Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

johnlocke90's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,461 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,461 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Weirdo wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
I appreciate the massive amount of work you put into PF, but does there really have to be someone at Paizo who decides what constitutes each alignment (outside of canon Golarion and PFS)? Why not leave that up to each table?

Everything is left up to each table. Including whether or not your wizards use spellbooks, or whether or not your clerics have to worship deities, or whether or not there are magic item shops, or whether or not you track encumbrance, or whether or not you use alignment at all.

Making sure that the way alignments are interpreted and handled is as important to me as making sure that we present any other element of our game in a stable, consistent way....

His point is that this strict definition of what a paladin is doesn't make sense in a world with aliens, ninjas, robots and guns. I mean, if Golarion was supposed to be a traditional fantasy game then it would make sense to have Paladins with such strict limitations on behavior, but Golarion isn't that sort of world.

So, we have a game where certain high fantasy tropes are strictly adhered to for thematic consistency while most are completely thrown out the window.

I mean, when my party has a three armed gnome alchemist and a tiefling gunslinger traveling to the moon to kill evil moon succubi, the Paladin of Asmodeus does not feel out of place.

No, not my point.

Rather, it's that the design philosophy is inclusive with respect to most content, including regional climates, cultural variation, races (the ARG), classes (ninja, gunslingers), tech level (steel to firearms to robots), deities (Sarenrae to Ragathiel to Arshea) and general theme/tone (Wrath of the Righteous vs Way of the Wicked), but exclusive with respect to paladins alignment restrictions and a few aspects of evil like undead, magical cannibalism, and [evil] spells.

The argument I was responding to was that a universal interpretation of the paladin code and...

My guess is that some of the devs think of Paladins as special. Paladins are knights of goodness and only intended for RPers who want to play as such. Lots of other classes have flexibility, but Paladins are supposed to be more rigid. Allowing them more options will just lead to a slippery slope that destroys the specialness of the Paladin.

It is unfortunate that Paladins are also probably the best mechanically designed martial classes in the core book.. They have good damage, a wide variety of utility and have good synergy with out of combat skills(Charisma).


alternis sol wrote:
Nothing wrote:
The easiest way to deal with a horde of zombies is to drink a potion of fly and attack them with a glaive. The horde doesn't have reach or any ranged attacks, so a 1st level fighter could solo the entire horde this way without any risk (if he could afford the potion).

actually their is a easier way or at least not reliant on a potion take a hunter with undersized mount feat and reach weapon give them a roc under bull animal focus and cast ant haul on it light load now 173.

now assuming your defending someone put them on the roc and then drink your potion.

Even easier, play a small character like a gnome and you don't even need the feat.


ikarinokami wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:


You at home can invoke rule 0 and that's fine but every bit of printed Pathfinder material works with that assumption.

This part is false. In fact, the printed material does not work if you make that assumption.

The creative director wants the game to work from that assumption but several other authors of printed material do not(hence why we have at least 3 different books with Paladins directly worshiping evil gods or worshipping a Pantheon including evil gods).

i'm sure it's post like this that frustrates james. he has stated repeatedly that it was an error that slip through, yet some will not take the answer at face value.

there are no evil worshipping paladins in piazo's pathfinder, if you want it in your game you can, but paizo doesnt not support it and the rules as they exits in thier minds does not support it, but you are free to ignore those rules.

if you are not going to accept the answer, why bother asking the question in the first place.

I completely accept that it is an error that slipped through. I was addressing the claim that "every bit of printed Pathfinder material works with that assumption".

There are no evil worshipping Paladins in the headcanon of various developers, but that is completely different from saying the "printed material" does not have evil worshiping Paladins.

Its important to be clear that the world of Paizo's Golarion is *not* based from the printed material. Printed material is created by various authors who may think things are different than in Paizo's world. The world is based on developer headcanon, which is subject to change if the developers decide to change it. If you start trying to use printed material to explain Golarion, then you run into issues like this.


bbangerter wrote:
No. Darkvision assumes a base of being able to see in the first place, but allows you to see additional spectrums of light.

Source?


Peet wrote:

Assume that I am not willing to just drop my weapon or sheathe it. And I have a shield (not counting a buckler shield). Assume I want to cast a spell with a somatic component.

Can I tuck the weapon I am holding between my body and the arm holding the shield? Or do I need to use a buckler shield so that I can transfer the weapon to the other hand?

