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. 2,630 posts (43,142 including aliases). 3 reviews. 9 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,658 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wizards casting from a rod is not a spontaneous caster. The rod does not change that. The spell is still prepared even if the wizard used a rod to modify the spell.

PS: I am not arguing what is fair, but what the rules is. In fairness the spontaneous casters were assumed to get more out of metamagic rules than they actually get, and the rules never changed when PF came into existence after 3.5.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually think stealth should go back to move silently and hide.

I also think perception should go back to listen and spot(this can also include search).

Part of the problem with the stealth rules is that they dont differentiate between which modiers are sound based and which ones are skilled based.

Example: An invisible person in the same room is harder to detect than a non-invisible person behind a wall in another room even though I can see neither one. For all that it matters both of them are invisible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
Well, yes but another example of a time it's told to me the most is when I am looking for advice on how to balance something in my own games that I have created or such, and even after I make this intent clear (more so lately), someone will usually tell me to ask my GM... it's like... didn't I just say that I am the GM looking for advice and opinions?

Sometimes people just jump to the newest comment, and/or they don't really read what you said. The number of times I have had to repeat something, especially in long conversations is astounding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it annoying sometimes too, but there are things the rules don't cover, and situations where the poster is trying to use something "not as intended". In those cases the GM is the best one to ask.

It is situational for me⬅⬅ TLDR


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since at least December of last year since it was mentioned on this post.

click here


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't really rise up so there should be no crushing. You should appear in the place you stood before the pit spell, but two things can't occupy the same space.

The teleport spell pushes you into the next open space, but you take damage. There is no rule for this situation because the rules don't cover every possible situation, so I would use the teleportation rule.

There are no rules for crushing at all so that is 100% on the GM if he wishes to decide which gives way between a person and a wall of force. I think the wall of force would win, if it were an actual force. It is more durable than a wall of stone, and I dont see a person winning against a wall of stone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hayato Ken wrote:

I´m wondering quite often what some people from the U.S. seem to find offensive and what they are perfectly fine with.

It depends on the person. Some people get mad just because you disagree with them, and them find another reason/excuse to use for them being upset.

Basically no matter what you do or say here someone will almost always be offended by it.

Even once they understand your intent they still complain.

Sometimes you just have to realize no amount of talking to them will make things better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It basically acts like a hand, and it is a part of armor(but primarily a weapon), but not armor by itself so it has no negative impact on casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do we have an expected date for the next FAQ's? If that is today then feel free to skip this message. :)

If you don't want to tip your hand then also feel free to skip this message.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Mark it seems as if we need an in depth blog on stealth. I know the rules were updated/clarified in Ultimate Intrigue, but there is still a lot of confusion.

How can the community specifically ask for a blog similar to the blog on poison, which has examples for people to go by?

I am opposed to asking specific questions, because it will lead to another question, which might take months or longer to get an answer, and it probably better to just handle it(as much as possible) all in one go.

I am overall enchanted by the idea of blogs that handle complex issues with many subquestions, but as the guy who got excited and drafted roughs for several different blog topics in March 2015, I can tell you that you might be more likely to get results, albeit incremental as you say, from specific questions. The trouble is that blogs are long and have a lot of decision/discussion points, so vetting them through the FAQ approval process is challenging, even when I provide a draft, since it takes so much time from everyone involved, and time that their schedules may not allow, even if I can shave off a half-hour for a single question FAQ.

All that said, for ease of reference and explanation, I prefer blogs as well when the situation calls for them.

Noted. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
If the PDT follows true to form over the last couple of years the answer is "whatever will cause the biggest nerf, regardless of the words."

So your answer is ?????


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not everyone has the same problems with leadership. Some don't have any problems at all.

What you should probably do is list problems for your table, and the community can help you find solutions for those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Slyme wrote:

The whole manifestations thing seems like a crock to me. It goes against nearly everything I have seen in my 35+ years of gaming and reading fantasy fiction.

I intend to fully ignore the FAQ, and will likely not play with a DM who chooses to use it to penalize casters.

