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. 2,631 posts (43,687 including aliases). 3 reviews. 9 lists. 2 wishlists. 25 aliases.

1 to 50 of 2,804 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leverette wrote:

Wow, those were some fast responses. I'm gonna have to start using this site more often... also wraithstrike, I see you in almost every rules discussion I've read a lot into, and I don't think I've ever disagreed with you.

Also... is it considered poor manners to request an official word? Understandably, my GM wants to be as certain as possible before he changes his ruling.

The devs dont like you asking them for official request.

If the GM disagrees then my example of monsters that don't have darkvision should count as precedent. Devils and darkfolk are both something he can look at as examples.

edit:citation of dev not wanting to be asked for an official ruling


Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?

Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.

Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The game is built with certain assumptions. You are either going to have to rewrite a lot of the base rules or go easy on the party, or just not use certain things against them.

As an example ability drain and energy drain require higher level spells than the party will have access to, and if they run into other things that require higher level spells when they are nowhere near a town they will be in trouble.

The easiest way to make this work is to use the rules from the unchained book which allows for the players to get the power of better stat improvements built into the character progression, and make sure they dont run into anything they can not fix within a reasonable time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Overpowered is subjective.
What I do care about is how good the characters are with regard to the rest of the party. If I had to choose between "too powerful for an AP as written" vs "walking TPK", I would prefer for them to be too powerful. I don't want to have to play the bad guys like they are stupid, and have it be obvious that I am going easy on them. It is easier for me to use more dangerous tactics and/or buff the monster, and still let them feel like heroes.

Lately I used 25 point buy, but for the next game I am going to use an array. I also allow some 3rd party(3.5 included) options, but only if I am asked about them in advance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
A gorilla would actually be pretty terrible at baseball, or using a longsword, relative to its size. But 15 does seem a little lowball.

If you do any research on gorilla strength, it becomes apparent that there's a fair bit of hype/sensationalism when it comes to gorilla strength. I haven't seen one actual scientific comparison of gorilla strength compared to a humans. Nobody's actually got a gorilla to bench press or dead lift weights. Numbers like 1,800 lbs come from speculation based on gorillas snapping bamboo branches....that they may have already bitten to weaken.

Gorillas are undoubtedly quite a bit stronger than the average human at doing the things that gorillas do. But their long arms make them ill-suited for things that traditionally test human strength e.g. bench press or dead lifting.

What's more, the average human STR is 10. So 15 is not so ridiculous. According to web data, the average human male can bench press between 120-140lbs safely. The world record for bench press is 1075lbs (probably drug enhanced given the best in 1973 was around 580lbs). "Strongest Man" bench press videos show weights up to 1200lbs (but you can bet those are drug enhanced).

I seriously doubt that an average male gorilla is many times stronger than the strongest human and I'll bet dollars to donuts that the strongest human can easily bench press and dead lift more than an average male gorilla.

So 15 isn't ridiculous for a male gorilla, but for believability, you'd probably want to to give it bonuses for certain type of gorilla-type actions. And while I'm sure an average gorilla's slam attacks are more dangerous than even the strongest man's, train the strongest man how to box and wrestle, and I would put my money on the the strongest man vs an average gorilla (assuming the man could get over the fear factor of fighting a 300lb gorilla).

They had them move things around, and they move thing around a lot easier than humans do. Even chimpanzees are a stronger than humans. Gorillas are definitely a lot stronger than humans.

Here you go

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When you leave the shadows assuming your stealth is high enough to stay hidden until you reach them, you are not revealed until you attack. Upon returning to the shadows you may make another stealth check.

As for readied actions it depend strictly on how the trigger is worded, and you still need to be able to perceive them to get the attack off. I would word it so that you attack after you are attacked to avoid them being able to get away without being attacked.

If you word it to attack before you are attacked, but you don't see them until after the attack happens then your readied attack will not go off.

If you could see them before the attack was complete you would get your dex bonus to AC, so from a mechanics and flavor perspective it makes sense that they are not seen/noticed until after the attack is completed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a free action. That is raw. The questionable part is whether or not you have to be able to "see" the spell effect. You can't literally "see" charm person. You can see stinking cloud.

I will start an FAQ on this later if nobody beats me to it.

edit: I mean it should be observable with your senses to include hearing and smelling. Being visible is not the only option, but I will still FAQ it because I am not 100% sure.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some rules are based on fantasy tropes. The evil trapped demon bound by magic is one of them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The quick rules dont account for corner cases such as not having a score. That +2 to the DC assumes the ability score also increased.
The DC will not increase, and neither will the "-" ability score that is attached to that DC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jader7777 wrote:
2 HD or less: The creature is unconscious, blinded, and stunned for 2d4 rounds, then blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, and then stunned for 1 round. (Only living creatures are knocked unconscious.)
Yep, unconsciousness is probably the worst status in Pathfinder, other than dead of course which is soon to follow. The only way to remove it that I know of is a 7th level spell, Greater Restoration. Oh and 5000gp, so try not to blame your team if they just slap you until you come around.

