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

gnomersy's page

1,706 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,706 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Arachnofiend wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

That one is iffy.

Mostly because it is subjective and requires a lot more information.

A Paladin might respond, "I think that you are."

And not fall, because in his opinion she, and all living things, are beautiful.

However, if she were to clarify that, "Am I beautiful by the standard assumption of physical beauty that is largely accepted in society."

Then the Paladin might have a problem.

Either way, you can do that, but by the strictest sense, a lie, any lie, is grounds for a fall.

HWalsh will make a Paladin fall for not being a huge tool, confirmed

When did he say that? I mean at least from my interpretation of what he said he would have a paladin fall for any outright lie. And as such if the question were phrased differently he could be put into a situation where he would have to answer with the objective truth. Then again a paladin doesn't have to answer any question asked of him. In the case of the societal standards of beauty question he could reply, "True beauty is not derived from the frail mortal shell but from the soul within, you are beautiful." Not a lie but not necessarily the answer that she was looking for. He could also simply refuse to answer.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
You call it an attempt at ego-boosting. I call it an expression of honest opinions. For my part, I believe the onus is in equal parts on highly unreasonable players and some understandable but major errors on the GM's side of the screen. Your point about the twenty monsters, for instance, is a good one.

Let's be honest though we can't control the DM's players none of them are here asking if there is something they could do to improve their game. Telling the OP he's doing fine really can't help. If doing what he's doing was going to fix the problem, it would have already.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Agency has only been mentioned with regards to rolling for them, which is something you should generally keep to a minimum. And be consistent about it! Tell them in advance, "I generally roll Perception and Sense Motive for you guys to maintain suspense," for instance.

The point Skeld makes about PC abilities and bonuses is a good one, though. Make sure the players understand that it's their job to keep track of that stuff first-and-foremost. You have enough to manage on your end without also managing their end all the time.

I agree and disagree.

Consistency is truly the best thing you can do as a DM it makes things seem less arbitrary and allows for players to understand the game they are playing and play in that framework.

As far as PC abilities and bonuses I'm 50/50 on that. Some people said up thread that they roll all the PCs rolls for them including attacks and saves, if you're taking the rolls from the players it has officially become your problem to deal with the modifiers on those rolls too doing it any other way is even more inefficient. But my policy is pretty much always the person who is making the roll at any given time they should take into account any and all modifiers to that roll. Don't be afraid to ask if you're not sure something is up but unless you're in the habit of calling out the unmodified number and then doing any modifiers out loud it's pretty much assumed that you're taking care of what affects you.

@Ciaran As for getting the players' attention I don't think the only issue is taking control, but also if random other conversations are going on or there's a lull(because the dm is fiddling with tech or terrain or drawing) and particularly if the DM is involved in them as well sometimes people are really tuned out. The key to getting their attention is to have a notable cue for when it's serious time, either DM voice(a particular tone you use when DMing or using voice acting for characters) a gavel or clapping or snapping your fingers or a shift in lighting. Pretty much everything a teacher would do to get a classroom of elementary or middle school kids back under control is useful for this.

kadance wrote:

And then the cohort that just takes all the item crafting feats blows the "wealth by level" argument out of the water.

Full disclosure: I'm in the 'ban' camp as well if I have a full table.

Right because the normal PCs can't bust wbl with crafting already, oh wait .... yeah crafting is busted cohorts don't change that the only thing they do is give martials equivalent access to crafting as a caster.

RJGrady wrote:
You really don't have to give anything up to be a blaster wizard. You could literally devote every character selection to blasting, and you would still have a character who can cast from the entire wizard spell list and can carry around a stack of scrolls. The idea that a blaster wizard is not also a useful team member doesn't hold up.

Not really true you give up save or die/suck spells pretty much because your spell focus feats etc won't be in the right schools to make them viable and then there's the question of cost effectiveness. Plus you lose traits and feats which could be providing you with other benefits like crafting or metamagic effects that are pertinent to sod/sos spells. Sure you're probably not much worse than 15 or 20% less likely to succeed but that's pretty bad when the difference is winning immediately or doing nothing.

Mind you a wizard who's a blaster can still be a competent save caster, buffer, debuffer, and battlefield controller. But he certainly won't be the equivalent of a specialist in those roles and that's assuming that he even wants to memorize those spells and in my experience that's often not the case.

So for the OP it's not that they're not good it's just that they're less good relative to other wizard builds so when a guide tries to rate the best ways to build a character they aren't super high up there. That being said a blaster can shine in certain types of fights as well.

I tried playing through Skype for about a year. There were some nice elements but on the whole I wouldn't recommend it.

Here are the problems I had:
1) I'm a very visual person losing out on seeing people's faces was very disappointing and definitely impaired my game experience.
2) Skype has awful connection issues when being used with video.
3) The net connection on their end was spotty which led to a great deal of cutting out.
4) Off topic conversations when you're uncomfortable with a headset on for 4 hours get very tedious.
5) Seeing the board can be hard when you're the only person skyping into a live game.

