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

1,729 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
This kind of thought leads to making an organized play system unable to function for new players. As 'best case scenarios' will kill non 'best case characters'

Let me rephrase.

Ignore PFS for the moment, and ignore encounters.

Balancing should (and usually is with design) done with best case scenarios.

If you design all your creatures with to hit and then someone can compile together things to be "only hit on a 20" for all encounters. Something needs to be changed in design. Either the to hit raised (which hurts non optimal builds) or the thing tipping it over the top needs reduced.

This is the worst argument. I'm sorry but logically your statement equates to "Everything should be designed so that even when you make choices, you don't."

If someone puts all their eggs in the AC basket they should be hard to hit that's fine that's what meaningful design allows, if someone puts all their eggs into grappling they should do it well, if someone puts all their eggs into stealth they should be impossible to detect, etc. etc. etc.

If somebody is trying very hard to be good at something let them be good at it that's the f%*@ing point of what they want. If you fail to provide that, that isn't good design it's 5e.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Berinor wrote:

I think the current pricing is about right for what it does if you view it similar to a breath of life scroll. 2k for the deflection bonus, leaving 3k for the crit negation. The scroll costs 1k in broad numbers. I'd say the slot vs broad usage is roughly a wash, so the certainty plus immediate's better action economy than somebody else's standard (plus proximity) puts it in that neighborhood. I'd call it appropriately priced anywhere from 4-7 with the deflection bonus. Like I said elsewhere, I'm not crazy about the specific change in function, but the pricing seems reasonable for what it does now.

Interesting point of view. I'd accept that while a 3k consumable hat which prevented one crit would be reasonable for some characters any deflection bonus which does not scale is inherently worthless, for a spell caster the +1 deflection bonus is too low to make a notable difference in their overall AC for any martial the fact that it doesn't scale means that you almost certainly have a Ring of Protection +2 at roughly the same point in the character's life in which case the Hat is just double charging you for an effect which you can't use.

Had the effect remained a luck bonus and the crit negation become a 1 time deal I could see your point because +1 AC is worth 2.5k in a slot-5k slotless and a one shot crit negation is too rich for my blood at 3k but still usable. As is the item might as well not have the deflection bonus because it isn't a stacking bonus and it doesn't scale, it's just tacked on to inflate the price for no good reason.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:

The fundamental problem is "don't compare new items to old items that are themselves mispriced."

The AMF is still overpriced by a factor of at least 2 (arguably 4 because weapons are slotless and amulets aren't) for unarmed strikes.

Brawling armor's fair price is somewhere between 4k and 8k flat. As a bonus equivalent enchantment a +2 might have been excused, but a +3 is absolutely ridiculous. Even a +1 equivalent bonus becomes overpriced when you start enhancing your armor for the purpose of keeping you from getting killed.

In fairness the comparison for how much brawling should cost was probably measured against the gloves of dueling of course it does still ignore the fact that you need to buy armor upgrades afterwards if you intend to not die which makes it notably worse and as such pretty much unusable to anyone who has both of those as an option.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If the problem is that every character is buying the same thing in the same slot, then make more than one thing that people want to put in that slot.

If you have 99 items for a slot and among those items you suddenly realize that there is only 1 item that is so good that everybody uses it, then it's unwise to revise other 98 items or introduce new items.

It's much more easier to fix only one problematic item.

If this statement was true then yes. But on the other hand you have 98 items not worth wasting gold on and 1 item that is worth it for a slot but you always have 6 excellent choices that literally must exist because you can't maintain game balance without them. Nerfing the 1 worth while item will not result in people spending money on the 98 garbage ones, people will use that gold on a different item that is worth buying either from the 6 necessary items or the 1-3 items that are decent in any given slot which you were already planning on getting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If the problem is that every character is buying the same thing in the same slot, then make more than one thing that people want to put in that slot.


Let's be honest 99% of what goes in the head slot is not worth taking. Even if the Jingasa didn't exist you would see most people just not taking head slot items is that really better for item diversity? If you wanted more diversity just include more situationaly valuable items that would result in people actually wanting those items.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:

But I am not bigoted or wrong for saying "every butterfly collector I have met so far has been a dick." Maybe it's a sign I need to get out more, but it doesn't invalidate my previous experience.

just because I want pi for my stats doesn't mean I choose numbers at random. It means I like pi!