How does greater restoration fix being unconscious? I don't see it in the description, but smelling salts should work.

smelling salts wrote:

Smelling Salts: These sharply scented gray crystals cause people inhaling them to regain consciousness. Smelling salts grant you a new saving throw to resist any spell or effect that has already rendered you unconscious or staggered. If exposed to smelling salts while dying, you immediately become conscious and staggered, but must still make stabilization checks each round; if you perform any standard action (or any other strenuous action) you take 1 point of damage after completing the act and fall unconscious again. A container of smelling salts has dozens of uses if stoppered after each use, but depletes in a matter of hours if left opened.

Only 25 gp, of course if the entire party is unconscious it won't matter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see it as a plot device more so than any artifact so in my gameworld the answer is no. Officially, there is no answer.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is in constant debate. I'm just going to FAQ it and any other topic on it until the devs answer it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The full attack would allow it, even at the end of a charge. There is no rule saying that a full attack can't come at the end of a pounce.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will also add that full the reason why a magus needed the FAQ was because it needs a "full round action" which is an exact action type much like a move action is.
Full round attacks also use full round actions. Since the magus ability uses a full round action, but it is not a full round attack it needed an FAQ to be legal for haste.
Flurry of blows is also a full round attack so it is already legal for haste. If the FAQ mentions FoB then it could be to clear up confusion or maybe FoB was once a full round action, and not a full round attack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This one went like I thought it would. :)
Thanks for pushing this one TOZ.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I deleted my last post because I misread your last comment.

If he is just making rules up that is not cool at all. Any houserule need to be introduced before the start of a campaign.

The rules don't says rooms below <insert size such as 5 by 5> don't get to use evasion. The game is not a simluation. It is an abstraction.

If he wants to be realistic then he should explain why people who try to use shield against giants and other large creatures dont end up with broken arms. There is no way.

Likely response: Because the game doesnt have rules for breaking arms.

My counter: It also doesn't have a rule for evasion not working in small rooms.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Classes are supposed to be equally useful in an adventure. That has nothing to with their ability to be bosses as NPC's, which is why a CR 11 fighter, and a CR 11 wizard are not equal as opponents.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This topic again.

Sure it is time to say farewell, just like it is every 2 or 3 months when this topic comes up with same tired arguments.

What we need to bid farewell to is this topic more than anything else, but it seems to even resist being killed with fire.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I dont like how stealth combined hide and move silently. I also dont like how spot and listen were combined.

It makes for silly situations such as someone that is invisible in the same room you are in being more difficult to detect than someone on the other side of a wall or door with would block sight and at least muffle sound to some extent, while being invisible has no effect on sound.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is flat-footed, which is not the same as being denied dex. Being flat-footed means no attack of opportunities. What they did not do was add something like "normally you can not be flat-footed once you act".

Basically here is how it works. You have the penalties(can't make AoO and no dex to AC) associated with being flatfooted, but only against the person who used the Shatter Defenses ability.

I do think it should be rewritten, but it is not the only ability in the history of 3.5/Pathfinder to apply the flat-footed condition after combat starts.

Examples of being flat-footed once you have already acted:

Click here

Here is another example

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dr Styx wrote:
Clockwork Familiars wrote:
On their own, these flickers of consciousness—pulled from the fundamental animating energy of the planes—would have no real ability to affect their surroundings. Only through the specially attuned constructs created by arcanists do they gain the ability to truly live, and it's perhaps gratitude for this service that initially binds clockwork familiars to their creators.
It is interesting to note that many of the creatures that are pulled from other plains (Summon Monster, ext...) are willing to help out the one that called them. Just for the chance to come to the Material Plain.

Summoned creatures don't have a choice, and if you use the calling spells you have to bargain with them by using gifts. Bringing them to the material plane is not a factor. Whether you bring them to the material plane or another plane the payment is the same. That assumes the plane is not one they would hate to go to.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

From an in-game PoV it is not evil, but my personal opinion is that it is no better than trapping someone's soul to create an undead creature.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would just give them a good stat array. They dont have to worry about someone having super hero stats while another looks like a commoner. It also removes the problem they have with point buy.

I would also look into whether the stats were the real cause of their problems. It could have been poor builds or bad tactics.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ranishe wrote:


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

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

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mudfoot wrote:

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

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

What are you talking about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, just a little more.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Rysky wrote:


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

cough Dragonlance /cough

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

Time /= Value.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Werebat wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So these are mostly a wash.

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

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

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

The other setting has those same...

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:

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

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 people marked this as a favorite.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I took the Run feat on a 3.5 core monk.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

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

The problem is imagined and does not really exist.

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

Good find.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 to 50 of 2,804 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.