|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
My apologies. And yes I would.
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?
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.
Casual Viking wrote:
Please indicate where in the rules you are led to believe that the unambiguous use of the words movement, move, and moving should be correctly interpreted to mean movement in some situations and "flufferbunny movement" in others.
Bill Dunn wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn't allow it personally.
1) The shift ability expressly calls itself movement.
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.
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.
This is just false.
Yes having backups for things is good. In fact my hypothetical specialized party had backups, skill guy with secondary combat ability, combat guy with secondary skill ability, buff/healer/support with secondary combat ability, primary caster with secondary buffing and nuking ability. As far as when a AP of average characters steamrolls lets be honest AP's are laughably easy and the most common reason you see the optimized party get killed is because the DM overreacts to him not "winning" in combat and upleveling the encounters without taking into account the party dynamic.
Also your example of the paladin makes no sense. Look at my subsections for specialization 3 out of the 4 things you list as reasons a Paladin is good are Combat abilities and 1 of them is secondary healing this is an example of specializing. The real reason the paladin is better than a fighter is two fold, 1) He's a better combatant than the fighter. The reason for this is that he's more resilient overall. Has better saves, some healing, and better burst damage on smites. and 2) Because the paladin can have secondary abilities in addition to his primary ones with more skill points and spells to fall back on while Fighters generally can't do this with the same amount of investment.
This does not mean that the Paladin is not specialized, in fact he should also specialize. If he's an archer he should pick up archery feats, if he's going into melee he should pick those feats, yeah keep a bow on hand even if you're a greatsword weilder and vice versa because any damage is better than no damage if you have to use it but trying to play a switch hitter mystic theurge or bard for all the characters in a party is not good.
And this is why you aren't going to be good.
A party with 4 people who are the all okay at a, b, c, and d. Is going to be notably worse than a party with a person who is phenomenal at a and okay at b, someone who is great at b and okay at a, someone who is amazing at c but good at a, and someone who is unstoppable at d but only passable at a and c.
So lets assume a is combat, b is skills, c is buffing and healing and d is spell casting. With these roles being filled by more focused characters you're going to have a much higher success rate overall.
Scanned through it and it looks roughly in line with my expectations when building characters although the to hit is a little low and the damage a little high for PCs imo.
I agree although I'd add that it's extremely rare for a caster to get enough value out of a multiclass to make it better than just getting more levels of their main class. This includes 6 level casters although is less of a factor with the 4 level casters like the Paladin and Ranger by simple virtue of spells being less of a factor of their overall power.
The OP was told in another thread essentially that if EWP didn't exist people would obviously choose the Estoc unless there was a reason not to. At which point he made a new thread complaining about it.
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?
Some of enjoy what you refer to as mandatory tedious homework.
A disparity between player skill will always be factor. What is probably rubbing people the wrong way is how permanent build choices effect that gap. Build skill seems to trump playing skillfully.
I don't know playing skillfully won't make a bad build good but it can make it better. And even the best build won't make bad play good just less punishing.
I mean the best Wizard build ever still won't make it a good idea to run into combat with a plain old dagger. And the best player is still going to have trouble making a wizard with 8 Int a good character(excluding archtypes that switch casting skill).
Personally I think that's a good place for a game to be, where both play and build are worthwhile factors to character quality.
For what it's worth having been kicking around the forums for a while people were negative before too but 4th was so polarizingly different that even the people who weren't psyched about Pathfinder were pretty okay with a system that was 3.x just because it wasn't 4th.
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.
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.
Steve Geddes wrote:
An interesting thought. But it all comes down to how they act about the polls.
If the devs dump a poll up provide zero input feedback or discussion whatsoever and then rule against the majority then yes people will believe they're being ignored because they are more or less being ignored.
On the other hand lets say they put up a poll they see a lot of feedback from the community and add on a few follow up questions and have some discussions about why Crane Wing for example is being an oppressive part of the game for some people maybe the skew is 60% CW is fine 40% It's OP and needs to be fixed. The Devs end up going with the 40% and explain why they think this fix will change CW into a better place. They then move the change on to the Errata Playtest section of the forums and wait for feedback on how the ability fairs in some game sessions. Then they see it's too weak and tweak it back up a bit, they run another set of playtests that find it being meaningful without having that never hit element of the original, they then push it "live". I imagine very few people would say they're being ignored that wouldn't be saying that regardless of what Paizo was doing.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Agree to disagree I suppose. From my point of view and past experiences the internet and the gamer community in particular have a tendency to be lacking in delicacy and tact. Expecting otherwise seems idealistic, and I've never been inclined in that regards. Enforcing otherwise is of course a different question and something to be dealt with by the mods and not us forum goers in some giant shaming circle for those who act in such a manner.
