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

1,730 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,730 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Lincoln Hills wrote:
MageHunter wrote:
...1st level campaign where the GM would threaten to send a Froghemoth after us. I normally use Tarrasques.

Make it doubly memorable by delivering the Tarrasque through orbital insertion.

What I find particularly ludicrous about the player's excuse is that it's really, really uncommon for a group of PCs to achieve 100% treasure recovery on a dungeon. People miss rooms, overlook hidden compartments, monsters run away. If I were trying to 'help' or 'make things easy' I'd definitely keep a loot list, but I wouldn't be downloading any files to make sure 'the GM didn't forget any loot'.

I suppose you could apologize to the honest players, explain the next two adventures will have no treasure at all, and explain that you're just following wealth-by-level guidelines after Player A 'made a clerical error', but why pussyfoot around? Tell him he didn't 'help', and if he wants to 'help' and stay in the group he'll delete this bogus list and employ the list of items legitimately acquired. Which is a shame because he won't get to include the twin sun blades you had tucked in an extra, unofficial room.

Eh we honestly have no idea what's going on based on the OP's statements the player made a loot list including all the loot from the AP and claims it was permitted but we don't necessarily know what that list was for. For example this could have easily been a preliminary step to printing out loot flashcards so that the DM could hand them out whenever they were found. Alternatively he could have been trying to check to see what the players had found vs what they had bought because of how the party dealt with loot splitting when they sell items. This issue could have much more to it than we know based on the tiny bit of information we received.

Was this his personal inventory list that magically sprouted new items they never found or is the cheating in question just him having foreknowledge of the AP because he looked through the AP to write up a loot list?

Mind you, you still run into the guy having read the AP issue but that's not really a huge deal since there are plenty of times you have a player who's either played or GM'd an AP before and knows more than they ought to.

As far as how you deal with it I personally think that just following an AP straight out of the book is always a bad call. It's the easiest way to GM but it means the encounters are always balanced wrong for your party, the loot may or may not be any good for them, there could be roleplaying problems that shouldn't come up if you built the encounters, and you run into cheating/knowledge issues like this.

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.

Damagecrab wrote:

I just got the orientation from the DM:


So he could have stepped to the right (his left as he faced south) and avoided the Tank.

Okay and did he step backwards away from the the enemy after casting instead or did he just stand still? Because if he backed away it makes some sense if he stands still not so much.

@ MageHunter - Says who? "The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not." From Faiths of Purity part of the Paladin's Code for Sarenrae. Just because you're good doesn't mean you don't kill people when you feel like the situation warrants it.

Someone up thread said that in the situation there is a reason the women are attacking the PCs but the OP hasn't told us if the characters know that reason yet. As such all they know is that these people have jumped them before and tried to kill them, they're enemies there isn't any reason to keep them alive unless you want to interrogate them.

The OP also said that the party told the sneaky person to "go deal with them" "deal with them" is very commonly used as a euphemism to kill somebody, without further explanation it would be reasonable for the character to assume they wanted the potential threat dead.

Damagecrab wrote:
gnomersy wrote:

Lay out the positioning this statement doesn't help at all.


O's being empty spaces X's being enemies T being your Tank and E being your so called evil party member. Was this roughly the scenario?

Sorry, I can't remember. I just remember hearing him tell the player he could've avoided it and the player declined, saying something about his character wouldn't care. I know that doesn't help.

*sigh* Well that certainly sounds like the player is playing an evil character with complete disregard for the lives of his allies.

However, if you look at the layout I changed above, a 5ft step to avoid the Tank would allow for two enemies to attack the caster via their own 5ft steps, staying where he was would only allow one enemy to do so. Alternatively if he cast flaming hands where he was and 5ft stepped backwards he could avoid any 5ft steps and attacks from his enemies.

It's entirely possible that a character values his own life above that of his allies and that's understandable, a little evil but understandable.