I know a lot of GMs hand-wave this one but this is for PFS and I don't want to be stuck. This is for an inquisitor character.

Peet

Here is what you can do.

Buy a weapon cord.

Drop weapon as a free action.

Retrieve weapon as a swift action.


deusvult wrote:

Since the Fly potion is only giving him a +2 bonus to his Fly check, he does have rather significant chance of plummeting to the ground and into the clutches of the horde any turn he tries to hover or move slowly (less than half his fly-buffed speed).

Unless of course the scenario involves a nice wiiiide open field where the fighter can lazily swoop in for an attack every few rounds, and nothing important the zombies might break/kill so that said fighter can spend all this time killing them slowly.

He doesn't need a wide open field, because as long as you can see some part of the horde you can attach the horde as a whole. So he should be able to lazily swoop in and attack.

The only real risk is that there is someone/something he needs to protect.


James Jacobs wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
I appreciate the massive amount of work you put into PF, but does there really have to be someone at Paizo who decides what constitutes each alignment (outside of canon Golarion and PFS)? Why not leave that up to each table?

Everything is left up to each table. Including whether or not your wizards use spellbooks, or whether or not your clerics have to worship deities, or whether or not there are magic item shops, or whether or not you track encumbrance, or whether or not you use alignment at all.

Making sure that the way alignments are interpreted and handled is as important to me as making sure that we present any other element of our game in a stable, consistent way.

One defines a thing as much as by what it is as by what it isn't. Baba Yaga is part of our campaign world, but Hercules is not. There are aliens and robots in our world, but there are not mind flayers or hoop snakes. Some of the things we don't have in our game are because of legal reasons (mind flayers), some are things we don't have because we think they're just not the right thematic fit for the world (hoop snakes).

And we define our game such that there are no paladins of Asmodeus.

TO BE CLEAR: I am not saying you can't have paladins of Asmodeus in your game. It's your game, after all, and I have no right to decide how you play the game. What I'm saying is that I regret publishing the notion in the first place, since it gives the false impression that we have them in our game. It frustrates me to see an error take on a life of its own like that is all.

In any case... I'm backing out of the thread. I've said what I need to say, and probably shouldn't have become involved anyway since it's just annoying some folks and it's certainly stacking stress onto me, at what is the most stressful time of year for me. Not a good plan.

So! Enjoy your Paladins of Asmodeus as you will! Just don't expect to see them show up in our products!

His point is that this strict definition of what a paladin is doesn't make sense in a world with aliens, ninjas, robots and guns. I mean, if Golarion was supposed to be a traditional fantasy game then it would make sense to have Paladins with such strict limitations on behavior, but Golarion isn't that sort of world.

So, we have a game where certain high fantasy tropes are strictly adhered to for thematic consistency while most are completely thrown out the window.

I mean, when my party has a three armed gnome alchemist and a tiefling gunslinger traveling to the moon to kill evil moon succubi, the Paladin of Asmodeus does not feel out of place.


Lemartes wrote:

Whoa Paladins don't have to worship a God? Wow...cool. Wonder how that works for the Sacred Servant Paladin?

Same for Anti-Paladins?

Antipaladins are much more closely tied to a master than Paladins. Technically an antipaladin could choose not to worship a demon, but doing so would mean he gets no Demonic Boon and thats a significant loss of power.

Sacred Servant explicitly says they worship a deity, unlike regular Paladins.


FallofCamelot wrote:


You at home can invoke rule 0 and that's fine but every bit of printed Pathfinder material works with that assumption.

This part is false. In fact, the printed material does not work if you make that assumption.

The creative director wants the game to work from that assumption but several other authors of printed material do not(hence why we have at least 3 different books with Paladins directly worshiping evil gods or worshipping a Pantheon including evil gods).


Claxon wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

No offense, JJ but this is the rules forums. As such, I agree it probably should be in the rules. But it isn't. And thus it is false.

Claiming that isn't the way it should be does not change the fact that that is not the way it is.

It is false until it is added to the rules.

No offense, but I hate this line of thinking.

This is the line of reason that says Shield Master allows you to dual wield two shields with absolutely no penalties for iteratives, or for being blind, or for any reason whatsoever.

This is terrible logic, and needs to stop.

The rules are not intended to be read through some super legalistic parsing to get at the true meaning.