Now these aren't game breaking mostly and some of them can be fixed by using an online tabletop like on roll20 in conjunction with a more reliable chat service like teamspeak but the negatives are definitely there.

Personally I find the experience overall to be much worse than normal play. It's less comfortable the social experience is lacking and people getting distracted really sucks and takes you out of the experience much more so than normal.

Rynjin wrote:

Yeah, but that's a dumb expectation. Paizo is human just like everyone else. In a very real sense, Paizo is a 3pp anyway. And were indisputably one in the past.

Adding Paizo products has the same risk, is my point. Yes, you have to read everything before you allow it. No s+%%. Again, something you need to do with Paizo releases.

It doesn't take a whole ton of free time to look at one thing, think back over a bunch of other things you should have already read before you allowed them, and figure out whether it fits or not. 30 seconds, maybe. And a "waste"? This is already your hobby. This entire game is a "waste of free time" where you're not doing anything productive.

If you don't want to allow it, just admit you can't be arsed to bother, or only want material that you're very familiar with...but you damn well better be consistent about it. Paizo shouldn't be given a free pass here.

Bad design is bad design no matter who made it. If some crappy 3pp developer makes material for Pathfinder, it doesn't suddenly become better if they make their own RPG and add identical content to it. Likewise, just because Paizo made it doesn't make it good.

Having an "expectation" that something is good based solely on the fact that their name is on the game is an expectation no DM worth their salt should have.

Not having an expectation that someone will release something good or at least decent based on the fact that their name is on the game means you should seriously reconsider what you're doing buying from them at all. And frankly I didn't say Paizo should get a free pass then again their track record for not releasing content that completely breaks the game is decent, and most of the problem content has been fixed by now and usually was on sketchy rules footing to begin with.

Additionally if you can't identify the difference between a fun story telling activity involving your friends and sitting down reading rules by yourself trying to identify pitfalls then I don't even know what to tell you please elucidate me on how all different uses of time are exactly the same.

And you're right it doesn't take much time to look at one thing. Now lets say each player wants 2 things, now lets say they want 4 things, now lets say they want a class, now they want a custom race, now what if each of them want to combine that with 3 things from the last time you let them use things? It's a constantly increasing investment of time to evaluate all of the possible permutations and running through each person's character on a 1 by 1 basis and banhammering things is just asking for hurt feelings on the basis of favoritism.

Rynjin wrote:


Where have you been for the last like 2 years?

Yeah FAQS/Erratas happen but that's because the PLAYERS know the material well and point this stuff out. Paizo has REPEATEDLY shown, especially recently, that they have little idea how their newest options will interact with the older ones.

Paizo has no higher quality assurance than many 3pp (a lot of whom are made up of current or former Paizo or WotC employees anyway), and quite a bit less than some prominent 3pp developers who use lengthy playtests and frequent revision and tweaks to keep things exactly where they want them.

Yeah, some 3pp developers clearly don't give a damn about balance (lookin' at you, Rogue Genius), but that's a function of them

I said expectation not assurance and I noted that this was also why splat books often got banned. And on the plus side at least FAQs and Erratas happen I hate most of them too but hey at least they try.

As for 3pp with good balancing and good quality control yes they exist but without reading through the books in their entirety you're not going to know which is which. Particularly because there is variance between their books as well and just the act of adding extra content increases the chance for both confusion and something particularly busted sneaking into the game.

It in no way should be a surprise that some DMs don't want to waste their free time doing all this to let you use 3pp content.

Aelryinth wrote:

Which is why I asked...what ARE you trading it for?

Because as it stands, if you take 3 levels of Paladin, the rest of the package DOES NOT MATTER, and you've made a horrible trade.

So, yeah, the whole Package MIGHT be worth the trade...but the fact remains that at the moment you made the trade, the package SUCKS, and it might stop right there. Giving up something awesome now for something nice you might not ever see is not a trade.


For what it's worth that isn't necessarily a bad design choice.

Paizo has stated that one of it's design goals in Pathfinder was to limit the value of dipping so really the poor design choice came in the original Paladin and the Emp. Knight was in fact a better designed archetype even if it is less objectively powerful when evaluated at certain levels.

Also not every piece of an archetype needs to be equivalently powerful to the original, in fact doing so is just shy of impossible, but the whole thing added up together should be in the same ballpark. Not every archetype needs to play the same and have the same power spikes and strong levels in fact the entire point of Archetypes is that, that shouldn't happen.

An example of another archetype that does this is Lorewarden Fighter it trades 2 skill points per level in Int centric skills for Medium armor heavy armor and Shield Prof. is that a reasonable trade? Of course not but overall the archetype is considered one of the better fighter options because the rest of the kit is worth it.

Zaetar wrote:

I just see it sitting there and gathering dust... and well, why not?

Someone went through all the trouble to think it, write it, refine it, then publish it. It would be a waste and an insult to the creators not to use their creations.

I cannot fathom a reason not to use them. If i'm not wrong the idea of playing d20 games is to grab a game setting, use its rules and books as guides and reference and then homebrew whatever else you want... not to be bound by the books. This groups even go and create stuff out of nowhere for us and people refuse to use it? It's dumb.