Damagecrab wrote:

He wasn't in danger, nor would he have been had he moved. He would have hit only the 2 enemies had he taken it and chose not too, even after it was explained to him.

Lay out the positioning this statement doesn't help at all.


O's being empty spaces X's being enemies T being your Tank and E being your so called evil party member. Was this roughly the scenario?

Eh his argument was pretty lack luster but if you find an unarmed woman sleeping in a dungeon full of female thieves who you've been attacked by it's a reasonable conclusion to reach that she is one of said thieves and as such an enemy it's still pretty s$$~ty to not check but you could justify it. Also when you ask someone to "deal" with an enemy what do you think is going to happen?

Was there a reason he didn't 5ft step? He'd have to be casting in threat, or he'd hit fewer enemies, or he'd be in a more dangerous position? If not, is there a valid reason he'd want to in character kill the tank?

Now that being said simply acting in an evil manner occasionally is not a reason for an alignment shift. A chaotic neutral character will act evilly and goodly over the course of his life. Just like a fundamentally good person will have done something scummy over his life either on accident or on purpose. And even a fundamentally evil person is liable to do something good at some point in their lives. It sounds like a few isolated incidents so far and one of which is justifiable if it becomes a constant thing he might have to be alignment shifted but that's up to your DM.

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.

Rennaivx wrote:
For something a bit different, you might consider an oracle with the streets mystery or a shaman with the slums spirit. It's definitely different from a rogue or slayer, but it can help to fill the magic niche if your group's lacking it and gives some really neat flavor.

Hmm interesting streets mystery seems alright slums spirit seems weak but I've never tried to make a Shaman so I have no idea how that pans out.

Honestly if I end up playing a divine caster I'm hoping my GM would let me play a Tiefling Outer Rifts mystery Oracle although that would depend on if they fit the campaign.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

That's probably generally true, but it doesn't prohibit an exception to the rules for story purposes.

Definitely and if I felt like the character just screamed at me to be an inquisitor I'd run it anyways and find an excuse for why he ended up an inquisitor without all the training.

But for me that kind of character would have much deeper ties to religion or at least an ideal than this common cuttpurse has.

I mean we're talking a kid who stole to feed himself and because he had nobody to fall back on and no real skills and just ended up on the wrong side of the law.

I mean I could work in a story to make him an Inquisitor but I'd be stretching the character and it might just be better to change it entirely so that while I'd fill the same mechanical role I wouldn't have the same roleplaying roots, yknow?

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Psychic Detective would definitely work if you want more 'sorcerer-like' casting.

Inquisitor doesn't have to be any older than any other Class, or involve formal training. Maybe he just found resonance with a particular deity, who made a job offer.

Arya Stark, if she existed in Golarion, would probably last about 5 minutes before she got a vision of Calistria and became an Inquisitor (or at least was offered such power) for example.

Hmm I suppose. I've always assumed Inquisitors are at least associated and affiliated with the Church even though they aren't in the hierarchy. And as such I expect that there would be more of a training period mastering the psalms, memorizing the code of conduct, learning the laws of the church, tenets of your god, and then some arms training. This is at least possibly supported by the fact that on the random starting ages chart they fall under the trained category which is the oldest of the three.

Bomanz wrote:
Street rat? Riff raff?

Soundrel! Take that!

There is also the possibility of cramming in at least 5 levels of Bolt Ace into one of the builds. Don't know if that would be worth while but it would give the character a good ranged option and that might work with the Slayer if I built it on Dex.

I like Half Orcs and there are definitely some advantages in them. The Strength style build fits them thematically although amusingly I think maxing out the Sacred Tattoo bonus fits best into the Dex build since the fighter levels give you enough feats to feel okay with spending one just to get Fate's Favored. I don't know if it would fit as well into one of the other two options.

Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor I dunno I don't hate the idea in general but it seems awkward on a street kid character unless I fast forward a lot and/or mess with the story.

