Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Trumpets

deusvult's page

FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 639 posts (796 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 12 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
deusvult wrote:

The main one you're missing/ignoring is the description of how a charge works. That description not only types a charge as an action (not an attack) it also explicitly says an attack is an option following charge movement during a charge action.

That rule, specifically being about charges, trumps* general categorizations such as a reference elsewhere saying "charges are special attacks".

*= trumps logically, at any rate. If you want to ignore the rules about charges and insist a reference elsewhere renders them invalid, that's on you. Most of us wouldn't consider that a sound reading, however.

You aren't quoting any rules. You've made up your own interpretation that Charge isn't still a special attack action if you don't execute an attack roll at the end. This is your own house-rule and has no rules support anywhere, and several things working against it. A charge is still a charge, even if you don't make an attack roll at the end, otherwise you don't get the bonuses to attack and the penalty to AC, because you aren't charging anymore, you're just moving.

I'm not making up that the PRD calls a charge an action and not an attack. It was quoted upthread, but hey posts are free so why not quote it again.

Definition of charge, per the PRD:

PRD wrote:
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Bolded for emphasis.

The rules for Charging say that Charging is an action. Any mention elsewhere that charging is always considered an attack is in conflict with the rules that specifically govern how charges work.

Rules on attacking as part of a charge:

PRD wrote:


After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

Including an attack in a charge action is specifically called out as being optional/not mandatory by the use of the word "may". This rule, combined with the definition of what a charge is, says that a charge is a special full round action that combines movement with the option to attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Hmmm? Little confused

If you're doing this with a sword, the horse attacks too. A charge is a move and an attack for both you and the horse. I don't see why the horse would have to wait.

Because having the horse following thru with an attack after concluding the charge movement constitutes an 'attack', which is not covered under the actionless ride skill and requires usage of an animal handling check (attack trick) instead.

For most riders, that costs a move action, and ruins the full round action for the rider.

So, in the case of non-reach charging, per the FAQ, a rider can still charge but must forfeit his mount's attack on the charge turn unless he can handle animal AND perform a full round action in the same turn.

This isn't at all the same doom and gloom as insisting that a charge movement not being followed by an attack also must be covered by the handle animal skill, thus (by this reading) rendering any charging at all impossible by the rider unless he can handle animal and still perform a full round action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm guessing the nerf to mounted combat change in question is this faq entry?

I must be missing something because I don't understand what makes spirited charges unworkable. You don't need to perform animal handling checks to make a mount (animal companion or otherwise) perform a charge*.. it's a ride check instead and if the mount is combat trained, it doesn't even eat an action.

*= after posting I suspect I see the problem.. you're assuming you want the mount to attack the target as well via attack trick. Well, if you're using a lance a standard mount won't get the attack anyway b/c it doesn't have reach. Just move the horse, it gains the charging condition because it must when the rider is charging, via the faq, and bam you skewer something with a lance. If you spirited charge with a non-reach weapon, take your x2 damage with a non-lance and consider the nerf just saying the horse may not also attack. It's still a win.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I too 'wasted' a replay under the impression that the replays would refresh the first day of every Gen Con. Had I known at the time that my replay wouldn't refresh, I wouldn't have spent it. I'd have rather played at that table for no credit and save the replay for a special boon or chronicle item for a character that could really make great use of it.

I suppose it's better to use a replay than never use it because you save it forever.. but mark me down as one of those who think it SHOULD refresh every year.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leo_Negri wrote:
Just a curiosity, but why do so many people swear by the Point-Buy system? I understand that it is THE system used in Pathfinder Society, but why would anyone use it outside of organized play?

I'll see your complaint about min-maxing with a complaint about 'lucky' stats.. and raise you a complaint about intrinsic power level-disparity between characters of wildly different stat values.

**

14 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought this was going to be a thread calling for an evil-compatible sister campaign to PFS.. ala Aspis Consortium Organized Play.

Put me down for that one.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes.

Half orcs count as both human and orc, and qualify for human-only and orc-only feats/traits/etc.

**

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
deusvult wrote:
And that means that the player roleplaying his paladin as having intolerable issues with your imp familiar IS inarguably badwrong. Because he can instead choose to roleplay his paladin as NOT having intolerable issues with your imp familiar.