The FAQ is not a rules change. it is a clarification of what the RAW text that has existed since 3.0. It means that you can't be lazy when it comes to being a sneaky spellcaster. It means that if you want to be nefarious and sinister, you'll have to plan ahead or think on your feet.

It's a rules change depending on how they finalize it. There was never any hint of manifestations in 3.x or Pathfinder.

I have already in this thread that Jason came across this problem years ago, and had no idea what a manifestation was. He said when you cast a spell it was known that "something" happened, but he said what that something was, was not clear.

I even posted the quote before, and I will do so again. I am also going to add it to my list for easy reference anyone claiming that manifestations as an actual thing are not new.

Also in 3.5, which is after 3.0, their official FAQ said that you did spellcraft checks based on components, not any manifestations.

Since I am doing all of this typing I might as well put the quotes down one more time.
--------------------------------------------------------
He was replying to a thread discussing spellcrafting a silenced, stilled, with no material component being used. Basically a spell where the caster did nothing but stand there.

Jason wrote:

Hey there Everybody,

The rules here are certainly not clear, because they generally assume that the act of casting a spell has some noticeable element. Notice I did not say component, because I think the rules are silent on parts of spellcasting that are codified components versus those that occur without any sort of codification, such as the wiggle of a finger, change in breathing and other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen, as it were.
Back to the topic at hand, since the rules are silent here, I think it is well within the GMs purview to impose a penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify a spell without components (V, S, M). Since there is no real increase for spells with just one, I would guess that this penalty is not very large, perhaps only as much as -4.
This is, of course, up to your GM to adjudicate.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Edit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.

Noted that he then goes to list examples after "such as", and none of those refer to visual manifestations such as glyphs appearing in the air.

Now let's go to the 3.5 FAQ.

3.5 FAQ wrote:


Is it possible to counterspell a spell that has no spell component?
For normal counterspelling, the Spellcraft check requires identification of verbal or somatic components. If those are missing, you cannot pass the Spellcraft check, so you cannot counter that spell. However, if you are using dispel magic to counter the spell, identifying the spell is not required and the Spellcraft check is skipped, so you can counter spells with no components.

As you can see Paizo had a different philosophy, but even Paizo never had a hard rule on exactly what was noticed(not seen, but noticed), and nothing to state the any effect on invisible casting. Everything mentioned after "such as" from Jason's post can be bypassed by invisibility.

I do think that in 3.5 you knew when someone was normally casting a spell because casting a spell was common in the typical fantasy setting, but nothing in the rules hinted about giving the location away with all of the components removed


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When writing modules or running PFS you go with common sense. There are a few rules that people don't run by RAW because it is not intent.

1. The shield feat that lets you ignore twf penalties for your shield is written to ignore several other penalties by RAW.

2. Dead people can legally take actions<----My favorite one to mention

Contrary to somewhat popular belief the GM is supposed to follow the known intent, not read the book in the most literal sense possible. Reading the book like that also causes some things not to work at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You would have to pick a specific one. With that being said you would have better luck asking on dreamscarred press's website.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ccs wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Sincline wrote:

If you are taking the leadership feat because it's powerful the GM should ban it, if you are taking it because it generates story and matches the campaign then it's awesome.

Basically does it fit the campaign and story, if not it's broken.

It's not difficult to come up with an in-game reason to take it, and why you take has no bearing on whether or not it breaks things at the table. The build and how it is used determine that.
Degree of DM involvement as well. If the DM takes a hands off approach & just lets a player do whatever they want? Then problems will likely ensue.

That falls under "The build and how it is used determine that.".

Letting the player do what they want is only a problem is the player takes things too far, which is what my above quote includes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that many people get in trouble here, and I don't' think everyone needs to be address specifically.

What could be done is to have all moderated post tabbed when they are all tied together, and one explanation could be given to everyone vs each person being personally counseled for lack of a better term.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Astral Wanderer wrote:
...you might get any day an adventure where some dude is trying to revive a dead God and must be stopped because otherwise it might actually happen...