You're right saying that "every butterfly collector I have met so far has been a dick." Is not bigoted or wrong, it can be a simple factual statement. However, if you don't intend to generalize that to "Butterfly collectors are generally dicks" the entire statement is pointless, just like saying I've never died in a car crash is a pointless statement sure it's true but the anecdotal evidence can't be used to prove the general statement that car accidents don't kill people, just like it can't be used to prove that butterfly collectors are dicks, or that optimizers are a*+%@##s.

If you had a sufficiently large sample size you could make the statement that there appears to be a correlation between people who are butterfly collectors and those who are dicks but given that your knowledge of people who satisfy these conditions likely amounts to less than a hundred out of a population of thousands if not millions I'd say you're nowhere near having a statistically relevant sample size.

As far as wanting your stats to be pi ... sure that's not random, that's idiocy.

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?

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.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Bah! if you think keeping the gold stolen by orcs is morally reprehensible once the orcs have been dispatched (as a fee for the dispatching) then you have a problem with every governments that ever existed in the history of all time (crown lands, taxation, right of way, tolls, etc.)
What if I told you I do?

Then I'd tell you to do your political preaching somewhere besides the gaming table, if I wanted to listen to people b&*+& about real life problems I wouldn't be playing a fantasy game now would I?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
Low damage die, short range compared to other projectile weapons, a move action to load it so you can't use rapid shot or iteratives without a feat tax - which feat you could spend getting proficiency in a better weapon instead. Is it hard to see?

Low damage die - Irrelevant, most of a character's damage comes from static mods and the sling uses the strength mod making it a solid choice for a character lacking bow proficiency who has a decent strength score.

short range - A valid complaint but the effective range is long enough to be useful most of the time as most DMs won't let you pepper an enemy with 4 round of longbow fire at max range at least not in my experience ymmv.

Move action reload - Same as a crossbow which has the same proficiency level and costs money on top of that, on top of which this is only an issue if you have multiple attacks and are therefore a ranged attacker primarily or higher than level 6 in which case you should have just got a bow or used spells if you lacked bow proficiency.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

The game is already stacked in favor of the PC's, not adding round rules that don't exist doesn't make you a dick GM.

You have to make the check, the DC is 10.125. You rolled a 10? You fail. You roll an 11? You succeed. There is no rounding there.

Riiiiight. Sorry I must have missed the part where the PC's have arbitrary control of the entire universe and everything therein. Also as noted in the rounding section it doesn't matter if it asks you directly to round the value "For example, if you are asked to take half of 7, the result would be 3." The example clearly indicates that asking you to take half of something is equivalent to asking you to round.

Additionally @Toz It actually matters 2 halves equal one damage and -.5 hp is unconscious and dying while 0 is disabled and a potential threat.

Also worth noting that nothing in the saves section explicitly states that you are expected to round down damage on a save however the examples provided in other sections clearly indicate that is the case which further supports the idea that being asked to take a fraction is equivalent to being told to round and that unless told otherwise you round down.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:
Personally I see multiclassing as just ways to min/max, has nothing to do with RP or character development. You should be able to build whatever you like with Class, Skills, and Feats.

You know, I was going to do a rather long post pertaining to this... But I just gotta ask....


Seriously. Before I even begin to attempt a reply, I'd like a bit more explanation here. I can't even conceptualize how "Multi-classing has nothing to do with RP or character development"....

I'm going to have to agree with this one, yes my current character could maybe have been done using a single classed character frankly he might have been stronger(mechanically) if I'd done it that way but multiclassing is almost always the most effective way to fulfill a weird RP idea that you have if the game doesn't have a hybrid class that does it for you.

For example until the Magus was released the only way to make a magic swordsman was by taking two classes and then bumping into a prestige class to do it. Even now ideas like a bloodthirsty viking cleric of a war god might be played by mixing Barbarian with Cleric. Powergaming particularly in Pathfinder is usually not benefited by multiclassing and you straight up can't do what you like with feats and skills in a single class a lot of the time. Particularly because for some classes you just don't have skills or feats to spare. I have to just agree with "What?" because that just doesn't make sense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:


Orfamay, there are no rules backing up your views on the restrictions of low int.
There are also no rules backing up your views that a d20 should have numbers lower than 20 written on it. I'm sure you'll consider it a tremendous improvement in your game when I literally never miss a roll again -- and I'm sure the rest of your group will as well.
What the hell are you talking about?