To be clear, we're not talking about a simple roleplay flavor decision. We're talking about a legal archetype that says "kill every evil outsider you can, or fall".

We're just hell bent to disagree on everything each other says, it would seem.

Oath Against Fiends' wrote:


Code of Conduct: Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it . Banish fiends you cannot kill. Purge the evil from those possessed by fiends

Bold text=emphasis mine.

Banish what you cannot kill is 'clearly' RAI to be more accurately: Banish fiends that you can banish, but cannot kill.

For both in- and out- of game reasons, the PFS paladin MAY not kill the familiar. Important difference from CAN not. I stand by my assessment because either way destroying the imp is 'not within the paladin's power'. He can attempt to persuade the spellcaster from using the imp for the duration of the paladin's presence. He can opt to have nothing to do with the spellcaster. (Passive-aggressive 'PvP' IS still technically legal. "I can't hurt you or your imp, but neither do I have to heal either of you...")

If the paladin can't come to a happy place where he feels he's still in-character while still not trying to kill the imp, he shouldn't be playing the archetype. Perhaps, as you say, thats a 'trap' a new player might fall into. But, the perspective of the OP is 'am I being a jerk by having an Imp familiar'. No, he's not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

+1000 for low charisma = low force of personality.

Watch Rain Man for roleplaying tips.

I can totally see the barbarian raging..

"It's time for Judge WAAAAAAAPNER!!!!"

Taldor **

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I used to play PFS, but then I took an arrow in the knee.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Definately seems a wiser idea to treat 4 player tables as the special case needing attention for challenge difficulty and assume 6 player tables in programming the scenario.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's another thought, before someone accuses me of wistfully missing the heady days of GMing Paranoia (because it's true ;)

Ruby Phoenix Tournament:

I played this yesterday in a 5 table, all day gala event. My table included 2 ranged characters that were each able to output 90-100 or more damage per round. 2 melee characters who could do almost as much. A tank with AC approaching 40, and getting 2 AoOs per missed attack on him. All of it PFS-legal.

Arrayed against us were numerous combat challenges. Pretty much exclusively, actually.
And what did we fight in these challenges? Mainly monks. None of which had deflect arrows. How long did anything last against our group? The longest fights lasted 3 anti-climactic rounds. One of those only lasted that long because the GM forgot to add a dragon and had it appear on turn 3. It was vaporized in 1 round. Not to brag, making an example of how outclassed the opposition was by PFS-legal PCs.

Now the important part of my example comes next.

Another player, at another table, told me how they all nagged their GM until he doubled the opposition they faced. Once he finally relented, they began being challenged. They even had a ton of fun. They still had an easy enough time of it however, that they had time to 'waste' actions gallavanting and playing up to the crowd in the scenario's performance combat.

Let's go back to my table. Our Gm ran strictly as written, as PFS dictates. I wish to hell we thought of convincing him to just double our oppposition like the other table did.. but we didn't. We quickly realized that if we wanted to earn any scenario specific victory points from performance combat, we'd only have 1 or 2 combat rounds to do so. We weren't competing with the opposition (because there WAS no competition).. we were competing with each other to see who can defeat the most NPCs the fastest. I mean.. tons of ranged DPR.. and none of the monks have deflect arrows? It was a turkey shoot.

Not only that, teamwork was disincentivized. The 'fun' aspects of playing up to the crowd was pretty much out of the question, since you didn't have any time for it.

So, to sum up (and to make a spoiler-friendly recap for those who don't want to be spoiled):

I spent 10 hours playing the adventure under a GM who ran-as-written, as PFS says you should. Had some intrinsic fun, sure, but it was a pretty dissapointing experience. While on the other hand, players at the table where the GM scaled the opposition to be more appropriate, they had a blast.

Ran as written: 10 hours of ho hum.
BADWRONG Deviation: 10 hours of fun.

*shrug*

Just sayin'. Deviations aren't always improperly done and aren't always a detriment to PFS experience.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
So... is anyone opposed to this idea?

I'm for it, but not for the reason(s) I've seen given.

Me? I think it should be the 'Law' because it's what people are going to do anyway. Either willfully or out of ignorance.