Language is complicated. Sometimes human cannot help but make errors. However, more often than not the intent of things is clear, even if not explicit. Arguing that "because it's not written it's wrong" is silly.

Realize that the intent of the rules is more important RAW. Now, when questions of intent arise sure, lets have a discussion. But when I see a 500 post thread discussing whether paladins, the mortal paragons of virtue and goodness, can worship evil gods....I have to wonder what is wrong with some people.

Are you just arguing to argue? Playing devils advocate? Do you simply wish to "stick it" to someone and be "right" that paladins can worship evil?

I like the RP opportunities that arise from a Paladin worshiping an evil deity. Maybe he was tricked or is doing it to stop some greater evil? Lots of opportunities for character development as he learns the truth.

By contrast, a LG paladin of a LG has much fewer opportunities for development. He is already good and surrounded by good guys.


MurphysParadox wrote:

Do you want the RAW or the RAI answer?

As Written, it is a 35 DC. Invisibility gives you a +20 and that's just that.

As Intended, it is a 15 DC. There's no reason invisibility would make you quieter.

But in that case the +20 is pointless because you are never made quieter.


thejeff wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

I read through the basic rules several time and I like alot of what I see, except for the changes to spells and spellcasters. The more I re-read what they did the less I like it.

Protection from energy now only gives you resistance (half damage) and its a concentration spell so you'll only have one going at any one time.

The spellcasters ability to help in combat has been severely reduced (except for dealing damage). Buffs/debuffs are all or mostly concentration spells, Wall spells are concentration, etc.

I think they failed big time in their attempt to "balance" martials and casters.

At least this is how I see things.

And since Protection from energy's a half damage concentration spell, when you take that half damage, there's a good chance you'll lose it. Joy.

OTOH, If they really have overshot in balancing martials and casters, that'll be a first. I'm suspicious too, but it may be we just haven't seen the tricks and loopholes yet. Or casters play a slightly different role, but still dominate.

The strength of casters is that even if 90% of our spells are terrible we can just use the 10% that are good.

IE "Web requires a concentration to maintain? Well good thing there is another area control spell with no such requirement!"

And as we get more splat books we will get more spells.


thejeff wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

It can't be worse than 1E explicitly stating in the rules that players are not allowed to read the DMG.

I never understood how that was supposed to work. Once you decide to GM, you can never play again? And you have to make that decision, once and for all, before even looking at the book?

It certainly wasn't a common rule anywhere I played.

I do recall big G mentioning it though - in the 1st ed DMG in fact.

I think back then their wasn't as much chair changing as their was with 3rd ed +.

Yeah, I remember it to. I always took it as more of a "Players don't need to know any of this and it's probably better if they don't read it, at least at first".

OTOH, the taboo against metagaming hadn't really developed early on. Players were expected to carry knowledge about monsters and traps and similar things on to the next character to get better at beating the game. Looking at the monsters and maybe magic items especially was almost getting an unfair edge.

On the gripping hand, by the early 80s at least, that had changed in many groups. Especially, I suspect, those who came in from a fantasy background rather than a wargaming one.

And I never met a GM who didn't want to play whenever possible. We just kept the good ones too busy running to get much chance.

Well one of the big differences is that 1e was full of "know X is about to happen or die" effects, so if you weren't metagaming your character was screwed.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

After readying through the DnD Basic Rules from the WotC web site, I find that I like a lot of the stuff I've read. The stuff that I wasnt to sure about was the way the spells and spellcasters was changed. From what I read a wizard and clerics get a a small number of cantrips they know and thats it.....its not like before when you had your cantrips in your book and chose them each day as you liked. Also they nerfed the shield spell badly. Its now a reactive spell that lasts until your next turn while still being a 1st level spell. Also detect magic is a 1st level spell again.

Shield is quite strong. If you have decent AC it makes you unhittable by most monsters unless they get a 20.


You could be resurrected.


The black raven wrote:

Entering a contract with Asmodeus is a great example of associating with Evil characters IMO. And I do not see that many "Greater Evils" than Big A.

Rovagug, I guess.

This is solved by having the Paladin not think Asmodeus is evil. The paladin can't just open up splat books to find out that Asmodeus is really a bad guy. If he is of regular intelligence he relies entirely on word of mouth from people who also rely on on word of mouth, so not very good information.

As an aside, one of the few things I like about 5e is it got rid of the alignment requirements so arguments like this don't come up.


