|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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?
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.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Well what would we do if we didn't gut half the classes and fighting styles in the game?
I love when the dev team makes the wrong decisions too. Often times they realize they made a crap decision and fix it later too like the reach debacle they used for attacks of opportunity.
Honestly I don't see it. Yes you end up with slightly more AC which is nice but trading killing potential for damage isn't doing anybody else in your party a favor.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
You do know that less than and greater than are math functions, yes?
X>Y is expressed as X-Y>0 or in this case X/2>Y => X/2 - Y >0 oh but that math is simple so you ignore that you're doing math and use a "yes" "no" system. Yes but you're determining that using math. If using math you need values if you're using fractional values you must round down unless told otherwise sooooo yeah not seeing it.
I have to agree here. I mean most experienced players already have a decent idea what is a "good" to hit or AC or Will save by level X. As long as you aren't scouring the bestiary for special abilities and specifics on monsters, I wouldn't call this so much metagaming, as optimizing or build theorizing.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Except pi isn't nonsense in normal mathematics it is a value a real value. In pathfinder 2.5 is not real it does not exist nothing in the game functions at 2.5 it is as real as "i" is in normal math, just because it exists on a number line outside of the game doesn't mean that it exists in the game. Why do you assume you're allowed to use .5 when nothing else in the game tells you you can? Am I allowed to take .5 levels because nothing tells me I can't? How about .5 skill points again nothing says I can't? Or how about .5 DC's on saves nothing says I round those before people make their saves?
If you want to ignore the rounding rules go ahead just stop rounding everything else instead and accept that you just wanted to make the game a pain in the ass.
You know this assumption that just because you're comparing you don't need to follow the associated math baffles me.
I'm not saying you're wrong but if I ask you what is larger 2 or the complex value i you still need to evaluate the values realize that something does not exist in the same sphere of math as the other and then your calculation collapses because you're comparing nonsense to a number.
@Malachi - Actually your assumption that PF in general doesn't care about using fractional values mid calculation on the basis of Hitpoints is inherently flawed because the chart which informs you how to calculate those average hit points expressly states that you round after multiplication not before which means that would be the case for hitpoints regardless of standard convention which is why using hit points doesn't really prove anything whatsoever.
If you're talking about the average dice rolls section that's intended for GM use in applying an average hp similar to what one would attain from rolling dice and more importantly it explicitly states in that chart to round down after multiplying.
Uhhhhh establishing DCs is incredibly relevant because it's the equivalent of adding one to the DCs because the person rolling wins on tie so 14.5 if used as a fraction is DC 15 if they can only use integer numbers on their saves.
For a further example of rounding without it ever being stated to do so. "Magic traps permit a saving throw in order to avoid the effect (DC 10 + spell level × 1.5)" ... "Fireball Trap: ... DC 14 Reflex save ..."
Spell level for a fireball is 3, 3x1.5 = 4.5, DC =/= 14.5 clearly rounded down but never told that you should.
Indeed they ought to if you were to use that janky opinion on rules. I personally don't believe it's the right one based on the evidence I have seen but I'm not the game devs so I can't tell you for certain.
If only 25.5 got you more on a knowledge check than 25. :(
It might if the creature in question has a CR of 5.5 and you also don't round that! Which is why I said it's not an issue if you're consistent but if you inconsistently use the rules only to benefit yourself you're just being arbitrary and that is the most unpleasant kind of DM imo.
You're right but you're not going to find your rules support on the page either.
In fact looking through the rules on dealing damage it never explicitly states that you should be dealing rounded down damage when using two hands on a weapon but the stat blocks and examples provided throughout the rest of the game do so.
I'm making my assertion based on the fact that the rest of the game rules already in use only make sense if you assume that my assertion is true. Otherwise we should all be calculating half damages on spells and weapons, half hit points, half experience monsters for half levels, half squares for reach weapons, half squares for range increments etc.
The game never tells you to do any of that not even circuitously like my supposed "ah-ha" sentence does.
When in doubt use the least nonsensical answer if they release a FAQ that says otherwise then sure I'll play it that way but until they do so the way I've suggested simply makes more sense.
The qualifier isn't lost however you can't assume that everything in the same paragraph is qualified. If it were to be you should explicitly refer to the qualifier in a qualified statement. For example, if rounding half of 7, the answer is 3. Would be a better wording in the event that they wanted it to be qualified. And what I am asserting is that any event in which you are told to take a fraction is the equivalent of being told to round.