It'll be healthier for PFS as a whole if it's simply legal.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some ideas for School on Wheels themed boons:

Volunteer Tutor: Spent time in-between pathfinder assignments tutoring the underprivileged. Pick one Knowledge Skill to become a class skill.
(kinda free-trait-y, so maybe overpowered for a boon. But maybe not since it's for charity.. ymmv)

Little Brother/Little Sister: Your reputation for sponsoring the less fortunate preceeds you. Once per session, you may call upon a youngster in the local town to assist on a knowledge/local or gather information check.

**

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:


I guess this thread is the polar opposite of the idea that we should "make scenarios harder", this is more or less saying "make your PCs suck more" on purpose. I just don't find that's a realistic request, and honestly, you've seen more players that me, do you think it's realistic?

I'm pretty unapologetically on the side of "GMs can/should 'tweak' PFS scenarios."

Not only will the notion of restraining oneself not appeal to a sizeable portion of players.. that PFS has the opportunity to play up tiers means there's very real and tangible benefit to making optimized characters as ruthlessly efficient as possible.

In other words.. finding a happy medium in the arms race between optimized characters and written scenarios is not likely to work by putting the onus on players playing reasonable characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If giving Bob a fighting chance at resisting being grabbed and drug off WHILE keeping it secret from the rest of the party is the goal, here's an idea.

Once the grue begins its assault on Bob, you don't even mention it. You just keep a mental tally of how much in-game time is elapsing before the party realizes Bob is gone or under attack in the rear.

Once they realize it, they're free to take whatever actions they like to find Bob. Once they do, you don't tell them what they see. You put them in Time Stop and bring Bob back to the spotlight. He's left to his own devices to deal with the Grue for however many rounds it took the PCs to come to his rescue.

**

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Apparently we need a list of domains a deity will not tolerate for Seperatist Archetype Clerics. Or a list that they WILL.. whichever is shorter.

Osirion **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:


Everyone seems to think the rules are clear and support their case. I disagree with both sides, and believe there is enough reasonable ambiguity that there will be some table variation on this subject

I wouldn't be so hard headed about this if I actually could see the merit of opposing argument.

This is what I understand the counter argument to be:

CRB wrote:
Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).

GM rule Zero wrote for this case:
While Pharasmin code of conduct for clerics is succinctly described as 'do not create or destroy unded, excepting to destroy them', it is really more than just those two acts. You know what we mean.. don't be too 'undead-y'. And yes, having the undead domain counts as 'grossly violating the code of not creating or controlling undead'.

I don't see a single thing more to the argument than that. It simply boils down to a GM not only deciding he doesn't 'like' the concept, that he'd prefer to arrogantly insist his understanding of pharasmin canon is superior to the player's. Furthermore that he'd prefer to ruin that player's game rather than make it fun for him.

What am I missing?

Osirion **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:


WE need to respect both sides. As I have always said, if you choose to build a character that is clearly living in the "gray realm" of rules interpretations or religious dogma, you have to expect occasions where the GM will not rule as you want. If you always want your character to function as intended, avoid these "fringe" cases.

The problem is Bob, that the only way to avoid the 'fringe' cases is to know the mind of your GM. It approaches possibility for local play, but is extremely unlikely if there's a big enough population of players. And completely impossible for big cons.

Well, not unless you only play the stock characters.

Dumb fighter brute.

Skanky elf rogue chick.

Bleeding-heart healer cleric.

Sound like anyone you know? Well, mebbe calling Merisiel a 'skank' was uncalled for...

Osirion **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If no rules are being violated, what good is being served by a PFS judge saying 'no, I know things you don't know, I'm better educated, I'm more experienced, I'm more privy to VCs and M&M, etc'.

Let's put it another way by spinning it around.

Let's say *I* am that GM and someone comes to me with something that while being perfectly legal, seems to just not have a reasonable justification. Maybe a Paladin who worships Asmodeus (not intending to start a new flame war with anyone who might play one ;)

Perhaps he has some story I deem an 'excuse' that revolves around Cheliax and Hellknights, mebbe throwing in some Mendev Crusade, etc etc.

Andrew says I have the right to say "Not at my table, you're not."

I say I have an obligation to find the best way for everyone at the table to have fun. Not impose my view of Golarion on that player. The more invested in the game (particularly when LITERALLY invested monetarialy) the less inclined the player will be to 'reason' with me. I'm pleased we've kept it civil as we have in this thread for as long as it has.. but I think we all know that so often it devolves into Ross or someone else deleting posts and locking threads.