The only reason I can imagine for not using them is because the DM is way too lazy to make an effort and think about what he has to do to counter this new stuff. There has always been stuff created by 3rd parties that were later added as official content, why is this different? Why do DMs get scared of content from a different source?

The reason DMs don't use this stuff is usually because the process of refinement used by many 3pps is sloppy and creates problems the DM couldn't foresee.

It's the same reason many DMs limit the use of splat books because Feat 1 is fine on it's own and Feat 2 is okay but when combined with Feat 3056 from Awesomepants for Fighters it's completely broken.

At the very least when you get material from Paizo you have a certain expectation that they know their own material well enough to limit these interactions and if they become an issue sometimes they will be Faq'd or Errata'd. 3pp have no reason to do this and only hold the right to change a fraction of the rules which limits options even if they wanted to.

Also the design space many 3pp choose to occupy is vastly different than the standard some like crazy and broken combos some want wizards with spells that warp reality like wood left in the rain and some want to simulate hapless commoners beginning their adventure into the great unknown as level 0 characters.

These ideas don't always work together which means the DM has to read the entirety of each of the 3pp books you want to use and decide if allowing this could have some consequences. And the consequences aren't just for your character but for any character because it looks real s$#!ty when he lets you get a feat or a class but has to refuse Bob access to it because his character would break the game with it.

If you don't understand why the DM might not want to deal with that clusterf+#$ then please feel free to DM and include whatever you like but I certainly don't hold it against my DM when he chooses not to.

Zaetar wrote:
Hubaris wrote:

Master Sniper Talent. Its Third Party, just in case you didn't notice.

Yes, i know, which is why im asking... Do people not use 3rd party material?

In my experience in homegames all 3pp are banned by default and may be used by petitioning the DM on a case by case basis. In PFS they are outright banned. Generally speaking if a build requires a 3pp to work I won't even bother because it's not worth the trouble.

Letric wrote:

The ruling doesn't make sense.

You say that you can't take 5ft step because Shift is movement in my case, but then you allow a 5ft step, take shift and a full round action in your example.

Ignoring RULES, your logic doesn't make sense between itself.

When did I say I allowed a 5ft step? I full attacked, I could have 5ft stepped and did not. I then shifted.

Gauss wrote:

gnomersy, try reading the rest of the also said BEFORE, during, or AFTER the action.

How are you moving before the full-round action when it says you can only do a 5-foot step?

How are you moving after the full-round action when it says you can only do a 5-foot step?

According to you, Shift is movement and according to that quote you cannot do any movement other than a 5-foot step before, during, or after.

It is clearly not the intent, but according to YOUR ruling you cannot use Shift in combination with a full-round action.

It says your only movement during the action is a 5 ft step now stop. It goes on to say that you can do that before during or after the action stop again. It goes on to say that you can use free or swift actions.

I want to use the full attack action. Stab, Stab, Stab. Full attack is completed. Do I have free actions? Yes. Do I have Swift Actions? Yes. Does the rule tell me I can't move outside of during my full attack action? No. Great let me use Shift to move.

Gauss wrote:

gnomersy, you are ignoring the part of your own ruling where you stated that shift is movement and the full-round action rule states that the only movement you can take is a 5-foot step. The fact that Shift is a swift action is not relevant to your ruling.

And no, I am not making up lines of text. I quoted it directly from the rulebook. Others have quoted other sections to clearly indicate what the rulebook intends to be movement in the context of a 5-foot step.

You are ignoring the CONTEXT of the rules.

"you can take DURING a full-round" Read your own quoted rules text Gauss

Fergie wrote:

Some sample numbers from a theoretical "average" level 10 fighter. Equipment is based off of this thread, and feats are assumed to be Weapon Focus and Specialization, and Dodge for AC. Primary Attack is +2 Greatsword, Secondary Attack is +1 Longbow Composite +5, Tertiary Attack is masterwork Short sword. I suspect these numbers are close to the top of what a PC is expected to produce at this level.

Note: Smite, Favored Enemy, and Rage will produce higher, but more situational statistics.

Seems like a reasonable baseline to me. Not hyper optimized but built in an intelligent manner and taking the must take feats. I might actually assert that this AC is slightly higher than baseline because Dodge and +3 Shields aren't super common but it's a relatively minor qualm.

Edit: Only other complaint is no save bonuses or skills given.

Gauss wrote:

gnomersy, there is no such thing as a "RAW" game. It cannot exist since the rules are incomplete, confusing, and in some places contradictory. What there is is "RAW" and "what we think RAW is trying to tell us".

Can you take a full-round attack and then as a swift action use the Shift ability?

Answer according to your "RAW" logic: no

CRB p181 wrote:
Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table 8–2 for a list of full-round actions.

This is CLEARLY not the intent. The intent is obviously the regular forms of movement (legs, swimming, flying, etc.), not teleportation.

You are reading "RAW" without considering intent and as a result you are arriving at nonsensical answers.