JoeJ wrote:
rooboy wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
It doesn't take that long to make the suitcase of explosive runes. Only a few weeks if you want to keep spell slots available just in case.
It doesn't really matter if it's weeks, days, or months - I think his point was that it happens in downtime, which means you can rule on it before it happens.

Exactly. I'd also find out what the character hopes to use them for since, unless the player has hacked my laptop, he doesn't know what I'm planning to do in the next adventure.

Oddly enough, I actually like the idea of an Explosive Runes nuke. It's a clever idea and one that is extremely easy for a GM to turn from an automatic "I Win" button into a tense "Hail Mary" play.

An intelligently played wizard is sort of like Batman. He should develop as many contingency plans as he can think of and look through his spell list for every possible power or combination he can make, with special focus on permanent spells.

The explosive rune suitcase trick is a fairly simple one with a wide variety of uses. It can one shot a BBG, blow up a supertough wall. You can also use it as a powerful remote explosive or you can set it up above a door and explode it when the enemy walks back. The most important aspect is that it lets you deal effectively infinite damage to a target, which is just useful. With proper precautions its fairly safe as well.

The biggest danger is the GM starts using the tactic on you or decides he doesn't like it and has it backfire due to GM fiat.


yes


rooboy wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
It's not really a spur of the moment thing, though. It takes significant time to prepare; it's not like everybody just has a big pile of Explosive Runes sitting around in their attic. If you really don't want a PC to do this, the time to stop it is when they first try to start stockpiling the runes.
That is actually a great point. The thrust of my point was that you should let the character build OUT of the option, rather than leaving him with something you depowered. In this instance, it's just changing a spell, but lots of other times it's a feat or an archetype or something else, rather than force him to continue with the option that you just gimped, let him rebuild his sheet into something new (Within reason, I guess? I can't see someone needing to rebuild the entire thing for one third level spell, but if they have reasons, whatever.)

It doesn't take that long to make the suitcase of explosive runes. Only a few weeks if you want to keep spell slots available just in case.

I find it odd that party members never have a few months of downtime between campaigns.

I mean, explosive runes is a 3rd level spell. Say the wizard grabs it at level 6. Thats 14 levels between 6 and 20 where he was constantly adventuring without taking time to himself.

For us, its the opposite. More like real intense professions. Lots of downtime where nothing is happening followed by brief periods of intense action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Inviktus wrote:

Well, it's been fun and informative to watch the batting back and forth of the little details.

For one thing, it's taught me that Explosive Runes and similar spells clearly need some house ruling.

Not because that would change the outcome of the conflict, but to prevent argument and confusion in games where PC's might try to overproduce free magical traps.

The fact of the matter is the hypothetical wizard, as many posters have explained, would only stand so much of a chance as the GM decided to allow.

Here's one silly, but entirely RAW legal example:

1) Cthluhu awakens, already briefed on any major foes or obstacles by the dreams of his worshipers.
2) Before he sits up to get breakfast he Wishes for all copies, clones, simulacrums and such of said wizard to be permanently stripped of any magical powers, reverting said wizard(s) into a powerless commoner(s).
3) This is an extraordinary use of Wish, so the GM must approve this use.
4) GM approves the Wish and applies it's effects.

No, your wish didn't revert the wizard into a commoner. You only wished for the "copies clones, simulacrums and such" but you never actually wished to strip the wizard himself of his power. This would make things a little more difficult, but the wizard can still pull off the explosive rune suitcase trick.


EvilPaladin wrote:
Matthulu wrote:
EvilPaladin wrote:
Matthulu wrote:
aceDiamond wrote:

I do have one thing I think at least throws a wrench in the projected strategy. By rules, Cthulhu is a Great Old One. As far as we've seen, Great Old Ones have cults. Ergo, it could be assumed that great and terrible Cthulhu has high level clerics who wish to do his bidding and defend him from non-believers.

At least the addition of this resource makes things possibly interesting.

Maybe, but the hypothetical wizard probably has hypothetical minions [a.k.a. his fellow party members] to deal with these cultists.