Does it strike anyone else as odd that only the forces of evil ever do this? You'd think the good guys would be just as eager to declare 'backsies' in cases of Sudden Immortal Death Syndrome.

If nothing else, you'd think PCs would be trying to raise dead gods because "How else are we supposed to learn what domains he offers?"

I think it is because the PC's are good guys who tend to be reactionary, and not proactive. That is how must fantasy stories are.

But having to go through bad guys to gain plot items to revive a deity could be a great idea. The forces of evil would be trying to stop you, once they found out what was going on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pink Dragon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Natural attacks are not enhanced. You need to show quotes that says they are.

What you are doing is inferring. You have not show me one quote that directly says if you can bypass DR/Epic your natural attacks are treated as +6 weapons for the purpose of bypassing DR.

The reason is because the way the rules work is that +6 weapons overcome DR/Epic. You are assuming it goes both ways, but nothing supports that.

In order for the natural attacks to do anything more than what the book specifically says there must be rules for it. So show where it says that a creature that can bypass Epic/DR can bypass other DR's.

You can't use the "it doesn't say they can argument monks", and then use the "it doesn't say they can't" for something else.

Be consistent.

If we go by the "but the rules don't say they can't logic" then I can say they allow you to fly and always roll nat 20's since there is no rule that says they can't do that.

The rule I am quoting is:

Page 299 of Bestiary 1.
A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons — that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures’ natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Here the "creatures’ natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction". Epic weapons are "magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus". I don't see this as unclear.

I know that. I was saying in my last post that I agree with you now after rereading your comments.

We are on the same page. <thumbs up>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jiggy is on fire today. I hope his ideas get implemented.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is Achaekek's backstory/creation printed in any books in detail or is that still a thing waiting to happen?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In this post Jiggy gave good examples of how to handle things without listing every possible infraction. I wish I could have been as elegant with what I was trying to say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Berik wrote:

Personally I have little interest in seeing the moderation policies on these forums become much more codified, and I certainly wouldn't want a more comprehensive set of rules to be put up. It's impossible to capture every nuance that makes interactions a problem or not, and I think forums that try feel very unfriendly places.

At the end of the day, if I don't trust the moderators then it doesn't matter what the policies are. I wouldn't much want to post here if I didn't trust the staff anyway, and the hypothetical untrustworthy moderators could make posting life hard for me whatever the written regulations. On the other hand if I trust the moderators then I'll trust them to use their judgement whatever regulations are written down.

In any system the 'wrong' moderation result will happen now and then. Bans have happened that seemed unfair to me, while some posters have been able to keep posting who I personally might have banned. But I still like the forums a great deal, the moderators still have my trust and I like the community.

To be honest, this situation actually shows how well moderated I think the Paizo forums are. The incident in question that sparked all this wasn't hidden and a multi-page thread was allowed with a lot of back and forth on the particular issue. Even as things got heated it appears that multiple opportunities were given for people to put in their two cents. I'm sure that some people will be unhappy whatever the final outcome, but people have certainly had the chance to put the case to Paizo on whatever they think should happen.

Nobody asked for every little nuance to be moderated, and trust is not an either/or situation. It is normally a matter of degrees. That is how you can trust one person more than you trust someone else.

We all know that no system is perfect, but nobody is asking for perfect. Some are asking for what we perceive as "better".

"Well moderated" is also subjective, and leaving something open for discussion does not by itself make good conversation or good anything else. You can listen to someone already know you are not going to agree no matter what they say.<----I am not saying the mods are doing this. I just pointing out the error in logic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I will never understand the "it doesn't both me so you shouldn't complain either" attitude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
noretoc wrote:

I'll add an opinion. What is the point of this discussion. Someone got banned. If that person has an issue, then they should discuss it with the mods. Why should I care, it has nothing to do with me. His rights weren't violated. He doesn't have a "right" to state his opinion on this forum in any way he wants. This isn't a street corner. His Ban doesn't affect me, and it doesn't really affect anyone else here that wasn't involved in the situation. If I have a post deleted, or I am banned and I have an issue with it I will contact the mods to find out why.