Eldritch Scoundrel seems more likely I might see if that would work with my GM although the prepared spell casting with a spell book seems awkward in this case.

Investigator hmmm I don't really like it for the base character for the same reason as the above it would make more sense later on but the Psychic Detective definitely sounds much more promising particularly if psychic powers are more native and sorcerer-esque than alchemy.

EDIT: I suppose I didn't mention the possibility of a Ninja so that's also a possibility although I don't know if that's better than an Unchained Rogue and I'd have to refluff ki to something less eastern.

Hi everyone. I believe we're almost done with our current campaign and we might end up rolling up a new one at a low level probably 1-3.

I would like to be prepared to fill any roll we might need although not all in one character.

I know at least one of my friends was hoping to play a pirate so in the interest of something that could fit into that I'm hoping to play a street rat of sorts. I have a couple of ideas but I figured I'd see the general response before writing up anything all the way out to 20. Ideally the character is young 13-15 although statted up as an adult for simplicity often a thief sometimes a cuttpurse but resorts to cutting throats in a pinch. Maybe freed by aforementioned pirate from slave life rowing on a royal ship?

Build guide wise we have 20 points for point buy, all standard races, all classes in the normal book line(not necessarily stuff from the companion series but I could ask), no free traits (but you can take the feat for them). And starting at level 1.

So option 1 - Unchained Rogue - Built off of Dex at least up to 3 levels maybe splashing into Fighter(Lorewarden or Mutation Warrior) afterwards.

Option 2 - Slayer - probably strength based maybe going into the two weapon fighting ranger tree via talents. Kind of a flavor fail because your average street rat isn't benching 300lbs but seems effective overall.

Option 3 - Urban Ranger/ Trapper Ranger - Either one could be going into TWF and has the same issues as the Slayer thematically both can be strong although the Trapper ability is way worse than spells and the Urban Ranger communities ability seems way worse than favored terrain imo.

Anybody got ideas on this, feel free to offer up alternatives in terms of classes if you think of them but no Bards(I'm aware of the Archaeologist but this isn't what I'm looking for for this character). Race wise I assumed human but if another race is superior let me know your reasoning and maybe I'll swap.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Gauss wrote:

You do not have to give up your Wisdom and Charisma boosters to use the Phylactery of Positive Channeling. Just combine them for +50% price tag of one of them. After all, your Headband of Mental Prowess (Wisdom and Charisma) is also the result of the rule below.

CRB p553 wrote:

Adding New Abilities

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
Which isn't allowed in PFS. Which is why he said in a home game you could combine them.

Are the stacking stat. Ioun stones legal in PFS? Because that would be a more expensive option if you really really wanted to get it.

31. The dice gods hath opposed thee!

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
jedi8187 wrote:
Not actually necessary with a light shield or buckler: they leave your hand free.

I see a martial weapon named "shield, light", do you instead me the "Shield, light wooden" or "Shield, light steel"?

What do these look like? How tall are they? I'm all about aesthetics. Things have to look a certain way (I'm extremely picky).

A light shield is what you would think of when you look at a normal round shield strapped to the arm think Captain America's shield. A buckler is a small 8-15 inch round Shield held in the hand with a boss(a round depression where the hand is to allow for more room also useful as a punching weapon) technically but in game terms it is also strapped the arm. A heavy shield would be a kite shield or a larger round shield roughly, larger strapped to the arm on one end and held by a strap in the hand on the other. These would be 15 inches across or larger much more unwieldy.

Light shields are separated into wooden and steel, think Viking shields for traditional wooden varieties and again Captain America's for the steel variety.

The game doesn't really specify the aesthetic of the shield though so keep the classifications in mind and make up your own.

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

It sounds like bad design that allows one class to do the common skills of another class better than that other class?

*shrug* Life isn't perfect and neither are the rules, deal with it.