The rules for d20s simply say that a d20 has twenty sides.

They do not specify the numbers to be written on the sides, or that the numbers be different. There is no rule to back up what I assume to be your view that I can't write a '20' on every side of an icosahedron and use it as a d20.

Do the rules say anything about your players not beating you unconscious with their hard back rulebooks and finding a DM who isn't a t%+!?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:
So if you're saying a character must make a DC 10 int check or whatever to "make a judgement call" if he's dumping int, expect to have to make a DC 10 strength check just to move without a walker if you're dumping strength in my game.

How much weight you can carry is explicitly defined under RAW.

Low intelligence is not so well defined, which is why people are so eager to dump the stat. When sitting at the table, they are free to ignore their characters intelligence and can continue to come up with complex ideas and plans.

Except you're wrong. Low intelligence is perfectly defined.

A person with low intelligent has less breadth and depth of training in many skills, he or she is inherently more forgetful and has trouble recalling things that they may have read (takes a penalty to Knowledge skills), is more gullible or easily fooled as to the real value of an object(penalty to Appraise skill), lacks understanding of the craft of spell casting and how it is codified(takes a penalty on spellcraft), has a more difficult time planning and creating things (takes a penalty on craft skills), such a person is less eloquent and has more difficulty learning languages they weren't born into as well as having a harder time deciphering codes or ancient tomes (takes a penalty on linguistics).

Sounds like an awful lot of definition for the consequences of having a low Int score. Now just because you or your gaming group are too lazy to use or allow the use of those skills for anything of relevance doesn't mean they don't exist and don't accurately convey the penalty for having a bad score on their own.

That's like saying that because you ignore the weight capacity rules that Str scores aren't accurately covered and so from now on your character rolls DC10 Str checks to not collapse helplessly anytime he engages in physical activity.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Just tell your GM it's not a super death machine. If he's not willing to even audit your character, he's probably not that great a GM to begin with.

To be fair the DM is probably already putting in more time than the player into the game setup and the DM in question probably has a life outside of the game, making him spend hours going through pdfs, books, faqs, etc to audit your characters might just not be worth the time for him and that's fair imo.

Best bet is bribe the DM, give him some pizza or something to compensate him for his time and make him feel less bad about it. Also go through your stuff and note every book and page number which you take something from and when necessary provide him with the books in question if he doesn't have them on hand.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Domestichauscat wrote:

Dm says: This merchant has every magic item in the game. But he is an ancient golden dragon. I designed him so that if you manage to kill him, you deserve all the stuff he has.

Dm means: Had to make a way so that you couldn't easily steal everything in a magic shop of magicness. If you want to, good freaking luck.

I don't know I'd opt for,

DM says: Are you sure you want to try to steal from this well established magical item shop?

DM means: I'm going to have all your characters get stabbed to death by the roving death squads they hire to keep this king's ransom of magical goods safe if you do this, just try me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:

...(unless you're Ravingdork, who makes interesting concepts that are very effective).

I'm in LA for the summer and have friends who game in LA, so I'm hoping to run The Emerald Spire assuming schedules and interest line up. I'm assuming some people may want to play ACG classes, and some may want to play quirky concepts (dire bat riding halfling cavalier comes to mind). Say for example that there might be a shaman or druid, and someone plays an early-entry mystic theurge so the group has cleric spells. Assume wizard 2/cleric 1/mt X. The mystic theurge will be pretty underpowered until level 6 or 7, a high point buy makes it more workable. Or if a player wants to play a prestige class that is primarily an NPC prestige class- those have great flavor but are generally weaker than base classes.

No offense meant to Ravingdork I like a lot of his character concepts but I've definitely seen characters of his which I felt would not survive the climb to the level where they come into their own as well.

But yeah I can attest that with a higher point buy I'm more liable to play something that is either more MAD, more thematic, or more quirky. I was considering making a twf build that passes it's own crits to itself to use with a big multiplier weapon that I would never have bothered with if our PB wasn't so high. And I did infact go into Noble Scion which definitely would not have happened if I didn't know that the rest of our party wasn't optimizing and if our DM hadn't given us rather ungodly stats.