I love Cthulhu as much as anyone, but pathfinder is not his game. It's generally a game of smash and grab and stats mean mortality, which means you can be killed, or at least banished, very quickly. Unless he gets elevated to God status, but that's not part of this conversation.
He already is a deity. The fact that he can be killed isn't actually that surprising, after all, anything can be killed if it has stats. With enough planning, Schrodinger's Wizard can be killed. Its kinda a game fact that if it has stats, it can die[at least temporarily]. That is why the devs don't stat gods. That already seems to be taken into account due to his Immortality, saying that if you kill him, that aspect of his Non-Euclidean self just takes a few-thousand year nap in R'yleh and comes back somewhere else.
So, if I'm following the conversation correctly, Cthulhu and Schodinger's Wizard will eternally battle for ever and ever, each one only actually killing clones and simulacrums, or banishing the other to another plane for a few millennia?
Potentially, if the Wizard decides its worth continuously saving Golarion, and Cthulhu kept going straight at the wizard each time he reforms. Though I doubt this would be the case. Either the wizard would go mad and just give up on humanity, ultimately losing to Cthulhu, or...

Well presumably the 20th level wizard is going to get some new artifacts and maybe even levels while Cthulhu is taking his first 1000 year nap.

At a minimum he is going to have an army of simulacrums, undead and crafted constructs who can handle Cthulhu for him. Because as good as Cthluhlu is, he only has DR 20 and isn't particularly well off against undead.

If you want even more fun cheese, teleportation circle lets you send a few hundred troops through in a single round with readied actions. That combined with all the summoning and crafting abilities wizards get allow you to have an army anyone in seconds.


aceDiamond wrote:

I do have one thing I think at least throws a wrench in the projected strategy. By rules, Cthulhu is a Great Old One. As far as we've seen, Great Old Ones have cults. Ergo, it could be assumed that great and terrible Cthulhu has high level clerics who wish to do his bidding and defend him from non-believers.

At least the addition of this resource makes things possibly interesting.

The clerics aren't going to be able to do anything to stop explosive rune suitcase strategy because their chance of beating the wizards initiative is even worse(unless they are also intelligent 20th level casters, but then you have this weird scenario where the clerics summoning Cthulhu are more dangerous than Cthulhu himself). And if you don't beat the wizards initiative, Cthulhu is already down one life before the clerics get to do anything.

I will note that while this is cheesy, an optimized martial character could probably kill Cthulhu in one turn as well.


Buri wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some back and forth sniping and responses to it. This thread has been unraveling quite a bit, let's bring it back around to the rules question, please.

Gladly

Can you spend your wealth to gain advantage in this scenario, yes or no? If not, then PC wealth is out of the window. If yes, Cthulu gets to spend his treasure value to be genericly outfitted and not for this particular fight whatsoever.

The GM can, but they rarely do. One of the big issues Cthulhu runs into is that he can't wear most listed gear(see the Pathfinder FAQ on monsters wearing gear), so he would need to wear homebrewed equipment if you actually want to outfit him. If the party is supposed to fight him while he wears a wide area of expensive custom equipment, then the statblock should mention this. You would run into a similar issue with a large portion of the bestiary. Dragons, for instance, never seem to convert their horde into wearable magic items, even though they definitely could.

However, I do find the idea of Christmas Tree Cthulhu very entertaining.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

Joej, that house rule is terrible, and I wouldn't play a game with it being used.

Also I laughed when someone said this build is built to kill cthulu, whoa guys four spells two of which picked by every wizard what a build

Yeah, the explosive runes trick would clearly work on almost every enemy ever. And Time Stop+Gate are just amazing spells no matter what.

How many Explosive Runes does it say you have on your character sheet? Where are they stored? What defenses do you have for them and for yourself? (Not what Schrodinger's Wizard might have, but what precisely do you have?) Which spells are in your spellbook? Which feats and skills do you have? And your stats? What gear do you own, and where is it kept? I also need a complete map of any houses/lairs/hideouts or other locations that you use, along with a complete list of defenses and the character sheets of guards, servants, or anybody else who would typically be present.

The fact that you can pull together a combination that it's possible some wizard somewhere might have, and throw it against a monster whose statblock you have full access to is not very impressive. In an actual game it would be exactly the other way around: the GM has your full stats and plenty of time to prepare, while you have only partial information about Cthulhu's abilities and have to react to what he does.

earlier in the thread Anzyr linked a good level 20 wizard build that covers all of this.


Buri wrote:
If I were to run Big C he would absolutely have an array of abodes and toys lined up as anything would that's been around since pretty much the beginning of time. If he were hellbent on trying to actually kill you I might not even let you roll initiative. You just die especially if you're not mythic. If you are, then I'll describe his opening volley and ask if you have anything to handle that. No? Dead. Yes? Roll initiative.

