, rather thematic... It's the game play attitude that they enable that upsets me.

I believe you, but you have to set a tone of actions having consequences. It seem the problem here is players expecting to have their way. Even if you remove the x/day mechanic they would still arrive with full power. I never tell players they can't rest, but a lot can happen in 8 hours. Also at low levels there is a good deal of resting, but at higher levels PC's are able to take on more combats. That is just part of the game. I personally like to start PC's at 3rd to 5th level when I run homebrew games, which I have not done in a while. I have started AP's at 3rd before, and it worked out pretty well.

With regard to your resting players, there is a difference between them knowing bad guys might bother them if they sleep in enemy HQ, and the GM saying "No you can't rest because I said so". The former is something they should expect to deal with. The latter is something I would not like as a player either. Even if the bad guys don't assault them because they boarded the door they should be on alert, and be more grouped up than normal, depending on the situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stealth
(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.

Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.

You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
Creatures gain a bonus or penalty on Stealth checks based on their size: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Medium +0, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth, even if the creature is observing you*.

*Cover and concealment are relative, so you may be able to stealth against one creature, but not against another creature. As an example if a creature has blindsight and you are within the range of its blindsight then you can not stealth against it, even if you have concealment.

If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving to avoid being pinpointed. Use the chart under invisibility in the glossary to determine how additional modifiers will affect your stealth bonus. The same chart also applies to your stealth check when not invisible. As an example if you are speaking in a normal voice it is a -20 to your stealth check. If you are speaking within the hearing range of another creature then it may not be possible to use stealth against them as you would be observed by their hearing. Whispering imparts a -5 modifier, to your stealth check, and your allies may need to make perception checks to hear you. The enemy may also make perception checks to hear you. If they can hear you whisper however, and you have already used stealth against them successfully it only gives them your direction but it does not pinpoint your location unless they can beat your stealth DC.

If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a bonus on Stealth checks (see Feats).

As of now I am undecided as to whether or not I should require total concealment for someone to hide if they are being observed by eyesight


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is interesting. I just wonder if it is RAI or an editing issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First people in fantasy land would have the to understand the concept of power as we do, so you will basically need GM Fiat. If you are the GM then using a magical device or some powersource from Numeria as a starting point might work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

It does not obsolete the sorcerer.

It does not obsolete the wizard.

It does not obsolete the witch.

There is nothing the class can do that couldn't be done before, they just made some things easier to do.

Could all of it be done by one build?

If the arcanist can't do all of it in one build then you are correct, otherwise the other poster may have a point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think part of the problem here is that people refuse to acknowledge, or just don't realize how their style of play or house rules impact the game. That is why when discussing such things it is best to not bring corner cases or house rules("How I or my GM does it"), unless it is done with a rule in the actual book.

As an example if you use the "rule of cool" when defending a class don't expect it to stand up to scrutiny. I am not saying it is bad to let players do things that are not in the book, but if the class can do it, then the class can't do it. At the same time nerfing casters by using houserules or having antimagic fields when they are not common also won't get much credit. Now some will say "you can't prove they are not common". That is correct, but I don't think they really believe they are common. They are just trying to win a debate at that point. Nobody can prove that most tables don't give out 1 million gold pieces at level 1, but I think we can most agree that it is not the norm.

Some will change a rule and then go on to say that is not GM fait or rule 0. It is the "rule". They know when someone says "rule" they mean the ones printed by Pathfinder, and yes a GM can change how things work at his table, but the common point of reference is the printed book. In any discussion you have to be sure to have the same meaning with whatever the topic is. If you are not discussing the same fighter/rogue/wizard/etc that everyone else is then the discussion does not apply to you anyway.

Before this is misread nobody is saying don't change the rules for your game. I am saying be honest and don't say X is not a problem when you know your X and everyone else's X is different.

I am also NOT saying that if you used class x without houserules that class x would not work. I am saying that you need to recognize what your changes bring to the system. Because once you bring in your house rules all you are really saying is "I made changes so problems ______ doesn't happen in my games". That is very different from _____ is not a problem. Since every table is no different nobody can really say _____ is not a problem. They might be able to say if you did Y then ____ would not be a problem.