But seriously the vanilla Rogue in Pathfinder was a hold over from 3rd ed with all the loopholes which made it situationally powerful removed from the game. It does very little well at all and almost none of that is better than some alternative choice.

For example: the Unchained Rogue(like the vanilla Rogue but actually has the ability to fight and gets dex to damage for free at level 3), the Slayer (see above minus the dex thing), Archeologist Bard(Rogue but with 6 levels of spell casting and a consistent self buff instead of the inconsistent sneak attack), Urban Ranger(Rogue-ish but with spell casting and city based bonuses), Trapper Ranger(Pretty much a Rogue but better in combat and with better saves and mostly better abilities but trades out spell casting for making traps which kinda suck and doesn't have sneak attack), Vivisectionist(weird murder alchemist I don't know about this one personally but I've heard people pick it instead of Rogue), Investigator(Smarter, spell having Rogue).

So on and so forth. There are way too many classes and archetypes that have a Rogue-ish element to them but are just functionally more useful to a party than having a Rogue in them for me to ever suggest that someone should play a vanilla Rogue.

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

I remember reading about the ranks can't exceed levels. I thought I read something that allowed for the rank to be +1 higher than usual. Maybe a human trait? I can fix that, not an issue.

So if the concern is with the skills I chose, what skills would a rogue choose instead?

I'm uncertain as to why my concept works better as another class. My concept is based on rogue-skills. What does a rogue do that my concept doesn't?

The concern isn't with the skills you chose it's the fact that skills are the weakest of all abilities.

Let's look at two hypothetical characters one is a Rogue with 8 ranks of stealth and a 20 Dex said Rogue has 8 Ranks +3 because it's a Class skill +5 Dex = +16 Stealth, not bad right?

Now consider another character say a Wizard or Bard with 0 Ranks in stealth 10 Dex and the Invisibility spell tossed onto themselves because they can cast it. Suddenly they have +20 Stealth or +40 if they're just hiding in a room.

Now lets look at that same Bard with a 16 Dex and a 16 Cha and 8 Ranks in the Perform Skill that lines up with Stealth via versatile performance 8 Ranks + 3 Class skill + 3 for Cha = +14 to Stealth and then if he needs to he tacks on Invis. for a +34 or +54. Now neither of these characters really put in any crazy effort in fact they could both be trying much harder to max out these skills but that's not really the point.

And then there's the fact that in combat that bard is being at least 2 times more useful than the Rogue even if the vanilla Rogue is built optimally. If that Rogue is built with the idea of not being a combat character, the Bard is easily pushing 3 maybe even 4 times the effectiveness because he's giving a party wide 10-15% damage buff on attacks just by using Inspire. Tag on the fact that said bard can also cast a buff like Heroism or Haste and can still be a pretty solid archer and you're talking 25%+ increase in combat power party wide.

Most other character options have their own ways of overshadowing the vanilla Rogue.

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Adrian Parker 563 wrote:
Well, I don't own the book, so I can't read it. Fair enough?
Heyooooo! Hooooooo!

Ok, let's go there.

I said I don't like the Bard because it performs. His reply is no they don't, and commented on 15 years experience.

From the book then:

"Bardic Performance: A bard is trained to use the
Perform skill to create magical effects on those around
him, including himself if desired. He can use this
ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his
Charisma modifier."

ya, that's exactly what I said I didn't like, and he threw 15 years experience in my face saying this wasn't part of the Bard class.

Pay attention. Look at the archetypes specifically the ones listed like Archeologist they're all on that website.

Furthermore just because a class gains the ability to perform doesn't mean it has to do so. In fact even without performance a Bard is a better non combat focused character than a Rogue.

And there's also the fact that your "performance" can be one of many things: Inspiring speeches in combat (Perform Oratory), a blade dance(Perform: Dance), an inspiring song/poetry(Perform Sing), or playing an instrument.

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.

1 to 50 of 1,730 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.