And you are making up lines of rules text to validate your assumed intention of the rules. I'm not saying that you're wrong I'm saying that's not what the rules say if read literally.

Frankly this is one reason that a game should use unambiguous either unique or bolded/italicized words for its keywords and use everything else as flavor text but this isn't something that Paizo does and it does make the game worse.

Furthermore, in reference to your full round action this use of movement is stated to be "during a full-round action" and notes that there is an after the action is taken. In general this would preclude you making a move action to utilize your movement leaving you with only a 5ft step, however it also states you may use swift actions. Shift is a swift action and as such you could use it to move yourself either before or after the full round action but not during it.

wraithstrike wrote:

So does it or does it not count against their total movement for the round, and if so which mode of movement does it count against?

What is a character's total movement per round? Afaik you can move as far as you can using your actions, in most cases this is two move actions worth. In this character's case it would be two move actions and the swift action to Shift. So this would be added on top.

Gauss wrote:

Here is a single line version:
By your ruling, would you prevent a guy who was Bull Rushed from taking a 5' step on his turn in the same round as when he was Bull Rushed?

My apologies. And yes I would.

Edit: Or rather I would if we all agreed to playing a RAW game.

Gauss wrote:

Movement in Pathfinder as it applies to a 5' step is using an action such as Move, Charge, Run, etc. to move.
Shift is not a type of movement as far as 5' steps are concerned.

Are you prepared to use the one phrase "movement" to apply to EVERY element of the rules that in any way references "movement"? Because there are a number of rules elements that are not intended to interact that way.

Is your assertion then that neither crawling nor jumping are movement since they don't use a type of your movement?

How about falling?

What about Charge for that matter this is clearly not a movement it's just a full round action in which you move, so why is this movement?

wraithstrike wrote:

Gnomersy since you are making the argument that it counts as normal movement does it provoke?

Also if the creature with this ability has more than one form of movement which form of movement does it count against, since double movement would be possible?

To answer the first question obviously not since the rules for Shift tell you "This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity".(Although the fact that they spell it out would seem to be superfluous if this wasn't actually movement.)

As for the second question what do you mean? This is an independent movement as a swift action. Subsequently the character could make their normal move and standard action or double move if they wish to.

Bill Dunn wrote:

I strongly doubt that is the intended interpretation of using the term "move" in this situation. I'd go with the more traditional dimension door interpretation with the caveat that it's range and target locations are limited as described. So I'd say a 5 foot step is kosher.

I agree. In fact I particularly agree because of the way they FAQ'd courageous weapons which has proven to me that the Paizo editorial staff and Dev team don't write rules that get their point across properly.

But, if you asked me what the rules say, then this is movement and it's not kosher. The OP is always free to talk to his DM about a home ruling on the matter.

wraithstrike wrote:

There is nothing in "shift" saying that "unlike normal teleportation shift has a move speed" or "unlike normal teleporation shift counts against the distance you can move.

PRD for Shift - "At 1st level, you can teleport to a nearby space as a swift action as if using dimension door. This movement does not provoke an attack of opportunity. You must be able to see the space that you are moving into. You cannot take other creatures with you when you use this ability (except for familiars). You can move 5 feet for every two wizard levels you possess (minimum 5 feet). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier."

This movement not this action. Space you are moving into, not space you will be transported to. You can move 5 feet not the range of this ability is 5 feet etc.

It's called movement like 3 times in its rules text this isn't me taking it out of context, per the rules it's movement.

Teleport itself never uses the word move not in the distance you can travel, not in the method by which you are transported to the target location, literally not a single instance of the word move or any variation thereof in the text for Teleport or Dimension Door because if they did it would be movement.

This is a unique ability and as such any rules text in it supercedes the general text from "as if by dimension door." If there is a conflict between the two the rules text from Shift is correct and the rules from Shift says that you are moving, you move, this movement.

wraithstrike wrote:

Teleporting abilities do not count as a "move" per the rules with regards to not the rule you are thinking of. "Movement" in shift just refers to a change in locations. The rules in the combat chapter that restricting a "move" refers to something such as walking, flying or swimming with a move speed. Changing location via teleport counts as "movement" just as much as moving your arm to swing a weapon does.

That is why rules say you can "move" up to your speed. Teleport has no speed limits, since speed is not applicable. This is also why you can move and then cast dimension door. Otherwise teleportation abilities would need a special rule.

This working of the rules is common knowledge.

Teleportation never uses the word move or movement in its rules text which is why you could 5ft step and use one of those.

Shift is an independent rules entry and does use the word move and movement in its rules text instead of transport or transportation like teleport does as such specific supercedes general and this doesn't work.

Gauss wrote:

gnomersy, defining game terms using a dictionary doesn't work well.

Movement in Pathfinder as it applies to a 5' step is using an action such as Move, Charge, Run, etc. to move.
Shift is not a type of movement as far as 5' steps are concerned.

Do you move? Yes.
Are you using a movement mode? No.
Does it qualify as movement for the purposes of 5' steps? No.