And that's about purely hypothetical issues that don't have a right here, right now impact.

If that player has spent hundreds, maybe more dollars to play a frikking RPG game, how are they going to take your decree from the ivory tower? Let me be clear, I'm speaking hypothetically and do not mean to imply threats, but if it were me being such a douche I'd honestly fear a violent reaction. Even if people keep their tempers in check, what the hell was the point? Did you have fun ruining that player's game? Probably not, or else you wouldn't be GMing for long as complaints mount. Did that player have any fun? Sure as hell, no.

Which is such a stupid approach when there are ways to resolve it where everyone still gets to enjoy the game.

Osirion **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


... One of Pharasma's 10 commandments is "kill the undead". .. Actually i think she used three commandments on it, just to be sure. A dhampir that isn't running at the nearest sharp pointy object isn't fulfilling that commandment.

I'm curious why you'd think this. Really.

A dhampir is not undead. Furthermore, for whatever resemblences a dhampir has to the undead, he didn't become one by dabbling with forbidden magics. He was literally born that way and has no control over whether or not he's a dhampir any more than an elf does being an elf.

Osirion **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You like analogies? Here's one.

During the Cold War the CIA and KGB taught their spies about each others' languages/societies/etc. Why? To make them into Commies/Capitalist Pigs? Of course not. So that they could better understand and operate against them.

Asmodeus might grant the Demon subdomain for similar reasons. Not to subvert his own clerics into the arms of his enemy. Come on, now.

It's just one idea for why Pharasma might grant the Undead domain.

Saying Pharasma would never ever under any circumstances grant Undead domain is the same thing as saying spies should never be taught the ways and languages of their enemies. It's pretty frikkin nonsensical ;)

Osirion **

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

... For the Death’s Kiss power alone, I’d say Pharasma wouldn’t grant this power....

  • 3)you can’t seriously be considering that the Halfling cavalier is even a desperate analogy. It isn’t analogous at all. Personal bias based on simply preference has no bearing and is not equivocal to what actual cannon says about something else.
  • Personal bias is completely the point. I just admit that mine has no legitimate place behind a GM screen. I may assume that every player of a halfling cavalier plays one just to use a medium sized mount underground/indoors, no matter what background story or roleplaying reasons they insist they have... But it's 100% legal and I'd sincerly give someone the benefit of the doubt before saying "not at my table, munchkin!" at a home game. And I'd be completely in the wrong to ban it at a PFS table.

    To say that the Undeath Domain is completely verboten based on your interpretation of Pharasma's edicts/taboos/dogma is perfectly acceptable... for an in-character portrayal of an NPC. For a referee, it's simply personal bias and unbecoming of someone in the position of trusted authority.

    Again, for what reason would Pharasma never ever grant that domain? All I'm hearing is "Because *I* say so." What's the logic? We all agree that Undead creatures are anathema to her and her faith. So what? What's that have to do with the Undead domain, besides the name? Is that all this is about, thinking Pharasma not only hates the Undead, but anything with 'Undead' in the name? A GM worthy of the responsibility should be able to look beyond that incredibly simple view.

    Sure, it's obvious that she wouldn't grant it normally. That's why it's not a regularly available Subdomain, requiring the archetype to take. But as a neutral deity, (neutral) clerics of hers can already freely channel negative energy. If you're basing your opinions on that use of negative energy is an abomination against her faith, you're just simply mistaken. So what's the big unforgivable difference with the Undead domain? I say there is none.

    Osirion **

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I guess this is just destined to turn into a Pharasmin dogma debate thread.

    How have I thrown Pharasmin canon under a bus? She grants the frikkin' death domain. Undead is a SUBdomain of a domain she grants. In Paizo's own canon. She virtually grants the undead domain even without using the archetype.

    Where's this link that ties undead domain intrinsicly to the creation of undead? Why is it so impossible to study the nature of your foe so you understand them better, to be able to destroy them better?

    Osirion **

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
    Well, since this is for PFS play and there is nothing in the Core Rules that says no, at least not until the Advanced Race Guide comes out, then this is not something Mike and Mark are likely to rule on til then. So as long as the character is mechanically legal and is not breaking specific Pharasmin laws like creating/controlling undead, then a GM should not be allowed to deny the player.