The whole purpose of this public display seems like it is an to rile some people up into making some bad decisions. My opinion, is to see to your own house. If you have an issue take it up with the mods. If they don't listen, find another playground, this is the internet, there are plenty our there. It is not like you are getting kicked out of your house. Stop trying to gather the peasants to grab pitchforks and go after you perceived adversaries. Be an adult, handle your business, let people handle theirs.

At the same time you are telling people how to handle their business. How ironic.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
Nicos wrote:

f - There seems to be a correlation of the banhammer with the lgtb topics. Paizo choose to include controversial topics in their published materials but it seems that it can't handle discussions about it (And I'm not talking about the occasional jerk that rant about how a trans character in WoTR will send everyone to hell or something), specially if the poster opinion doesn't align with the moderator at hand. You are free of course to not want some topic to be discussed, but if that is the case make it a rule and make it clear for everyone.

Quick side note: LGBT people are not "controversial topics." LGBT people are human being we ask be treated with respect and humanity in our company spaces, especially considering that we have many employees who fall within that community and are required to participate in the forums as part of our jobs

Who said "LGBT people" are "controversial topics" and not people?

What was being said from my reading was topic revolving around LGBT based topics amounts to more bans.

15 people liked this?

I guess Nicos can clarify what he meant.

edit: The context of the statement was very clear to me so I am wondering how that many people read it, and nobody questioned Crystal's interpretation of words that appear nowhere in the forum.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Full caster is my answer whenever I see something like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By the rules no, but it is not primarily constructed of adamantine either, despite the name and the flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never seen anyone try to bring all of those followers into combat. Trying to track them would drag the game down. I didn't even create the followers for one of my players. I just said they existed, and had them building something or doing maintenance on the party's HQ. They were basically just used for flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:
And nobody else here thinks that's silly?

It doesn't matter if it is silly to anyone. Solid things block line of effect. Glass is not as hard as bricks, but it is solid. Being able to see through it doesn't make it less solid. The same logic that stops magic from getting through glass stops it from getting through a wall of force, which is another thing you can see through.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
it just slows down combat by too much to be a fun option most of the time.

That I definitely understand. That is why I have summoners(not the just the class) have their summons stats ready in advance, and know how they work.

If a player who is already slow wants to summon or take a "pet" class I try to push them in another direction. The same applies to leadership.

Its not just the player. The GM is going to have to tune up the encounter on his end(likely by adding more enemies). So slower on the NPCs end too.

If the player knows his characters well it should not take that much longer. I tend to get through my NPC's fairly quickly as a GM. Unless everyone has a "pet" it should not be a problem


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarondor wrote:

First, I agree that a cleric can do so much more than heal. AND they're great healers.

The question of whether the act of healing is a mathematically optimal choice in combat is one of supreme indifference to me. Squeezing every ounce of efficiency out of a character creates a boring character. I wouldn't want to read a novel that contained such a character and I wouldn't want to GM for such a character. The Mary-Sue kill-everything, know-everything, nothing's-a-challenge-because-I've-got-it-all-covered characters are easy to make and godawful, weepingly dull.

I vastly prefer the interesting, the flawed, the quirky and the story-driven.

I have an oracle of life who doesn't carry a weapon. All he does in combat is heal. His motto is "no one dies on my watch." He loves pies and talks to invisible spirits. His best friend is a half-mad half-Orc. It's interesting. Being optimal isn't.

Being optimal is not counter to being interesting. Both can be done.

I also don't think anyone is saying you have to create the best character ever, but the party should feel like you are contributing. That matters because your character can have an impact on whether or not someone else's character dies. In a group where the GM has the time, and is willing to adjust more this is less of an issue, but not all groups have that luxury.

What counts as contributing?