@Fretgod99 - Also the fact that they FAQ'd the post in which you commented earlier and the FAQ explicitly changed the language of the feat from +1/2xdmg to use 2x for Dragon Style implies there is a functional difference which means you would have to round, but the rules don't say that, it's implied within the game system.
Actually that's not true.
Due to the independence of the statements in the Rounding: section as noted by the use of periods each of those statements are separate "Occasionally the rules ask you to round ..." "Unless otherwise stated, always round down." and "For example, if you are asked to, 'Take half of 7, the result would be 3.'" are all independent of one another if they weren't the structure of the sentence would be different.
Which is why the rule is clear that taking half of something or dividing in general is an example of being told to round. As I noted nothing in the fireball, spell, or saves entries tells you to round damage and yet examples of damage dealt by spells clearly indicates you were meant to round. Why? Because it told you divide the damage.
Because the example provided explicitly doesn't tell you to round and one very common occurrence where we know we are expected to round also doesn't tell you to round however uses the same wording?
And yet when providing the example for when you are being asked to round the rule states "For example, if you are asked to take half of 7, the result would be 3." This is an example of being asked to round as far as the game is concerned.
The supporting evidence is clear that in the event of damage and the like you are expected to round and it does not explicitly say that any where in the book in fact the vast vast majority of things in the game do not explicitly tell you to round and the ones which do are usually exceptions stating either a minimum value or rounding up rather than down.
Which supports the fact that being told to take a fraction at any point is an example of being told to round.
You can choose to ignore the fairly obvious intent of the rules and do it your own way it's called houserules and there's nothing wrong with it if you're consistent but it's stupid and a headache and as noted most things in the game don't explicitly tell you to round.
Dave Justus wrote:
It never says that though. And as noted in the example in that very same block of text if it asks you to take half of a value it is telling you to round. The wording makes it pretty damn clear.
Prince Yyrkoon wrote:
It's also worth noting that that point is also idiotic because the grit entry states that it can't be any "less" than a 1/2 HD creature since there are no 1/2 HD creature and you would round 1/2 HD to 0 anything with a higher hit dice than zero(aka everything) is a valid target to regain grit from.
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.
So I can round up my damage dice for half damage in your games right after all 16.5>16 that just makes sense.
Honestly I don't get what all the hub bub is about whenever you take a fraction you round and you always round down that's pretty much been PF's standard protocol if you want to always round up that's fine too but if you choose to only round up when it benefits you as the GM and force the players to always round down to their detriment it's more like you're just being an a%&&!~~.
As far as running half your level as a hard value, fine but from now on as GM you're obligated to roll on a chart determining the starting XP of every monster after all it just doesn't make sense that every monster starts exactly at a given level and it's only fair that you represent that and keep track of it for every single kobold out of that band of 30 because you made it relevant now.
Dual Wielding Large, Spiked, Bashing Heavy Shields with Shield Master?
A reason to fix Shield Master not a reason to ban this feat also you can't wear improperly sized armor so you lose the armor bonus from the shield which makes it pretty darn mediocre.
Well it's not actually that great in my opinion.
The -2 penalty to hit is a 10% damage reduction essentially, and the size increase on a weapon goes up by roughly 1.5 to 2 damage per die increased 1d4=2.5dmg 1d6=3.5dmg 1d8=4.5 1d10=5.5 2d6=7.
So lets say this lets you go from 1d10 to 2d8 you go from 5.5dmg to 9 dmg average. If you go from 2d6 to 3d6 you go from 7dmg to 10.5. That means in both cases you traded -2 to hit for 3.5 damage, based on power attack scaling that is sub par and most people only opt for power attack when they're getting -1 to hit for every +3 to damage. The value only decreases as your base damage increases since you can't do damage if you never hit.
Overall I'd say it's a neat feat meant for silly character ideas who don't want to take levels in Barbarian, but in terms of balance there is no pressing need to disallow the feat.
Soft touch folks, 3rd party isn't automatic disqualification, it just has to pass an extra drug test.
For some tables yes for others no. If we knew that the players DM had okay'd the 3PP feats and ruled for him in the shady rules area of flanking attacks at range it would be fine albeit still not really Ew worthy just pretty good.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Hardy still isn't a feat. And lets compare that to an average 20th level caster for a baseline?