I think an array is better for this kind of thing than point buy though because it means that while you might have a crazy high PB equivalent you might force SAD classes to be a little more rounded whether they like it or not and it gives MAD classes more bang for their buck than PB might. But other methods work too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

Allowing the rogue to target touch AC would actually free them up to focus more on defense.

Not really. The reason Rogues don't focus on defense isn't because they need to focus on offense but because they need to focus on just getting sneak attacks this doesn't alleviate that issue which means all it does is make the Rogue more inconsistent between when he's sneak attacking and when he's not.

In general I find inconsistency in my character to be annoying at best and intolerable at worst but not everyone agrees with me.

To cap it all off the ability doesn't really make sense in context either since thick hide and being literally made of steel apparently make it no more difficult for the Rogue to find a good place to stick you but only when he sneaks.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the DM doesn't want you to have money you're not going to have money it doesn't matter what you do.

Just scratch off the gold section of your character sheet and pretend there's no such thing when anyone asks you about gold or pay, start spouting communist propaganda at the table. I'd say 50/50 odds the DM gets sick of it and asks you to stop, then explain that communism is perfectly reasonable when there are no reasonable rewards for exceptional work already, and if such rewards were available your character might care more. If he continues his obstinate behavior begin killing and redistributing wealth in the populace to bring down the Bourgeoisie.

This may or may not get you booted from the group though so there is that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How much do they sleep with? Completely up to them.

How much can they sleep with? Pretty much everything.

How much would I have my character sleep in? Well given that the game doesn't have a discomfort mechanic outside of armor I'd say all of it.

If we were being realistic though probably rings are on and maybe amulets, possibly a body/chest slot depending on the item would be worn as a nightshirt of sorts, headbands are probably on, belts would probably be a no although because of the rules I would never remove it so I'd say that's a yes, boots are off probably, gloves are probably off but that's a maybe, bracers are probably off, eyes are almost certainly off. Light armor might be on depending on how militant/wary the character is.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taube wrote:

I think there´re two different things at work here:
1) Too much Meta-Thinking w/o context. Talking about stuff like Tiers doesn´t take into account what actually happens at the game table.
2) Lack of respect for ones co-players. If someone wants to have fun with a class, the gm should provide the appropiate challenges and the other players should respect the niche of that class.

To be honest, when a wizard player would start using a wand of knock, I´d politelly ask him to refrain from the if the rogue player is present, at the second infringement on the rogues niche I´d kick tha wizard player out.

Therefore: There can never be a "weakest" class.

There can never be a weakest class because I'll ban hammer anyone who infringes on the weaklings roles! Sounds like some quality DMing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pocsaclypse wrote:
graystone wrote:
pocsaclypse wrote:
Wouldn't a sorcerer wearing a haramaki and a kilt be wearing medium armor?
Yep. The only thing that it does is slow you down though. There is still no spell fail or armor pent.
I see, because neither the haramaki nor the kilt have acp or spell fail, those zeroes are just added together to stay zero even though the armor is medium. But a character only proficient in medium armor would have to deal with the non proficiency application of acp if he added a kilt to medium armor, right?

Yep. Still neat for people with heavy armor proficiency who don't want to wear full plate for some reason like say too much dex or trying to keep your acp low.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:

There are a lot of people in this thread that think dominate is more like suggestion lol.

A couple things:

1. Vampires are pretty smart, and know how their own ability works. The gm might not know exactly, causing this error. To me that seems like a lame kind of "gotcha", like "Ha ha you didn't know the rules so your vampire acted like he hasn't been a vampire for many years and has no idea how his magic powers work at all! I'm free!". Just retcon it to "Play in the dirt" and no problem there.

2. There is no "not dominated" time, where you get to act normally. You are dominated at all times, which is why you act weird.

3. The range is unlimited, and the vampire only needs to concentrate for 6 seconds a day in order to maintain control.

Welcome to dominate person! Yes, vampires are huge a#&@*&!s and this spell is really, really brutal. Getting it as a standard action is pretty insane when used properly, lol. You are pretty much screwed unless you have some high level magic available. Protection from evil only suppresses it for the duration if you make another save, it doesn't dispel it.