    This.

    The undead domain does give Animate Dead as a domain spell, but then again so does the vanilla death domain. And Pharasma grants the death domain.

    There's a blog where Paizo says that since Pharasma is 'not your typical' Death goddess.. and Animate Dead is such a no no in her worship, one may trade out Animate Dead domain spells for Speak With Dead. (Only for Clerics of Pharasma) It's even PFS legal.

    So, leaving aside the question of whether one MUST trade out Animate Dead or not, since I do, what's so bad about the Undead Domain? Really?
    It doesn't CREATE OR CONTROL undead. Well, only if misued...

    Game Mechanics-wise, I wanted it for the touch attack. "Lol, now you have the negative energy reversi just like me! I can channel heals to my party and you can't piggyback! And it doesn't even need to be selectively channeled!"

    Roleplayingwise? There's bigger stretches that are every bit as legal under the Seperatist Archetype. Heck, picking Undead is barely even using the archetype.. its a subdomain of a domain Pharasma already does grant. But for example the Fire Domain? For Pharasma? Really? Oooook... makes no sense whatsoever but sure, be a Pharasmin cleric who can cast burning hands...

    Sure. To some degree there's a 'you can't be serious' reaction to be expected at the combination of 'dhampir cleric of pharasma with undead domain'. And in light of that, I feel that I had an obligation to ensure I had a solid rationale behind it. *shrug* honestly, I think I came up with a logical explanation.

    And yeah, the Godsmouth Heresy was such a fun time that this character was thought up in its aftermath. :)

    Osirion **

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Thursty wrote:
    Gideon Shroudwalker wrote:

    My cleric is a Pharasmin Seperatist with the Undeath Domain :)

    Oh, and naturally a Dhampir to boot.

    Please... PLEASE tell me this is sarcasm.

    What's so unreasonable about it? It's not Animate Dead can't be swapped for Speak With Dead for Pharasmin clerics with the Death domain (of which Undeath is a Subdomain), which I already have anyway from my other Domain, so it's not like I'm optimizing a munchkin here.

    Is it that there can't possibly be a story?

    Parents: Ew. Wow. Leave this freak of a baby of ours on the steps of the church. Those Pharasmins will know what to do with him, if anyone will.

    Clerics: Grow! Learn! Revere Pharasma in all her aspects!

    Me: So, what's with this undeath thing that she hates so much? Why am I half that?

    Clerics: Don't go there. It leads to the Dark Side.

    Me: I am intrigued by this 'dark side' and wish to know more.

    Clerics: Get out.

    Me: Hey pathfinders, need a healer?

    I mean, it's not like I'm playing a halfling cavalier that has absolutely NO possible roleplay justification ;)

    **

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Add in a statement that says GMs can't approve PCs creating new spells.

    Osirion **

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    My cleric is a Pharasmin Seperatist with the Undeath Domain :)

    Oh, and naturally a Dhampir to boot.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    There is no justice in the world if this doesn't end up movie of the year.

    Taldor

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I play a cavalier and have had good success 'without' a mount.

    I do in fact use the mount.. it's just rarely riding it. I took the trait to make UMD a class skill & have a few scrolls of spider climb and reduce animal so that the horse is able to join me effectively even on underground expeditions (not sure how often that happens in CR, though)

    Once you get enough levels to boost the mount to int 3, you can teach it Teamwork feats and synergizes rather well with your tactician ability. (mount is flanking and knows same tmwk feats you do, don't need to burn a use of the ability!)

    One doesn't have to invest in the mounted combat/ride by atk/spirited charge feats in order to play a cavalier. The class abilities you get for free already make you a viable mounted combatant.. and if you pick feats that work whether mounted or not, you're not hamstrung in the majority of time it is impossible (or inappropriate) to ride. I went with the power attack chain.. two handed weapon hits with cavalier's challenge.. things don't stay up for long and I'm not built around a mounted charge.

    I also like the amount of skill points. My cavalier is equal parts melee combatant and 'face' character for a party.

    Kudos to you for not wanting to play a halfling or gnome cavalier ;) Down with cheese! Play regluar sized cavaliers at every turn!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I predict that it is a +2 natural bonus to Chibi

    **

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    An idea that might work is to have some sort of a station.. and most importantly.. TIME set aside prior to game slots scheduled start. Probably need to be run by someone OTHER than the GM(s) so that they can still prep as normal... and have someone to run the audit station while the inevitable lateys trickle up.