PS: Your and you were not pointed at any one person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:

[

A CR 15 fighter can be every bit as dangerous as a CR 15 wizard when used as an enemy. Challenge is heavily situational. A CR 2 mosquito swarm can be far more dangerous than a CR 5 cleric in some situations. If you have a beef with he challenge rating system, I understand completely, but it's existence does not necessitate the need for all classes to be equally dangerous. The GM is responsible for providing appropriate challenges to their party, not yawning and throwing in something CR 7 and expecting it to work exactly like any other CR 7 challenge.

A CR 15 fighter is not going to equal a CR 15 wizard unless the wizard is gimped. Even if the fighter is gets a jump on a level 15 party he will at most kill 1 party member barring something crazy like the PC's rolling a string of nat 1's. A CR 15 wizard might kill the entire party if he gets a jump on them, and the GM is playing for keeps. Not all CR's are equal. I am sure a GM can contrive a situation to make the fighter seem more dangerous, but if you just go by their abilities that fighter is not a threat to TPK most APL=CR parties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems ok to me. Nothing says the ring has to be on his finger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I think we've gone off so far into theoryland and personal experience that this thread is largely useless, as most of these wind up being.

Theory aside, it seems clear that the OP and some other posters don't have the issues with full casters that many people see. What's unclear is why.

I think he has met the "right/wrong" player yet, and his group style of play is affecting the game. He may have to sit at another GM's table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:

Ask yourself these questions: if 20th level full casters are capable of dealing with any situation, why are there still problems in the world (the world being whatever game universe you're using)? Why is there not just a dozen 20th level casters stopping every problem before it even becomes a problem? Why do adventurers even need to exist in your world?

When you answer those questions to your own satisfaction, you will see why high level casters don't just automatically win everything.

Because there are other 20th level casters opposing them. :)

But seriously I think the idea of "casters(the one true build) can do anything" is a misunderstanding. It is more like a good build and a good player can do a whole lot of things to wreck a GM's game, and make some players feel useless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:
Another fun DM thing to do is the bait and switch telegraphing. I've seen arcane casters have trouble when they misinterpreted (either their fault, or my intentional gm-dickery) what was waiting for them. One came loaded for harpies he could fireball only to find fiends who were immune to fire, one came expecting rogues with low will saves and ran into vermin who straight up didn't care about his charms, the giant bone things turned out to be bone /golems/ not skeletons, etc, and since they didn't have the right flavor of blasty or bypass they had a rougher time of it, whereas the martials just shrugged and whalloped things.

This is why player skill matters just as much as the class chosen. A smart player always has generalized spells, and usually still leaves slots open. It should not require every spell you have to be dedicated for to solving one problem. Sometimes the best thing to do is have spells that make the fight easy for the party instead of assuming you will be the star that day.

The "Win" buttons are the spells that let you solves problems the party could not handle or that make the problem a lot easier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
Thanks for your thoughts, guys. I haven't been enforcing it myself because I felt it added one more complexity to juggle in an already complex character creation process and I didn't feel like dealing with it. It's interesting to see that the majority of you seem to have no problem with it. I guess I'm just lazy in comparison. :D

It is not difficult. Just tell the players not to do. Now if you have the type of players that HAVE to be audited I can understand why you might not think it is worth the trouble.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Mathius wrote:

@PMing

At low levels a caster will no win an adventure by itself but at high levels single caster can fairly easily do it.

Invisibility plus non detection plus gaseous form plus fly means you can get to any where in a compound undetected.

If the goal is to get something then simply touch it an dim door or teleport. If it is to stop a plot you really only need to to win an encounter or two and skip all the rest. Killing a single target is trivial. Also planar binding allows to easily get a replacement for a fighter or cleric.

In beastmass 2 a character built a caster that soloed an adventure for his level and even bad dice rolls would not mean much. Many high level adventures could not even be started with out magic. As to the 15 min work day, just teleport out of the dungeon or use rope trick or many other spells that allow one to rest in safety. Or plane shift to fast time plane and rest up in 1 round if you can find the right plane.