I hate DMs like you just fyi.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Walter Leeuwen wrote:
So a char got killed at level 18+ most encounter can and probably will kill party members, there are spells te repair and prevent that, if they dont use those than it is the party's own doing they get snuffed

So a DM incorrectly used the rules and killed off a party member what a bunch of babies for feeling like that's a s*!$ty thing to do ...

10 people marked this as a favorite.

"After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn" Quote is from the spell entry from dimension door.

You literally couldn't attack the wizard without cheating. So I'm voting dickish move.

Edit: Unless you took the dimensional agility feat. But you didn't say that unless I missed it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good peace keepers: Barbarians make excellent mage killers, Monks are great since they can resist spells and incapacitate the mages without killing them, Inquisitors are good if divine magic isn't illegal. Paladins would be good if you can justify it(hard since most good gods wouldn't sanction enslavement or killing of people because of their birth.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:
Gregory Connolly wrote:
Davick, that is a straw man argument.

Nope. I didn't make an absurd argument, I merely changed the trappings of the one at hand. Wyvern->Man woods -> hall

If you're saying the scenery affects what is good and evil, then no amount of logic will help you. The same could be said if you think it's good for a person to kill one half of a diplomatic meeting.

Would it be good for Obama to shoot Putin at their next Summit?

Except that isn't at all what this would amount to. Good job on missing the point.

This situation would amount to Putin Bombed the US then called a peace summit with California and Texas while talking in a secret code then Obama shows up and shoots him in the face twice. It seems fine to me, no falling imo.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ellis Mirari wrote:

You can always run interferance/distract the enemy a la Aid Other action no matter what you're facing or how unprepared you are for it.

If you don't think being reduced to using the aid other action or "distracting"(and how exactly are you doing this when you're not a threat at all?) isn't being sidelined I don't know what to say.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fair enough. I don't entirely agree, if you've ever read the Dresden Files I feel like planar binding should be more along the lines of Dresden's relationship with the demon in his brain where if you rely on it you're headed right into the clutches of evil and even trying to use it for good is the sort of thing where you need to be prepared to damn yourself every time you do.

Anywho as I stated earlier regarding the OP to get things back on topic, I think wizards are mechanically stronger than sorcs simply by virtue of increased rate of spell progression and non linear spell power growth. That being said I think they're both fun and can be powerful in their own ways.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nearyn wrote:

I urge you to remember the following. According to the CORE RULES, those being CORE only, casting spells with the [evil] descriptor is not an evil action. The paladin book (Champions of purity, I believe it was called) had a section called "evil magic in golarion" or something like that, that spelled out that in Golarion, casting [evil] magic is an evil act.

I'm personally -really- glad that this is not a core rule, so I don't have to house-rule it out of all of my games, because it is just the stupidest, most nonsensical ruling ever. If you doubt it, go find Ashiel's response to SKR stating that casting [evil] magic is an evil act, and watch her spin arguments that just completely, utterly -DESTROY- any semblance of reason SKR and half the thread try to muster in the defense of this bad, bad ruling :)

I'm not joking, she obliterates that ruling on a subatomic level, spelling out clearly and precisely, why it is an absolute nonsense ruling. It's a good read.


*Shrug* the precedent is clearly set and in Golarion(the assumed setting for most of PFs extended rules which people use on the forums and the setting in which the PF gods dictate whether or not a Paladin falls instead of pure DM fiat) the use of evil spells is evil.

That being said I think certain spells shouldn't be classed as evil but some spells are definitely evil. And if you think summoning demons shouldn't be evil I could point out one of a million stories and real life examples of where the summoning and communing with demons is pretty much universally considered evil.

Logically speaking I can't see any reason why the gods of good would be like "Well sure he's summoning demons that could get loose and kill and spread evil throughout the world but if he had to do his dishes and make a sammich with his own power why that would be truly evil!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rorek55 wrote:

remember brawler gives +1/+3 so the gloves should give +2/+6 (they double the stuff right?)

also, my bad, for some reason I thought fang was a swift action. brain derp, still you can only take 1 immediate action a turn so eh, without combat reflexs you only get snake fang 1/round anyway

also remember the nice thing about MoMS is, once you have the style, you don't need to get the rest of the trees in order, you could very well go snake style, then take snake fang as your MoMS feat without sidewinder (or whatever the other one was called.)