    Why would a player subject himself to the scrutiny? Well, as you thought, some might appreciate honest criticism. But another idea that I'll throw out is piggy-backing off the t-shirt reroll idea.

    Allow anyone who got their character audited a free reroll in the session.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature alive, but reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it.

    It seems pretty cut and dried that B is the correct answer.

    Aka, yes the NEA (or Oracle of Bones, or any other 'reversi' character) count as alive in all ways except when subject to channeling, when he's considered undead instead.

    So... When channeling, the creature counts as undead. So with positive energy, a heal simply ignores the Dhampir. (a dhampir cleric can channel positive energy for a heal and doesn't even need to exclude himself, he'll just be ignored by the effect) A harm undead channel harms him, even though he's living. With negative energy, an undead heal heals him. With a living nuke, he's ignored.

    I'm more than familiar with the paladin LOH/NEA thread.. I'm the 'muchkin/rules laywer/or worse' who started it.

    Even I'm not saying LOH can heal undead (or dhampirs) anymore, in light of the admission that while RAW it might work, the RAI was that it did not (and that the rules could be written a ton more watertight).

    The LOH and NEA thread is here.

    The Dev's perspective (and a NEA/Healing sister thread) can be found here.

    I find that the question that still is unresolved and FAQ-worthy is whether heals that don't say they're positive energy besides LOH are ALSO considered positive energy. Can a dhampir heal via goodberries? Monk Wholeness of Body? Celestial Sorcerer bloodline ability? etc, etc, etc.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Unlike some other, more well known big name athletes, he also hasn't assaulted any women (twice), killed any helpless dogs, or smoked any cocaine, whine about being drafted to a team he didn't want to play for, tested positive for steroids, been involved in shooting incidents...


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Dark_Mistress wrote:

    Well I am glad paizo included gay/bi/lesbian characters myself, just like I am glad they have different ethnic groups with different skin colors, none of which is tied to be good or bad guys. With that said though i don't think their should be blanket statements about countries or religions in the setting on the topic. So far paizo has just included them and that some are open. I think it is up to each GM to run things how they want. Which I think is Paizo's intent. They give us the tools and then let each group tweak it.

    The more Paizo appeals to people who are not socially inept, white, male, and pubescent-young adult in age, the better it is for them and the RPG hobby, and in turn for all of us who enjoy the hobby.

    They have walked a fine line so far.. presenting some "oh by the way, X is gay"s for sake of inclusiveness.. without "rubbing it in the reader's face"s. If one is of a mind to prefer X isn't gay afterall, it's easy enough and no rewriting of adventures or material is necessary. It's a matter of delicacy.. if they give the subject too much attention and they'll inevitably end up causing more mess than it's worth to deal with.

    If a GM wants to run a Pathfinder game in Golarion where, for example, homosexuality is caused by demonic influences but can be cured via Remove Curse... more power to him. Paizo doesn't have to go on record as whether that's how it works in Golarion or not.. GM Rule 0 will trump such a clarification anyway. If the players are offended, they can find another game. Paizo gains nothing by saying anything one way or the other.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    This just in:

    Famous adventurer Lamey McWeakSauce escaped from Prince Humperdink's dungeons using naught but his adamantine sewing needle!

    Internet-witness news reports that McWeakSauce left a 5' wide tunnel, burrowed through the 20' of solid stone castle foundation to reach the inner bailey.

    Mord, head gaoler, is at a loss to explain the miraculous escape. "Well, uh, Mord no know whut happen. Me suppose Lamey McWeakSauce convinced GM that adamantine ignore all stone hardness.."

    The prince's CSI (Corerules Stretching Incident) detectives have been more forthcoming. They report that the 20' thick stone wall had something called 'hit points' in a total value estimated at around 3600. They furthermore believe that Lamey McWeakSauce used the needle hidden somewhere upon his person to dig at the wall in units of time they refer to as 'rounds', which this reporter is informed to be roughly 6 seconds. Furthermore detectives stress that they have no proof, but believe that the sewing needle was 'wieded two handed' for something called 'one and a half strength bonus'. Even managing only '1 hp per round' of damage, CSI detectives estimate it took about 360 hours of attacking the wall, or roughly 15 days of work. Mord has gone on record to state that 'it good thing Lamey didn't have adamantine katana instead.'

