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

1,675 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,675 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaekub wrote:


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

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

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

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

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


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


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

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

RPGs are about a player playing a character.

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

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

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

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


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Do I like pathfinder?

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

I disagree on a fundamental level. ;)

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

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

Anyways back on topic and for Mr. Lambertz

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

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

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


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are facts.

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

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

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


Jiggy wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

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

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

Yeah, but you're missing the important point:

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

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

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


Jaunt wrote:

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

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

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


Rynjin wrote:
Jaunt wrote:

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

I don't think that's true.

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


Tacticslion wrote:
Quote:
Why are there so few magic items for bards?

Because bards are so OP.

This is made in humor, even if Bards are pretty boss in PF.

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.


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

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


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

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

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

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


Chengar Qordath wrote:
LazarX wrote:
That's way beyond the pale of what I would allow. I allow ONE Free action per turn that can be taken whenever it's appropriate for said action.

I feel sorry for anyone who tries to play a ranged attacker in your games, then. Drawing ammunition is a free action, as is reloading for a lot of weapons.

Oh, and touch spells would take two turns to use, since you can't prepare your component and touch someone in the same round.

Well what would we do if we didn't gut half the classes and fighting styles in the game?


TriOmegaZero wrote:


I love when people post stuff like this. Especially when the PDT come back and rule against them. :)

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.


You're still taking a -4 to hit on each of your attacks which is of dubious value. I mean it's better than grabbing agile on every weapon but not by that much.


Gulian wrote:

I feel victorious.

Besides, two-handed may do more damage, but this current build is more reliable in its ability to stay alive while doing so, and if you're running a legitimate two-handed build without reach weapons and AoO's in mind, you're probably going for that 18 STR sweet spot, meaning your AC is most likely not 2 less than this build, but a whole lot less than it. Possibly by at least 3 AC if we're looking at full plate two-hander vs breastplate sword'n'board. And that gap's only going to increase as the build starts getting armor training.

Would the Shielded Fighter be an archetype you'd want to take with this, or nah? Or just stay with classic fighter?

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.


MATHIER MATH! But in all seriousness I would be shocked if we got a reply from a dev other than, "This didn't need to be answered."


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
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.

There are no rounding rules to ignore in this case, because there is no fractional result involved. The results are 'yes', 'no', 'less than', and 'not less than'.

None of those words need rounding, therefore no rounding rules apply.

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.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Clockstomper wrote:

(... a gm I know (who isn't me) says, if your question begins with "is it metagaming if..", then the answer is ALWAYS YES...)

In general, players shouldn't really be looking through the Bestiary, IMHO. Part of the GM's job is giving you things to be surprised about and have fun figuring out. They've bought Bestiaries to have material that's fun for you to encounter.

If you play a bunch, you'll have encountered a lot of stuff, and part of trying not to metagame is playing your character like you haven't fought that before... so why get ahead of that curve? (hence why GM's invent homebrews or tweak monsters... or buy other material to have neat stat blocks for you to enjoy fighting).

This is all valid, and I agree with it regarding reading large numbers of specific monster entries. But the original question was mostly about the Monster Creation section which is just some generic 'expect this by this level' stuff and not in the same category at all.

Looking at that or a few individual monster entries also doesn't seem like a huge deal. Especially the common ones.

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:
gnomersy wrote:
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.

Absolute b#@%+%&s!

What is the value of Pi? Well...it's around 3.14159...but we cannot express the precise value.

According to you, this inability to have a precise figure makes it impossible to say if the integer '3' is smaller or larger than 'Pi'. According to you, if I try, 'then your calculation collapses because you're comparing nonsense to a number'.

The number '3' is less than the value of 'Pi', and we know this for certain even though we don't know the value of Pi for certain.

The number '2.5' is not an imaginary number! The value of 'i' is 'root minus one', and that number isn't on the number line. But '2.5' does exist on the number line, and '2.5' is larger than '2'.

This ability doesn't require you to have a creature with 2.5 HD; it asks if a particular creature's number of HD is fewer than 2.5.

The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'. Which don't need to be rounded.

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.


fretgod99 wrote:

Did you miss the bolding?