Apparently defining game terms by those terms being used verbatim in other rules doesn't work either by your reasoning.

The shift ability literally calls itself movement that is a fact claiming that somehow movement =/= movement in game terms when both instances are used in rules text is a special brand of insane.

That's highly speculative logic particularly since the rules note that you can move without using the Move "Move action" and that you can move without using a movement speed which you possess for example crawling and jumping. By your logic neither jumping nor crawling provokes attacks of opportunity for leaving threatened squares.

Had the 5ft step rules stated so long as you haven't used your movement speed or used a Move move action it would be a different story but by the rules and basic understanding of English you must be wrong or the paizo devs and editors are incapable of writing rules.

DinosaursOnIce wrote:

You'll get some different answers but I believe the general consensus is that teleportation like effects don't follow the normal rules for 5 foot steps. "Movement" in pathfinder has a defined mechanical term involving your movement speeds and such. Which an ability like Shift doesn't use.

When you say "huge" barbarian, you mean he's just big, or is mechanically huge size? I assume the former, since 5 foot stepping wouldn't matter in the latter case most of the time.

I wouldn't allow it personally.

1) The shift ability expressly calls itself movement.
2) The 5ft step is only permitted if you "don't perform any other kind of movement" and furthermore "you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance."
3) Under move actions "Many nonstandard modes of movement are covered under this category like climbing" which clearly implies that some forms of movement are not encompassed under the Move action heading.
4) Google dictionary definition for movement: an act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed.

Clearly the shift ability is not a move action but it is obviously movement this is supported by it's own text and by other sources including the most common definition for the term movement. Since the 5ft step calls out movement rather than move actions taken I would say it isn't possible.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
memorax wrote:

What I see though is one or the other wanting to do both. They system at least this one is not setup to allow you to do both. Or it makes you the jack of all trades master of none.

It does allow you to do both, with very little investment. You take the ranger or the hunter instead. For most combat styles the ranger is better. (everything but two handed i think(

Eh somewhat but the real investment is in your primary stats. A ranger with a focus on combat and switch hitting is going to have a high Str or Dex a moderate Str or Dex a moderate Con and moderate Wisdom with low Int and/or Cha.

He will have a plethora of skills assuming he didn't dump Int but that's probably his dump stat which drops him to 4 or 5 skills per level that's not bad out of combat but it's not as good as a bard in out of combat situations or say a wizard. And he'll have some rudimentary spell casting. Aka he will do one thing very well and some other stuff passably but not great.

This character would be a great Frontliner for a well rounded party. But he is not going to be the frontliner, the party face, the skill guy, and the spell caster all at once. He could really benefit from having someone else as a primary character in at least some of those other roles.

HWalsh wrote:

This is actually completely incorrect.

The person who is okay at A, B, and C is going to be solidly viable in any situation. He's the universal party backup. When the guy who is great at B, fails at B because the dice gods say so, then the guys who are okay at B are great for backup.

He will always be there to save the party's bacon when a roll goes south. He will always be able to contribute. That is NOT less than viable.

Also, have you EVER played an AP with 4 people who are all "okay" at just about everything? I have. They steam roll the AP so hard it isn't even funny. Nothing you can throw in their path even starts to slow them down.

Now, run an AP with 4 optimized PCs and watch the look of terror that happens when something goes terribly wrong. When the Ogre in Ft. Rannik lands a critical hit on the party cleric and drops him in one shot. Watch as the party scrambles, in complete back peddle mode, begging to retreat to get to somewhere they can raise dead.

Watch the look of horror on a GM's face when, for the party to proceed, someone has to make a roll and the guy who was the "perception guy" just rolled a 1. Who suddenly has to pull something completely out of his rear so the game can continue.

The Optimized party is better... When everything goes right. I admit, it...

This is just false.

Yes having backups for things is good. In fact my hypothetical specialized party had backups, skill guy with secondary combat ability, combat guy with secondary skill ability, buff/healer/support with secondary combat ability, primary caster with secondary buffing and nuking ability. As far as when a AP of average characters steamrolls lets be honest AP's are laughably easy and the most common reason you see the optimized party get killed is because the DM overreacts to him not "winning" in combat and upleveling the encounters without taking into account the party dynamic.

Also your example of the paladin makes no sense. Look at my subsections for specialization 3 out of the 4 things you list as reasons a Paladin is good are Combat abilities and 1 of them is secondary healing this is an example of specializing. The real reason the paladin is better than a fighter is two fold, 1) He's a better combatant than the fighter. The reason for this is that he's more resilient overall. Has better saves, some healing, and better burst damage on smites. and 2) Because the paladin can have secondary abilities in addition to his primary ones with more skill points and spells to fall back on while Fighters generally can't do this with the same amount of investment.

This does not mean that the Paladin is not specialized, in fact he should also specialize. If he's an archer he should pick up archery feats, if he's going into melee he should pick those feats, yeah keep a bow on hand even if you're a greatsword weilder and vice versa because any damage is better than no damage if you have to use it but trying to play a switch hitter mystic theurge or bard for all the characters in a party is not good.