    Prince Humperdink has not commented on the escape, except as follows. "If Lamey McWeakSauce were as good a regular lawyer as being a rules lawyer, he never would have found himself convicted and incarcerated in the first place..."


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    arioreo wrote:
    Detect Magic wrote:
    I hate it when people suggest a good rolepay character has to have ranks in Profession. It's a stupid skill with only one mechanical use - making money.

    Why do you see profession so limited?

    This.

    I love to reward players who take profession skills. One that comes right to memory is when PCs were searching a dockside warehouse for some macguffin in some crate, I let one of them use his profession/laborer skill check in place of a prodigiously lengthy search via a mundane perception check. After all, as a professional laborer he'd know how crates are organized in a warehouse, especially ho to differentiate piles of crates just offloaded from crates waiting to be loaded.

    Not only did he get to have some use for an obscure skill, he ALSO saved the party tons of time by bypassing the search check time based on area (an entire warehouse) and degree of details involved (full of thousands of crates).


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I don't think that claiming to be a roleplayer is compatable with saying that multiclassing must be done 'your way' or not at all.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Adamantine weapons ignore 20 hardness. Yes, it's a rule.

    However this is also a rule:

    Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.

    One can argue till one is blue in the face about how an adamantine weapon (katana or not) should carve through stone as easily as butter, but the GM is perfectly within his rights to say a sword of any kind will never do any damage to a stone wall, excepting superficial scratches. He doesn't even need to use the default "GM is always right" rule.

    Not saying every GM should rule such a way, just pointing out that a GM MAY rule that way and arguing against such a ruling is expressing sour grapes at best. If you love the idea of an adamantine katana slashing through castle walls and bank vaults with the greatest of ease.. my point is keep in mind it won't fly at every table. Best to ask your GM his view on the topic before you commit.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Mind you a GM may always rule that a katana, even an adamantine one, deals no damage to stone walls, as he might rule that a hammer cannot damage a rope.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Yeah the cool magus spellstrike abilities specify melee attacks.

    So you'd have to be pistol-whipping people with pistols for it to combo :(


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    If you don't draw a distinction between fantasy & space opera, David Weber's Honor Harrington series fits the bill of what you're looking for.

    It's actually less science-fiction-y than you might think at first glance.. it's nearly a reskinned telling of the napoleonic wars from the perspective of a young british (make that manticoran) naval officer.

    Taldor

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Noone mentioned rule #1.

    Rule #1 for a Unicorn mount: Never play leapfrog with your mount.

    **

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Many thanks to Michael and Sean.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Once upon a time during a Seventh Sea campaign, I played a brash Eisen who suffered from a disadvantage that granted the GM the ability to force the player to take a course of action that the player discusses as an option during table-talk.

    We started an expensive, impressivly produced adventure path style boxed set. The planned story arc first exposes the players to the arch-villain during a gala ball, importantly set many stories high up in a gothic structure.

    As me and the other players talked out-of-character about how this obese, pompous NPC coming into the ball was obviously our future villain, I said how funny it would be if we just threw him out a window here and now.

    And the GM decided to trigger my brashness disadvantage, and committed my character to the ill-advised idea.

    With no time to plan something smartly, as if murdering a prominent member of high society in front of hundreds of witnesses ever COULD be smartly planned.. I simply introduced myself and invited his portliness to accompany me to the fine buffet table, conveniently near giant stained glass windows.. and in front of the horrified party and assembled guests, heaved the not-yet-revealed-yet-suspected-nonetheless villain out to his messy end a hundred feet below.

    Luckily for me the highly cinematic nature of the game system allowed me to survive the immediate fallout of my character's brash actions, but the GM was then forced to figure out how to play the rest of the expensive, spiffy boxed adventure after he made me literally throw the planned story arc out the window...

    **

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Ehn.

    I'll throw in.

    I accept their rulings, of course.

    Agree with and fully support? Well, the latter definately. The former, mostly. The difference between mostly agree and completely agree is literally another thread.

    At any rate, what they're doing is an example of good customer service, so that's to be commended.