That depends on the party you are with and how they play the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nonlethal damage is how it has been done ever since 3.X.
Maybe 2nd edition are earlier allowed for pulled punches.

edit: For spells you can cast at a lower caster level.
For supernatural abilities it is full force, but a nice houserule might allow for you to not use full force such as a dragon that can do 12d6 might only do 6d6 for a breath attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SexyNed wrote:

So I'm a bit confused when it comes to the third party stuff having to do with psionics. Mainly on the part where it talks about psionic focus.

"Merely having the ability to hold a reservoir of psionic power points in mind gives psionic characters a special energy. Psionic characters can put that energy to work without actually paying a power point cost—they can become psionically focused.

If you have a power point pool or the ability to manifest psi-like abilities, you can meditate to become psionically focused. Meditating is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.

When you are psionically focused, you can expend your focus on any single concentration check you make thereafter. When you expend your focus in this manner, your concentration check is treated as if you rolled a 15. It’s like taking 10, except that the number you add to your concentration modifier is 15. You can also expend your focus to gain the benefit of a psionic feat—many psionic feats are activated in this way."

Does this mean, a psionicly focused player has to make a concentration check every time they are hit, and they get to take 15? Or does it mean a psionicly focused player can choose to make a concentration check to dispell their focus, and take 15. If so, what is the DC and how does that succeed.
Also, what are the ways to get your concentration check up? Because I am going to need a good one if the answer is the former.

With regard to the section you are referencing it is just saying what you can do when you are psionically focused.

Your options are normally that you can expend you psionic focus to do certain things such as

1. "Take 15" on a concentration check.

2. Use it to power feats, class features, or anything else that calls for you to expend your psionic focus.

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

With regard to concentration checks they work very similar to how they do for magic.

As an example if you are in range of someone who could get an attack of opportunity you would have to make a concentration check to use your spell and not let them get a free attack. If you fail the concentration check they still do not get a free attack but the spell will fail.

For psionics it is the same. You make a concentration check if you are being threatened in melee combat to be able to use your power, and avoid giving them a free attack roll. If you fail the concentration check they still do not get a free attack but the power will fail.

Another example is that being in bad weather or being grappled also cause spellcasters and manifesters(people who use psionic powers) to have to make a concentration check to avoid having their power or spell fail.

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

So how does this work expending your psionic focus interact with making a concentration check in the above examples?

Instead of rolling the dice and hoping that you make the concentration check you can just expend your psionic focus, and it will be treated as if you rolled a 15 on the dice. Add that to your concentration modifier to get the final result.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I pressed the FAQ button, but I think the monster entry is the one that is incorrect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Withdraw and regular movements are not 5-foot steps so no he can't use it. The feat only works on 5-foot steps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

18's cost way too much for the improvement they give. I never paid for anything over a 16, even when playing a SAD cast like a sorcerer. Most people I know don't buy up to 18's either. They might get the 16, like I do, and take the 18 if their racial stat bonus adds to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:

In my opinion the idea that healing can't keep up with damage dealt to PCs by monsters may be a myth.

I made a record of the damage inflicted on my character (and the other PCs) through a series of combats in two separate campaigns and the pattern is always the same. What I expected was to see damage cluster around an average roughly equal to the DPR calculation of the monster faced, but that wasn't what happened. When I looked at the actual numbers the most common amount of damage received in a round, regardless of level, is zero. When damage is actually inflicted low numbers are much more common than high numbers. The probability distribution is not a normal curve like a bell curve, it is highly skewed towards low numbers. Where PCs run into problems is with critical hits and other high damage events, which while relatively rare will kill a character off unless they are not close to maximum hit points.

Now it could be that our table is unusual, I wouldn't think we were that different as we often use published APs. I am curious to see if anyone else has gone through the same exercise and found the same or a different result.

It is not a myth. That math has been done. There are some healing builds that are very optimized, and may be the exception, but the typical healing based cleric is not going to keep up if the monster is landing his attacks.

When you do these calculations it is better to use an average number for the dice since rolling, even in a random dice generator can have extreme results towards one direction or the other. That is how the DPR calculations are done to negate luck.