Rorek you really need to fact check before you claim things.

Drinking does not provoke, "The act of drinking is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity." Directly out of the drunken master drunken ki entry.

Also the gloves do not double anything they increase the bonus from weapon training by +2

Edit: Additionally panther explicitly calls out getting attacks back only due to movement not due to any action which provokes. "when an opponent makes an attack of opportunity against you for moving through a threatened square,"

2 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:

remember folks, the AoMF isnt *required* anymore since the clockwork prosthesis is out--it costs regular to enchant, and can go up to +10 like any other weapon. main issue is that it's 6k, meaning that you'll have to wait for quite a few levels to get one.

if youre stuck using an AoMF because you DM is a terrible person, for higher levels the monk's robe isnt terribly useful anymore--it's effects cap at effective monk level 20, you can wear a bodywrap of mighty strikes (yes, yes, heresy i know) to add more effects (like, say, holy and courageous) to 4 attacks, generally the first four since they're more likely to hit.

keep the AoMF at a flat +5 enhancement, and use the bodywraps for auxiliary effects.


1) You didn't want to play robocop and cut off all your limbs to make your monk work


2) You know that in a month or two they're going to make it so that prosthetics don't count for unarmed strikes because if they were going to nerf Brass Knuckles into oblivion why not do the same to fake arms?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

A buffed inquisitor with unimpressive strength and a one-handed weapon and no Power Attack might have 4.5 (weapon) +14 (greater bane) +4 (judgement) + 3 (bardic performance) + 2 (good hope) + 4 (divine favor) + 4 (strength) + 5 (bane enhancement) = 40.5 per hit. Enough to still be fairly effective against DR 15. (And using standard DR rules his bane weapon is effectively +5 and therefore overcomes DR/alignment etc.)

A couple of notes:
SR is not the equivalent of DR. SR is the equivalent of AC. Energy Resistance is the equivalent of DR. (Although DR can be harsher, because DR/Silver is the equivalent of Energy Resistance: everything but Acid, and casters always have options that don't involve energy damage.)

Some people have implied that rogues need to overcome DR to deliver sneak damage. This is not true. Sneak damage is just damage and can be used to overcome DR.

I was thinking of stunning fist when I was talking about conditional on hit effects but that's besides the point.

As for the Inquisitor in question yeah with the best buffing class in the game spending a whole turn setting up party buffs as well as you spending one entire round and a second swift setting up personal buffs you can get up to 40.5 for a maximum of 14 rounds a day(I do recall saying one of the ways to do that is to be buffed to the gills) but not every party includes a bard and not every one handed weapon user comes with a boat load of self buffing abilities and not every fight with DR is going to be against a mook. And on top of that 14 rounds is not an insignificant amount but it is definitely low enough that you're going to need to be sparing with the use of those bane rounds if you don't want to regret it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just say your character tripped while getting dressed and died on his own dagger then "reroll" the same character with a different name to show why people don't roll hp at level 1 anymore.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Why do you hate martials?

One of them probably had a lucky crit, and killed his father. Incidentally his name is Inigo Montoya.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Eh, I like DR. A lot of people do. But I suggest you make a new thread for that--or, better yet, dig up one of the many threads I'm sure have been made over the subject.

Why make a new thread when it's completely relevant to the conversation at hand? Also please elaborate on why you think DR is good for the game?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

And how would you defeat vital strikes and charges, which this ability completely nerfs? The Vital Strike chain is longer and has a higher investment then Crane Wing!


Vital strike is already a trash line of feats in 95% of conditions if Paizo intends to balance around it I may as well burn my books and find a new gaming system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion it is not the case that refusing to accept surrender is dishonorable conduct.

Based on what I believe to be the most applicable definition of honorable which is to say the least subjective one. It is honorable to uphold any terms which you accept, it is not dishonorable to refuse to accept them. Essentially it would be dishonorable to accept the surrender and then shiv them once they drop their weapons, but to tell them "Pick up your weapon and die like a man!" That's fine in my book.

It's not snuggley wuggley nice levels of good but that's not what honor is all about.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:

I meant in the sense of "how do brass knuckles improve the damage of a kick".