Because I played an Iksar in EQ and want to live out the glory days. Because I had a lizardman army in Warhammer and I need an excuse to use some of the models I have laying around gathering dust. Because everyone wants to be a dragon and lizardmen are a good base for a half dragon or cursed dragon character. Those are the ones that pop to mind first for me.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
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.
The main reasons not to multiclass are pretty obvious.
If you're a caster, don't multiclass and lose caster levels.
If you're a specialized martial dependent on a scaling class feature like Barbarians, Monks, any sort of combat maneuver build etc. Multiclassing weakens you in general unless it's done as a dip into just the right class at the right time.
Some people find multiclassing to be an issue because you suddenly acquire skills. And to be frank that's a fair issue to have but the reason it's even an issue is because people are overpacing their campaigns. Not in terms of player time because obviously we don't all want to sit around and role play 6 months of downtime in depth. But the fact is at least at my gaming table we have pretty much no downtime built in. We've leveled 3 or 4 times and we've known each other for about a week and a half. It's up to your DM to manage this properly so that progression feels natural and while it's easier to look at a character go from almost an apprentice to an Archmage in the span of maybe 6 months in game time and just think oh well he was always just casting spells, that's not any more realistic than a Rogue who randomly picks up spellcasting one day.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
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~~*?
Orfamay Quest wrote:
To be fair we wouldn't be sitting at the same table once you said "You're just going to have to play with that 4 that you rolled." That is pretty much a cue from a bad DM that I should flip the table toss a grenade over it and run.
Intelligence is inherently subjective look up the theory of multiple intelligence's and read about how imprecise the use of IQ is to measure intelligence. When you find a way to provide a cold hard statistical chart for human intelligence come back, until then, "you got nothin'"
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.
4th ed rules for the start and end in concealment stealth thing iirc.
With a new DM I'd say he'd hunt them down because he doesn't know if you're cheating or just wrong about the rules so he'd want to check them all.
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.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Uhhh and a lot of people wouldn't (cremation) and that's ignoring the fact that it's eminently practical in the universe.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If they're paying for true resurrection there is no reason not to destroy the body before hand so why aren't the priests doing that?
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.
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.
If levels in Rogue were worth taking you'd see people taking them anyways like with fighter levels and all of their primary features having been passed around to other classes.
Note things like Magus, EK, Sohei, I think a Barbarian archetype etc all get access to "fighter levels" or things like Weapon Training and Armor Training.
I don't even think the fighter is that good but it's certainly more worth a dip than the Rogue is.
Frankly the real issue with the Rogue is that their only combat ability is situational and mediocre and conflicts with the lack of accuracy on the rest of their kit, and that Rogue Talents, unlike any other classes Feat equivalents, are pretty much universally worse than just having extra feats.
If you want to use an old EQ 1 example it's worth noting that often you had Wizards, Mages, Necros, Shadow Knights, Monks, Enchanters, and other classes infringing on their role as a scout and often those classes were valued more highly than the Rogue because of party dynamics(needed a tank, needed burst DPS, needed a puller, etc.)
And on top of that, that in EQ 1 Rogues were among the highest DPS classes in the game when they had good weapons on their hands, additionally EQ had an agro system which allowed "Tanks" to actually exist while they don't in Pathfinder and as such each Rogue can get pounded into a fine paste by an angry monster in each fight.
This isn't a solution to the Rogue's problems in Pathfinder, no offense. And they aren't unusually good at doing the other roles you specified, they have the same bonuses everyone does unless they are built to optimize for it in which case they have absolutely no value in combat unlike many other classes who can benefit from specializing towards that both in combat and out of it.
AFAIK he can't. The game doesn't support downgrading moves or standards into swifts so that isn't an option ... I suppose if he could get access to timestop somehow he'd have a couple bonus rounds to use swifts in but overall it's not an option unless I missed something.
A - E ) Yes you can always do your actions in any order you choose and you possess 1 swift one move and one standard per round a 5 ft step is a non action which is exclusive of other movement that round, and a full attack takes one move and one standard action, hence any combination of those is valid.
"You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round." (d20pfsrd.com)
You can also 5 ft step during your full attack should you choose if say you kill the enemy next to you and want to resolve the rest on a nearby enemy.
F) Probably? "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: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions."
G) Only one swift or Immediate they are called out in the core rules as being the same thing only the Immediate can be done outside of your turn and takes up your next round's swift action.
H) If they used another swift already or an immediate in the previous round. Or surprise rounds/ other times you lose actions.