Anyways back on topic and for Mr. Lambertz
Polls are a great tool I think that they can be used well and do require the base three options, of Fixed, Bad fix but needed, and No fix required. I think it would also help to have a variety of other choices like whether or not a change is thematic or in line with the original intent and if the fix is still too powerful or not powerful enough kept separate from the original three questions.
I think it's also important that these questions be asked before the errata "goes live" as it were. Because once you push the idea out the door pulling it back and then refixing it just gets more and more confusing for the average player. So having a tentative errata section or errata playtest is very important in my opinion.
In addition I also agree with another poster that rewrites are not something I am a big fan of. I feel like to an extent if something doesn't break the game then you shouldn't full up change it if you can tweak it back in line. Now obviously there's things which step over this line (Divine Protection being one of them) which may need to be rebalanced and I think that's fine but those are the ideas which most need the polls. Whereas things which just need clarification because of writing errors and things where you somehow ended up with an ability that does nothing like prone shooter and totem barbarian can usually be dealt with by just playing with an idea maybe a quick playtest or just an opinion thread on if it seems cool and toss it out the door.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
If they wanted tactful responses from their consumers they probably should have looked into working in a different industry.
Role players and gamers in general are often not tactful and those who post on forums seem to be even less tactful than the average. Is that a good thing? No. But, at this point it's to be expected and not worth kicking up a fuss about unless you're the parent of one of us tactless individuals.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.
Out of curiousity why is the fighter even taking off all his gear? I mean he's not required to. Magical gear is unaffected by non magical issues such as rotting, dirtying, and rusting. So he may as well just bathe with everything that isn't weapons and armor on and frankly may as well bathe with those too. The assumption that the norms of our universe should apply to the PF universe is rather questionable.
Just because you play games with them doesn't mean that they are your friends in fact based on their behavior they're probably not your friends at all.
And in that case it's still worth teaching them that the potential results of their behavior is physical violence because that is likely to reduce that behavior in the future when they play with others.
Generally speaking I've found the same thing to be the case, short of direct consequences enacted by the school such as suspensions and expulsions and those were considered to be unreasonable punishments for something as harmless as "boys being boys" when I went to school.
Then kids started coming into schools and shooting people after being bullied and people who weren't directly involved started paying attention. Coincidence?
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a few posts. Even if it's a "joke", advocating actual violence against other people is never OK on paizo.com.
I can see why you'd say this from a legal standpoint. However, while I don't really support the idea of actual violence the threat of potential violence is largely the reason why people do anything about bullying.
Advocating for a lack of potential consequences is equivalent to advocating in support of bullying because people are horrible and if they don't have a reason to stop they won't.
Have the party sit at the table to talk to the Rogue, while said talking is occurring go into an expose about how your character wishes he could beat the Rogue and any foul gods supporting him to death with the table they're sitting at. Then stand up pitching the table slightly and say in a complete deadpan, "Whoops I'd hate to recreate what my character was thinking about." Then just walk out and don't come back.
Hi, so I'm playing a Noble Scion prestige classed Trip fighter, and I was hoping for some advice on making a fair character that doesn't take up too much limelight but is still a valuable addition to the party.
Initially I was planning on making an Alchemist but since one of our friends is out for the time being their character a blaster sorcerer has dropped out of the party to do charity work so I'm trying to find a way to fill in for an arcane caster as far as utility without stepping on any toes.
So I'm aiming for an arcane caster who isn't too showy ideally a charismatic one who doesn't step on anyone's toes and who doesn't feel like a direct replacement for our friend's character when they come back.
The party is 8th level: 1 Battle Cleric, 1 Trip Fighter, 1 Bard, 1 (currently gone Blaster Sorc.)
Cohort has to be 7th level, 30 point point buy, 2 traits, all official paizo pathfinder material is legal but no mythic. I would like for the character to have Craft Wonderous Items to offset the cost IC of having them sponge off my share of the loot but I'd rather not have them take any additional Crafting feats. If it has a bloodline I'd like for it to be Draconic(Black) but that's negotiable.
Honestly I'm inclined to agree with this one even if it wasn't meant to be serious. Bards are very powerful and all of their class abilities are very powerful or complete garbage so providing a benefit on an already incredibly powerful ability is something you've got to be pretty hesitant about doing particularly for the abilities which affect entire groups of people.
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.