If you are getting hit by a Fire Giant healing spells(outside of cure) and channels are not going to keep up. However you only have so many heal spells, and since heal removes a LOT of status effects, that is a waste of the spell. A better option would be to try to prevent the damage. Sheild Other might be a better option. By cutting the

...

I understand you point perfectly well. In addition to these calculations, people's real life experiences are how the idea actually came up in a post a while ago. The math just backs it up.

I've also seen it happen. If the PC is very optimized and/or the party works very well together he may not take much, but in that case* the healer(hit point healing) based character won't be needed.

*I had this happen in a game, which I partially described earlier when I was shutting down the enemies, and the party would kill them. The healer hardly ever got to heal anyone, especially in combat.

If the party is taking damage consistently, then the healing falls behind more and more at higher levels.

Basically the info is not just based on a math chart and theory craft.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The spell is still subject to spellcraft.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sincline wrote:

If you are taking the leadership feat because it's powerful the GM should ban it, if you are taking it because it generates story and matches the campaign then it's awesome.

Basically does it fit the campaign and story, if not it's broken.

It's not difficult to come up with an in-game reason to take it, and why you take has no bearing on whether or not it breaks things at the table. The build and how it is used determine that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
it just slows down combat by too much to be a fun option most of the time.

That I definitely understand. That is why I have summoners(not the just the class) have their summons stats ready in advance, and know how they work.

If a player who is already slow wants to summon or take a "pet" class I try to push them in another direction. The same applies to leadership.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Every GM I have played for has allowed it, and it is rarely taken. If someone makes builds based on the "I want the most powerful build possible" idea then sure everyone takes it. But if we go that route nobody will bother with rogues, monks(core), and fighters either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
Every single build or class takes it at level 7 no matter what they are.
This is _so_ not true.
Can you explain what feat is better than a level 5 wizard/cleric?

He never said there was a more powerful feat. You said "Every single build or class takes it at level 7 no matter what they are.", which is all that he quoted.

I think you were trying to say "If very single build or class takes it at level 7 no matter what they are, it probably shouldn't exist as a feat."

That period in between "are" and "it" also changes the grammatical structure of what you wrote.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically the idea was that the player get to make the choices, but the GM should still use discretion to make sure things don't get out of hand.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
dysartes wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Blindmage wrote:
All of the characters gained from Leadership should be totally built and run by the DM, the player can totally give input as to the kind of people they'd be looking for and such, but they should never be involved in the mechanics of their minions.

Though the GM is certainly welcome to run his game how he and the people at his table please, the developers have made it quite clear that this was not the intent. After all, you wouldn't tell a player what weapon to choose for his Weapon Focus would you? According to the developers, its the same principle here; it's their feat, their cohort, their choice.

That being said, cohorts and minions should be built as heroic NPCs, using the NPC rules of the Core Rulebook.

I'm curious, Ravingdork - can you point to a quote from the developers saying players should be able to build their own cohorts? Being able to do that seems to be what turns an already strong feat up to at least 12...

Here are the quotes from SKR(former rules designer at Paizo)

Quote:


When a PC takes Weapon Focus, does the GM choose what weapon it's with?

When a druid's animal companion gains a new feat, does the GM choose what that feat is?

When a player takes Improved Familiar, does the GM choose the familiar?

If the answer to these questions is "no," then why should the answer be different for Leadership, or any other decision on managing resources the player makes about his or her character?

-----

another poster in the same thread wrote:


So, yes, the player should be able to design his cohort. But the GM needs to be mindful of how the player is using the cohort. For example, how many GMs actually require a ranger or druid to make Handle Animal checks, or keep track of what tricks an animal companion knows? None that I've ever seen. Consequently, the animal copanions in the games I've been in have been more powerful than they should have been

-----

SKR replying to above quote wrote:


Then we agree.