Besides, you're skipping over the point alluded to in a few other posts that even if rounding is standard practice when establishing a DC for X ability or a bonus to Y skill (because an extra .5 doesn't change the outcome if comparing to an integer), that doesn't mean division = round, which is the point argued.

So again, *shrug*

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 Ă— 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.


Happler wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.

Okay, how about the trapfinding ability:

Quote:
Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.
So a level 5 rogue adds 2.5 to their perception skill? Being consistent here. It does not ask for rounding anything.

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.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.


fretgod99 wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
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.

Everybody is aware that this is your assertion. But as I mentioned earlier with another poster, you're begging the question. You're relying on your assertion to be true, then demonstrating why that assertion dictates that your position on rounding is uniformly correct. But you never actually go back and support your assertion. There is nothing in the rules that actually supports the position that division mandates rounding.

To be fair, there is nothing explicitly in the rules that says division does not mandate rounding. Hence the disagreement.

You're not going to find your support in the rules on the page. It's not there. Certainly the PDT could come out and say the presumption is division = rounding for the sake of uniformity. If so, we'd have a definitive answer. But as of yet, there's nothing of that effect in existence, so far as I am aware. So until then, I'm not going to eschew my experience with real world math simply because one line in the CRB might support it when divorced from context.

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.


BigDTBone wrote:


Umm, no. Just because you create a new sentence doesn't mean that qualifier is lost. You don't have to re-qualify every subject and predicate in every sentence you write.

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.


fretgod99 wrote:


PRD wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, whenever you must round a number, always round down.
PRD wrote:
Rounding: Occasionally the rules ask you to round a result or value. Unless otherwise stated, always round down. For example, if you are asked to take half of 7, the result would be 3.

Note that both of these lines indicate that the rounding occurs when you are directed to round a number, and not necessarily as a matter of course simply because you're dividing.

Is there somewhere else in the official document that this line you're citing appears?

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.


noretoc wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Well of course, I mean despite the fact that Pathfinder says that you round in general,
It doesn't. Where does it say that? That line you quoted is under the heading "rounding fractions". Why would you think it applies when you aren't told to round fractions?

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?


Nefreet wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Because the rules say you round

You're ignoring the other side of the argument, though.

One rule says when you round, round down.

The other rule says when asked to round, you round down.

When determining Knowledge DCs, and regaining grit, you are not asked to round.

So, going by your rule, you would be correct.

Going by the other rule, you would be incorrect.

And so this debate can never be settled, without new or further information.

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:

Occasionally the rules ask you to round a result or value.

That is the key in my opinion. Whenever you have to apply a bonus, or something similar, we have to have an integer.

In this case, there isn't any need to do that. The rules aren't asking us to get a value and apply it somewhere, the rules are asking us to make a numeric comparison, one which most elementary school students can make easily, even if one of the numbers we are comparing has a fraction in it.

If you aren't getting a number to apply somewhere, the rules don't ask us to round.

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:
Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
kinevon wrote:

And, the way you people are arguing, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a first level Swashbuckler to recover panache, since there is no minimum 1 addenda.

So, would you rather round down, and screw the first level Swashbuckler, or take the fraction? Your choice.
This doesn't make sense.

It does, and his point is relevant.

If 5/2 = 2, then 1/2 = 0.

So, a 1st level Swashbuckler, which needs to kill a 1/2 CR creature, could never regain grit, as that 1/2 would round down to 0, if we use your analogy that 2.5 rounds down to 2.

Hit Dice not CR people. The ability is based on Hit Dice.

There are no 1/2 HD creatures in Pathfinder.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


Nefreet wrote:

I've always ruled that, to identify a creature, you need 5/10/15+CR.

In the case of a goblin, a common, low-CR creature, that means a DC of 6.

5 (for being common) plus 1.

Even if the creature being identified is a CR 1/8, fractionally that's .125, and 5 < 5.125

Since the dice can only come up either 5 or 6, and nowhere in between, and 5 doesn't meet the DC, then 6 would be the next logical number.

I'm not going to round down its CR for Knowledge checks in the same way I won't round down for regaining Grit.

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.


Davor wrote:
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.


boring7 wrote:
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.


Snickersnack wrote:
So.. can I declare victory now? :P

If you weren't using a 3PP as proof for your pathfinder rules then maybe? Oh wait.

1 to 50 of 1,675 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.