Fergie wrote:

Again, I'm not trying to be the BEST at anything, just trying to contribute my 25% of a 4 person party...

And this is why you aren't going to be good.

A party with 4 people who are the all okay at a, b, c, and d. Is going to be notably worse than a party with a person who is phenomenal at a and okay at b, someone who is great at b and okay at a, someone who is amazing at c but good at a, and someone who is unstoppable at d but only passable at a and c.

So lets assume a is combat, b is skills, c is buffing and healing and d is spell casting. With these roles being filled by more focused characters you're going to have a much higher success rate overall.

Johnnycat93 wrote:

Here you go!

If you can meet the median values on these tables the majority of the time with your character, then you'll get along just fine.

Reference the values in the Monster Creation guidelines and Encounter Design guidelines to understand what a character is assumed to be able to do at any given CR.

Scanned through it and it looks roughly in line with my expectations when building characters although the to hit is a little low and the damage a little high for PCs imo.

Diminuendo wrote:

You can multclass into as many classes you want effectively IF those classes have synergy.

For longsword proficentcy you could trade Adaptability for the Weapon Familiarity Racial Trait from Inner Sea Races, this gives you the same weapon proficentceys as a Elf.

An Evangelist Cleric can be a healer, caster, diplomat, supporter, buffer, and backup fighter just as easily or better than a Bard, the only place they fall short is being skill monkey.

According to your character sheet you are a level 1 Bard, even in PFS you can rebuild for free up to level 2, so ask your GM if he'll allow retraining, he should allow it unless he's particularly draconian.

I agree although I'd add that it's extremely rare for a caster to get enough value out of a multiclass to make it better than just getting more levels of their main class. This includes 6 level casters although is less of a factor with the 4 level casters like the Paladin and Ranger by simple virtue of spells being less of a factor of their overall power.

Ravingdork wrote:

What's so great about the estoc? The rapier is nearly as good and DOESN'T require an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

That makes them pretty equal in my eyes. The only time taking up an estoc would be the obvious choice is when you are somehow proficient with both without having to spend one of your precious feats.

The OP was told in another thread essentially that if EWP didn't exist people would obviously choose the Estoc unless there was a reason not to. At which point he made a new thread complaining about it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaekub wrote:

If they enjoy it (as I do) why do they need a reward for it?

Why do you need to get payed for doing a job that you like? Because we're not insane and we still want to be rewarded for doing effort?

Kthulhu wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
System mastery should give you a significant power boost - pouring over books etc should be a benefit.
I'm of the opinion that a supposedly fun hobby shouldn't have mandatory tedious homework.

Some of enjoy what you refer to as mandatory tedious homework.

Rhedyn wrote:
A disparity between player skill will always be factor. What is probably rubbing people the wrong way is how permanent build choices effect that gap. Build skill seems to trump playing skillfully.

I don't know playing skillfully won't make a bad build good but it can make it better. And even the best build won't make bad play good just less punishing.

I mean the best Wizard build ever still won't make it a good idea to run into combat with a plain old dagger. And the best player is still going to have trouble making a wizard with 8 Int a good character(excluding archtypes that switch casting skill).

Personally I think that's a good place for a game to be, where both play and build are worthwhile factors to character quality.

Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

I joined during the ACG playtest, so about 2 years also.

Would I be wrong in guessing that the ACG playtest was the turning point?

I don't know whether that was a turning point for the community. It's long enough ago and my memory would be hazy enough that I could probably be talked into believing that it was.

For what it's worth having been kicking around the forums for a while people were negative before too but 4th was so polarizingly different that even the people who weren't psyched about Pathfinder were pretty okay with a system that was 3.x just because it wasn't 4th.

Is it just my brain playing tricks on me or does it seem like most of the people who are really happy with PF are also into the 3pp material?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Its not a matter of "moved on" Rhedyn - Roleplaying Games are not competitive MMOs where everyone should be concerned with "hitting their benchmarks" as it were.

RPGs are about a player playing a character.

If Ringlefoot the Halfling Rogue wants to drop a few skill points in Perform because his player rationalizes that he would have picked up some sweet dance moves, and maybe he should spend less points in Stealth even though that means less opportunities to use his sneak attack... He shouldn't be seen as a lump because he's not optimized.

And what makes PF any better to "play a character" than 5th ed or Fate or Gurps etc etc etc.?

The fact is that at the end of the day you don't pick a roleplaying game for the roleplaying part you want that to be there and you want it to not get in the way but what you want is the framework that the game is providing and that framework is like 75% numbers and 25% just enough content to make those numbers work for your ideas. This is true in PF and in DnD and in many other systems to varying degrees.

If you want to just play a character and not be a useless lump for not optimizing then play a purely narrative game those exist and they do the job of taking out the math much better than trying to force a game built on the math ever will.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Do I like pathfinder?

An interesting question particularly because it forces me to divide Pathfinder specifically from the simple act of spending time with my friends and I do rather like them.