I never said the GM shouldn't be involved. I'm just saying the PC is spending a resource--a feat--and should get to make the decisions about that resource. If you create a potion-making cleric cohort, that's fine, he's unavailable for adventuring much of the time, and it's not like the PC couldn't have taken Brew Potion on his own. If he makes a meat-shield fighter, and that fighter dies (which, given the 2-levels-lower limit, isn't a surprise), then that dings the character's leadership score (as does the "moves around a lot" penalty, and others).

Your point about Handle Animal is an excellent one--there are brakes in the game to keep some things from getting out of control, and if the GM doesn't use those brakes, it's his fault


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:
[list]
  • It's gear value goes straight out of your WBL, so you either both end up with s#$%ty gear, or your cohort ends up without any
  • We are all looking at the wizard for that too. One of the problems with allowing the player to design the cohort is that they can make the cohort into a crafter, which saves ob WBL with 1/2 costs.

    If it is a melee guy... then your list absolutely applies. Heck, that is why I would say the squire feat is more balanced, since the class selection is reduced to something more manageable. It can make the cohort into 'animal companion, with easier equipment and maybe good skills if you go with a ranger'.

    But a wizard sitting in the back with less care about HP and BAB?... yeah... That is dicier.

    Not sure what BaB has to do with this. Wizard-cohort is still a target for fireballs cast by the enemies requiring saves, and arrows shot by them requiring AC. Yes, they could craft gear for themselves too, but where are they finding all that time to do that? And I would honestly prefer to have my character with great gear over having a second, s*!*tier version of my character.

    Your NPC wizard who is two levels behind you can likely be better than every party member that is not you, even with NPC gear. Depending on how he is played or built the GM may be better off with regard to combat, having him not directly participate.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Thornborn wrote:

    It's perhaps worth noting that this thread disappeared while I was reading it, somewhere between page 1 and 2, though it's back now.

    I'm on record supporting mods, but when there's a glitch in the matrix, one tends to suspect the presence of Agents. That somebody is in thread-locking, actually thread-hiding, mode suggests that there's heat on both sides of the issue.

    Maybe Ashiel can be banned, and that solves one side, for some value of 'solve'. But if there was a problem on the other side, that too needs examination.

    I neither request nor expect transparency in the decisions and operation of a corporate house organ. I hope simple faith in the people involved will be well-founded.

    The thread never disappeared. It was moved to a different forum. I have been awake and checking since it started. That is not to say that it won't disappear.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    With PrC's the stat for that ability will make you weaker overall, unlike a caster. As an example that assassin uses intelligence, which means bypassing dexterity constitution strength, and wisdom.

    I know clerics get to use charisma for channels, but even on a failed channel vs undead they get something out of it.

    You can take ability focus also, but if the stat is not a top 3 stat for me then I am not burning a feat to help it out.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Klara Meison wrote:
    Her profile picture is actually Seoni under some weird lightning. As for pronouns, she has repeatedly stated she doesn't care which ones people use. I prefer she since it fits the avatar image.

    I did realize I was so inactive here that I didn't notice a avatar change.

    Yeah some of you see me posting here back to back, but it's tame by comparison.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Steve Geddes wrote:
    Alex Smith 908 wrote:
    Well I would really hope that paizo moderators wouldn't ban people for getting a bit dramatic in a private email, but here we are.
    The OP included some of the communication between paizo and Ashiel. The moderator gave the reason for the ban. It wasn't because Ashiel "got a bit dramatic". It was due to a perception of irreconcilable differences between what Ashiel wants from an online community and the kind of community paizo are willing to provide.

    That is what I got out of it also. Personally, I think certain political discussions are best held in other places even if they are related to the game. Not so much because I don't think they can be done here, but because you never know when your comment is going to vanish. I would hate to have a comment deleted if I had spent a long time writing it out, and yes it has happened before.

    I don't know what that other place is because if the topic also involves Golarion and you go to a debate specific forum, and mention Golarion it is going to be strange for them(other non-RPG members).

    This might be something a private FB group is for, for the times when we have to go into certain discussions.

    1 to 50 of 2,658 << 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.