Ah I misunderstood sorry. But what Rynjin said sums it up, this is a universe full of magic why is it perfectly logical that a necklace makes you kick harder but a pair of magical gauntlets or handwraps or brass knuckles doing it is unthinkable.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:

Now, now, "losing" isn't the proper PC term! They were aggressively winning in reverse!

As for on-topic, I'm not understanding how it is CW stays relevant at higher levels while the mirror spell does not. CW faces the exact same problems in that enemies are far more likely to have counters to it at higher levels.

Shhhh don't point out the glaring logical fallacies to people who don't want to acknowledge that as long as you aren't playing the game directly copy pasted out of a book that it's tremendously easy to work around a CW PC it hurts the poor GMs feelings when you tell him he actually has to do work.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samuel Stone wrote:

It has to hit twice. And that's assuming it has multiple attacks with grab attached to 'em. If a monster's core schtick is to chomp down on its prey, make a free grab attack, and then swallow whole the next round, the old CW renders that strategy ineffective.

And then what's the point of space whales?

Attacks are always resolved sequentially the fact that you can see if a monster dies mid full attack and move(if after one attack) or resolve the remainder of your attacks against other monsters supports this fact.

In which case slam him with 3 or 4 non grab attacks first if he ignores them he takes damage maybe for nothing since you don't necessarily land the hay maker anyways and if he doesn't then you get to use the monster's trick. Seriously smart play by the DM really is a huge counter for CW.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

if you have a monster with one attack, it's hosed. Even if that attack is a Vital Strike.

You're playing a high AC character. Generally, monsters are only going to hit such on a 14+ or better.

That means secondary attacks are 16+ or 19+ to hit. And you take no damage, or so little it doesn't mean anything.

Functional invulnerability is what you have. trying to hit something with 28 AC with your +12/+7 to hit monster is an exercise in frustration. When you do hit, and the WIng takes it out, that's worse.

The problem doesn't get that much better with scaling, if you take care to keep AC high...tertiary attacks are meaningless, and the PC's have more tools for keeping monsters to fewer attacks.

From the GM's standpoint, it's incredibly frustrating to not be able to use melee tools. You'd get the same frustration from a character immune to spells - 'Oh, I'll just melee them' doesn't erase the sense of uselessness, especially if the character then takes steps with the rest of the party to defend against other tactics.

It's still an Ugh moment.


Don't use a single monster with a single attack? Use two monsters or one monster with 2 attacks. Also most monsters have natural attacks rather than secondaries sometimes their entire attack routine will have no -5 penalties whatsoever.

If you're the DM, you have infinite resources to work with, not using them is quite simply laziness on your part. If you want to whine about that that's fine but don't pretend the game is broken because you have to actually put in some effort and think instead of looking at the first CR X creature in the bestiary and copy pasting it into your campaigns.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, but those are extremely specialized PC builds.

The GM doesn't have to put up with Feint Builds. He has to put up with Crane Wing. Wee bit of difference here.

If you had to put up with every monster having crane wing, like every monster has to put up with your PC having it, you might see things a little differently.


Boohoo poor GM has to not use extremely boring, lazy, and linear fights pulled right out of the bestiary my heart bleeds for them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
As I pointed out earlier Wakedown pathfinder isn't a game that really holds up for a pure story driven experience...

In the cases I've seen it used, it has held up fairly well for a "mostly story driven experience". It's not quite exactly what I mean (it's a step in between) - but I've heard a lot of stories from Library of the Lion sessions this past week where folks were amazed that you could sit down and play Pathfinder without combat. I have yet to see that adventure firsthand, but my intuition tells me a stereotypical rogue would do quite well in it?

gnomersy wrote:
.. there are just plain old better systems to do that in.
Absolute, total agreement. I fear it may never catch fire, but 13th Age takes a nice step towards story and away from rules while maintaining a balance for both camps of gamers.

While I agree that you can do it in PF(like fitting a round peg into a square hole) the question is why do that in a system that only pseudo supports it. Why fill in pages of skill points stat arrays feats and what not, only to ignore them?

I really enjoy story driven games I've even played a few sessions in PF where we don't throw down but for the most part you end up ignoring stats in that case in which case why is the Rogue better at this than everyone else? Raw skill points? But if you don't roll what makes that important? If I want to just roleplay a Rogue/Rake/Swashbuckler character why can't I do that with any other class?

1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.