    Taldor

    6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    joeyfixit wrote:


    See, I would love for it to work like this, but it's just wishful thinking. How does a barbarian benefit because the goblin is small and has chameleon- like skin? How does a fighter benefit from a wizard being invisible (and not moving) just because he drank a see invisibility potion? To the tune of a +40 to stealth for both?
    I would certainly hate for my DM to ambush us with a party of hill giants that we can't see hitting us because they work for a reduced, invisible tiny halfling alchemist who's provided them with See Invisibility potions. And he's the type to do it.
    This feat looks like a great idea but I still really don't know how it works in practice. Can we get an official Paizo rep to weigh in?

    Well there's rules as written and rules as intended. (RAW vs RAI). I said how I thought it was RAW. As far as RAI, it's not just wishful thinking.

    How else would a feat represent the ability of someone skilled in stealth to direct (and time) the moves of his less skilled comrades, to include providing distractions to compensate for glaring mistakes of Sir Clanks-alot? Surely something along this train of thought could be done, and it's not by any means a stretch to say it could be done. A feat worded the way I say it is (RAW) would do exactly this.

    As far as the (yet unvoiced, but suspected to be harbored) opinion that it'd be overpowered... it doesn't even work unless all members pay the rather steep feat tax.. or be given out via a tactician (who are prone to be Sir-Clanks-Alots to begin with and unlikely to be giving it out anyway..)

    Taldor

    5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Stealth Synergy:

    Ultimate Combat wrote:
    Stealth Synergy (Teamwork Feat)
    Working closely with an ally, you are able to move like twin shadows.
    Benefit:
    While you can see one or more allies who also have this feat, whenever you and your allies make a Stealth check, you all take the highest roll and add all your modifiers to Stealth.

    So, unless I'm mistaken, there's several ways to interpret that. Let's use an example.

    Let's say Valeros has +2 Dex modifier, no ranks in stealth, and -6 armor check penalty. Merisiel has +4 Dex, 5 ranks in stealth, and -1 armor check penalty. Alain has +1 Dex, 1 rank in stealth (but it's not a class skill), and a -5 armor check penalty.

    So let's say Alain uses tactician to give everyone Stealth Synergy to sneak past some orc sentries or something.

    Valeros rolls a 20.
    Merisiel rolls a 6.
    Alain rolls a 10.

    The first part is easy. We'll discard the 10 and 6 and keep the 20. The tricky part is what comes next. There's two ways to read "you all take the highest roll and add all your modifiers to Stealth".

    Way #1
    Valeros' stealth check is 16. (20 +2dex -6ac)
    Merisiel's stealth check is 28. (20 +4dex +5ranks +3classskill -1ac)
    Alain's stealth check is 17. (20 +1dex +1rank -5ac)

    Way #2 (and naturally the way I want it to work)
    All 3 PCs have a stealth check of 24. (20 +2valerosdex +4merisieldex +1alaindex +5merisielranks +1alainranks +3merisielclassskill -6valerosarmor -1merisielarmor -5alainarmor)

    So which is it? If anyone is even using teamwork feats.. and it seems few are.. which way are you using it at your tables?

    Taldor **

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Take 'em, or leave 'em?

    I originally intended to play a cavalier as a group-buffer/faceman, but after a couple adventures in I come to realize the tactician ability is just really not all I thought it could be- buying more teamwork feats is just too useless. Tactician only works on the one bought at 1st level, and at tables with random teammates you can't expect anyone to have a matching twf.

    I find myself thinking that giving up a lance, spirited charge, cavalier's charge/challenge is a combo that's just too good to pass up. I guess it's iconic/stereotypical for a reason.

    I don't mind paying just 2 feats for the ability to lay out whopping hits once every other adventure (or three). But my exposure to OP modules is limited to 5 scenarios, and only 1 of the 5 was cavalry-charge friendly. 2 feats for an ability used one adventure in 5 seems a bit too steep of a price no matter how good.

    I'm looking for someone with more exposure to PFS OP modules to share opinions. Are cavalry charges too rare to spend feats on to pursue?

    EDIT: Small-based characters riding medium sized mounts would have few difficulties finding opportunities to blow stuff up with crazy damage bonuses.. but I'm of course talking about medium sized cavaliers with large sized horses/camels.. I can always change feats I planned to take but havent taken them yet.. but I can't go back and change my race to gnome :D

    1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 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.