We've started playing 5th Ed. mostly because of rules bloat and a desire to cut down on the numerical aspect of the game for simplicity and speed. On the one hand I personally like number crunching it's something I can do to improve my character while we aren't playing but my friends aren't as keen on it so that's an aspect that I like about PF.

Another thing I like is that there's a lot more build variety in PF than 5th but there was more of that in 3.5 and I liked that game as well. I do feel like the more recent content has been less interesting to me than some of the older content was but I like the fact that it is there.

What I vehemently dislike is when the dev team "fixes" something by smashing it with a hammer and gluing it together into a new shape entirely like say the Scarred Witch Doctor change because it completely throws any ideas I had before about a character out the window. I don't dislike errata that fixes mistakes but errata-ing to patch the game and re balance things is annoying. It's annoying in video games and it's worse in tabletop games where you have to actively hunt down the rules and apply them correctly instead of having a computer handle it all on the back end. Occasionally this kind of thing has to be done but more often than not I'd rather they didn't.

Martial caster balance wise we haven't really had a huge issue but at the same time I'm the most "powergamer" like of my friends and I tend to play something other than a caster usually.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

I don't find it hard to imagine, personally. Not everyone feels Paizo ignore their fan base. If we were polled and the designers went contrary to the majority vote - wouldn't it bolster the claims of those who feel the community is being ignored?

I think the existence of a poll itself isnt going to help. The only way to fix the perception of those who currently feel ignored is either better communication as to why the PDT went the other way or a shift in design direction. Neither of those things requires a poll, but a poll without either of those things gives the potential for the perception to get worse, in my opinion.

An interesting thought. But it all comes down to how they act about the polls.

If the devs dump a poll up provide zero input feedback or discussion whatsoever and then rule against the majority then yes people will believe they're being ignored because they are more or less being ignored.

On the other hand lets say they put up a poll they see a lot of feedback from the community and add on a few follow up questions and have some discussions about why Crane Wing for example is being an oppressive part of the game for some people maybe the skew is 60% CW is fine 40% It's OP and needs to be fixed. The Devs end up going with the 40% and explain why they think this fix will change CW into a better place. They then move the change on to the Errata Playtest section of the forums and wait for feedback on how the ability fairs in some game sessions. Then they see it's too weak and tweak it back up a bit, they run another set of playtests that find it being meaningful without having that never hit element of the original, they then push it "live". I imagine very few people would say they're being ignored that wouldn't be saying that regardless of what Paizo was doing.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
Is that a good thing? No. But, at this point it's to be expected

I disagree on a fundamental level. ;)

Samy summed it up for me, though (sans victim blaming, which seems mostly out-of-place here).

Agree to disagree I suppose. From my point of view and past experiences the internet and the gamer community in particular have a tendency to be lacking in delicacy and tact. Expecting otherwise seems idealistic, and I've never been inclined in that regards. Enforcing otherwise is of course a different question and something to be dealt with by the mods and not us forum goers in some giant shaming circle for those who act in such a manner.

Anyways back on topic and for Mr. Lambertz

Polls are a great tool I think that they can be used well and do require the base three options, of Fixed, Bad fix but needed, and No fix required. I think it would also help to have a variety of other choices like whether or not a change is thematic or in line with the original intent and if the fix is still too powerful or not powerful enough kept separate from the original three questions.

I think it's also important that these questions be asked before the errata "goes live" as it were. Because once you push the idea out the door pulling it back and then refixing it just gets more and more confusing for the average player. So having a tentative errata section or errata playtest is very important in my opinion.

In addition I also agree with another poster that rewrites are not something I am a big fan of. I feel like to an extent if something doesn't break the game then you shouldn't full up change it if you can tweak it back in line. Now obviously there's things which step over this line (Divine Protection being one of them) which may need to be rebalanced and I think that's fine but those are the ideas which most need the polls. Whereas things which just need clarification because of writing errors and things where you somehow ended up with an ability that does nothing like prone shooter and totem barbarian can usually be dealt with by just playing with an idea maybe a quick playtest or just an opinion thread on if it seems cool and toss it out the door.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Like I said. Technically accurate, but so is the US saying to France, "You know, we could probably nuke you into oblivion and/or crush you economically if we really, really wanted to." Whether or not they could is beside the point, you get what I'm saying.

My point was that bringing it up should be done a bit more tactfully. Really, the "Paizo doesn't owe you anything" argument barely merits a serious follow-up. Its problems are pretty inherently obvious.

If they wanted tactful responses from their consumers they probably should have looked into working in a different industry.

Role players and gamers in general are often not tactful and those who post on forums seem to be even less tactful than the average. Is that a good thing? No. But, at this point it's to be expected and not worth kicking up a fuss about unless you're the parent of one of us tactless individuals.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Comparing Paizo's defenders to people protesting seatbelts is a charged bit of rhetoric. The real hostility I saw, though, was in the oft-rehashed "we sure as hell don't owe Paizo anything if they're not willing to meet the standards we have for spending money on a hobby." Rynjin put it even more aggressively, of course (I really don't see how you can read the posts on this thread with a neutral eye and not see hostility on both sides).