What does the PC caster do to prevent the BBEG from attacking him at home in exactly those same ways? If nothing, then the caster is only alive because the GM is not playing the opposition intelligently. If something, then the BBEG can do that something too.

1. Not all BBEGS have the same resources.

2. Many things are not done in the game, so the game can continue since the goal is to have fun. A GM always has the most guns if he wants them just because he is the GM. All he really has to do most of the time is have the BBEG pay the PC's a visit when they are still at a low level, and that is not the only thing that could end a campaign early.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is not theorycraft. Casters at higher levels have buffs that can last over several fights and they have enough spells per day to take on several encounters. Noe he is going to waste spells just because he is bored hemight run out. Otherwise he can cast one or no spells at all at times.This will vary by group but with more powerful abd I don't just mean DPR the spells are needed less. That extends how long he can go before needing to rest. In addition nobody will fight once thier hit points are gone and I have martials run out of hit points before casters ran out of spells. of course that varies by group. People ned to stop assuming everything they have not experienced has not actually taken place when the poster claims it


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Don't go into Power Dome A wrote:

Rules Lawyering is inherently bad. The entire concept is that the player is litigious at the table and arguing his case on how the game should play out, which is the GMs job, not the players.

Most Rules Lawyers that I've played with aren't even very knowledgeable about the rules and build their characters on these 'too good to be true' items, feats, abilities, et cetera. They are too good to be true in reality as the player didn't read the rules carefully or were creating a plausible but deliberate misreading of the rules to be able to make the argument at the table so they can get their way regardless of what the rules actually say.

The primary component of rules lawyering is creating an argument that will get the player their way and result in 'victory' for them at the table via some metagame construct regardless of any other consideration (such as being a correct reading of the rules, or if a particular rule makes any sense, or is an obvious typo, et cetera).

That is incorrect. Your experience is your experience. Those that cheat are not rules lawyers. They are cheaters. The two are not synonamous, and there is nothing wrong with speaking up if a GM makes a mistake. It is a problem if the player is a jerk about it. It is very possible to speak up and not be a jerk. When I correct the GM it is done even if I suffer for it in game. Yes I also GM, and I don't mind being corrected when I am wrong.

It is NOT inherently bad. You just have players that want to have their way it seems. That can be handled with a better screening process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Faelyn wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

No. As far as Pathfinder goes, "You can play only X, Y and Z" smells of either the GMs inability and/or unwillingness to go forth and give players the freedom, his/her inability or unwillingness to tackle the ruleset or of him/her imposing personal tastes on player choices (note, this is different from imposing personal tastes on campaign world/story, which is perfectly fine).

So whenever I hear "You can't play a transgendered Kitsune Paladin/Monk" and there's no good reason behind that which is nested in campaign style and actually contributes to it being fun, I walk away. Kind of a litmus test of what GM am I facing.

I completely disagree with that opinion. Just because a GM wants to start a more traditional style group of PCs does not make them a bad or impersonal GM.

He did not say that. He was saying it seems(is likely) that if a GM tries to cut rules out.....

Restricting rules does not weed out bad players. Kicking them out of the group does. If he is an entitled player with a lot of options then he will still feel entitled with less options. The same goes for most other nonacceptable behavior.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You should give examples, and evil people can have compassion, not that I think Asmodeus has much of it, if any.

They are evil many times because of how they go about solving a problem. An evil person may have no problem sacrificing the few to save the many. A good person would take a much more difficult route, even if it might mean he could die so that nobody has to be sacrificed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
LazarX wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
In my home games, I have a long established house rule that all somatic, verbal, and material components for spells are the same for that specific spell. I.e. whenever someone casts fireball their hand motions, spoken words, and the materials they consume are always the same.
This is your problem... because you made a determination of exactitude, your players saw it as an opening to make slight variation a method of spell disguise.

My house rule came as a result of the shenanigans, it was established after the players tried to tell me that enemies cannot identify their spells because of their unique components.

Also I am surprised by the lack of input on the command word fiasco.

The book does not allow them to use customized material components to hide spells. That is all you had to say. That way no house rule is needed.

1 to 50 of 1,297 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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