I apologize if your intent wasn't to be hostile. Intent doesn't always transfer well through the internet, and Kobold Cleaver's mastery of interpretation transfers even worse.

In all fairness that is a fact. Paizo is a seller of game rules we are purchasers of game rules we enjoy a potentially valuable exchange of services for money.

We do not owe Paizo our money or loyalty, they are getting what they desire in exchange for their work.

Simultaneously they do not owe us particular services on products post release such as errata. It is not something they have to do.

However when they do choose to do it we expect something of equivalent or superior quality to the original products since this is intended to be a fix for an error made on the part of the dev team. If it weren't errata wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

As a result when the errata is released and detracts from the quality of the original product in the opinion of the buyers that is a black mark it is something to complain about in the hopes of a solution and something to consider carefully regarding future business with a company.

These are facts.

Outside of the facts there is the emotional response and that is also worth noting, not for us because we don't care. But, for Paizo consumer loyalty and faith is important. This is a business with a great deal of competition and if DnD 4e proved anything it's that people will gladly jump ship when things stop being what they expect.

Personally I was disappointed with the quality of the changes. I felt they lacked the flavor of the original material, and in several cases went far over the mark for balance.

In some cases I agree that something should have been done though, I just feel like there were better choices than that which they ended on.

Jiggy wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Ah, so now we're assuming a fighter who only took feats that deal direct damage and nothing else?

For example, if the fighter isn't a complete meathead and actually has improved disarm, than he starts with just taking his damn sword back.

Yeah, but you're missing the important point:

A Fighter20 defeating a Warrior1 who stole his gear actually requires consideration of specialized tactics.

I dunno about you, but I find that pretty bothersome.

Out of curiousity why is the fighter even taking off all his gear? I mean he's not required to. Magical gear is unaffected by non magical issues such as rotting, dirtying, and rusting. So he may as well just bathe with everything that isn't weapons and armor on and frankly may as well bathe with those too. The assumption that the norms of our universe should apply to the PF universe is rather questionable.

Jaunt wrote:

In some contexts, violence may be the only possible meaningful response, or the only consequence that means anything to a bully. A friendly, voluntary gathering to play a game is not one of those contexts. If the threat of violence is the only reason your friends aren't jerks, you have awful friends.

Just because you play games with them doesn't mean that they are your friends in fact based on their behavior they're probably not your friends at all.

And in that case it's still worth teaching them that the potential results of their behavior is physical violence because that is likely to reduce that behavior in the future when they play with others.

Rynjin wrote:
Jaunt wrote:

So the only important consequence for bullying is (the threat of) physical violence?

I don't think that's true.

The only time I ever got some dick to stop messing with me in middle and high school was by socking them in the face. Some people don't speak another language.

Generally speaking I've found the same thing to be the case, short of direct consequences enacted by the school such as suspensions and expulsions and those were considered to be unreasonable punishments for something as harmless as "boys being boys" when I went to school.

Then kids started coming into schools and shooting people after being bullied and people who weren't directly involved started paying attention. Coincidence?

Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a few posts. Even if it's a "joke", advocating actual violence against other people is never OK on

I can see why you'd say this from a legal standpoint. However, while I don't really support the idea of actual violence the threat of potential violence is largely the reason why people do anything about bullying.

Advocating for a lack of potential consequences is equivalent to advocating in support of bullying because people are horrible and if they don't have a reason to stop they won't.

Have the party sit at the table to talk to the Rogue, while said talking is occurring go into an expose about how your character wishes he could beat the Rogue and any foul gods supporting him to death with the table they're sitting at. Then stand up pitching the table slightly and say in a complete deadpan, "Whoops I'd hate to recreate what my character was thinking about." Then just walk out and don't come back.

Quick question does greater spell specialization technically fulfill the requirements for dragon disciple?

Bump. Also worth noting that I would like for this character to be skilled at social skills.

Hi, so I'm playing a Noble Scion prestige classed Trip fighter, and I was hoping for some advice on making a fair character that doesn't take up too much limelight but is still a valuable addition to the party.

Initially I was planning on making an Alchemist but since one of our friends is out for the time being their character a blaster sorcerer has dropped out of the party to do charity work so I'm trying to find a way to fill in for an arcane caster as far as utility without stepping on any toes.

So I'm aiming for an arcane caster who isn't too showy ideally a charismatic one who doesn't step on anyone's toes and who doesn't feel like a direct replacement for our friend's character when they come back.

The party is 8th level: 1 Battle Cleric, 1 Trip Fighter, 1 Bard, 1 (currently gone Blaster Sorc.)

Cohort has to be 7th level, 30 point point buy, 2 traits, all official paizo pathfinder material is legal but no mythic. I would like for the character to have Craft Wonderous Items to offset the cost IC of having them sponge off my share of the loot but I'd rather not have them take any additional Crafting feats. If it has a bloodline I'd like for it to be Draconic(Black) but that's negotiable.

1 to 50 of 1,706 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.