Except we are on the rules forum and you are just making stuff up. As written, Cthulhu is easy to kill. He is poorly designed for a BBG. Baba Yaga is a much bigger threat if you want an end boss, because she has a good spell list.

If you want to discuss how to make Cthulhu a legit threat, that would be a great discussion for another forum.


Haskol wrote:

While following this has been amusing, here is my fix for the problem.

If you feel that the Great Old Ones are far too weak for what they should be (I am among this group): The creatures given stats are not the Great Old Ones, but merely avatars of them. Should they be beaten, that was merely an avatar. Should the real one awaken, nothing mortal (or previously mortal) could stop it and the world is destroyed.

If you feel that the Great Old Ones are just right based on their stats: Congrats, you beat Cthulhu with magic and he goes back to R'lyeh. There he will sleep but he will still win because he will still exist millennia after everyone involved with trapping him again have already died and been forgotten. Because that is Lovecraft. You do not get to win, just hold on a bit longer.

If you feel that the Great Old Ones are too strong based on their stats: Then you have never read Lovecraft and do not know what you are talking about.

Wizards can get immortality as their capstone ability, so Cthulhu is going to be waiting a very long time.


Tarkeighas wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Tarkeighas wrote:


2) anzyr displays a level of exploitative system mastery that would make azmodeus proud
Hardly, this is like... 8th grade system mastery, in my honest opinion. Not even College track stuff. If people find it impressive, it's not that I'm standing to high, it's that they're standing to low.

They have grades?!! Boy did I ever go to the wrong school. I only learned boring sums and stuff.

*Edit*
Way to burn your supporters! I love a bloke who's willing to slap the faces of his opponents and friends alike. I'm not sure why you deleted your post though. Have some conviction man!

But he is right. Explosive Rune Suitcase was a very obvious strategy to me right after I finished reading Explosive Runes. The only challenge here is dealing with the aura of fear.


JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
If this combination hits the caster they just shrug. They then other wake up in a clone or they were an astral projection the whole time. Dying is a minor inconvenience for high level casters. And if I was being really unfair I would go the Astral Projection route since then I could use consumables (like say Explosive Runes) without actually consuming them. Ya, high level casters are really really really unfair.

In other words, there's really no point in allowing PC casters of that level into the game because there's nothing they can do that isn't a complete bore for everybody at the table.

Well unless they are also casters ya pretty much. But that's been known forever, hence the linear Fighter, quadratic wizards trope. And level 20 is the pinnacle of that quadratic power. Hence why people like me would like to see martial buffed.

That wouldn't make it any better if the PCs and their NPC enemies can just fight forever with neither side able to seriously hurt the other.

PResumably both sides have goals beyond just killing each other. Death does temporarily set the caster back and gives you time to do whatever you like without the other guys interference.


JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
If this combination hits the caster they just shrug. They then other wake up in a clone or they were an astral projection the whole time. Dying is a minor inconvenience for high level casters. And if I was being really unfair I would go the Astral Projection route since then I could use consumables (like say Explosive Runes) without actually consuming them. Ya, high level casters are really really really unfair.

In other words, there's really no point in allowing PC casters of that level into the game because there's nothing they can do that isn't a complete bore for everybody at the table.

Yeah, but we have known that for ages. Stuff like Astral Projection and Clone make the wizard essentially a god. To kill a 20th level wizard you are going to need a macguffin to track down his real hiding place(which is protected by mind blank) and somehow enter it and make it through the ridiculous array of protective spells and traps he set up before he teleports his body to another hiding place and murders you with his astral projection.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:

Joej, that house rule is terrible, and I wouldn't play a game with it being used.

Also I laughed when someone said this build is built to kill cthulu, whoa guys four spells two of which picked by every wizard what a build

Yeah, the explosive runes trick would clearly work on almost every enemy ever. And Time Stop+Gate are just amazing spells no matter what.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
An old timey musket would take at least 30 seconds to reload. In close range, you would fire one shot, then drop the weapon and pick up a sword.
The game doesn't rules for realistic weapon degradation or food consumption either. People take absurd amounts of counter-intuitive and unrealistic pseudologic in fantasy worlds without a word of complain. I don't understand why it's suddenly All Realism All the Time the second guns get involved.

Its not just that its unrealistic. I have trouble even imagining what the combat looks like. And its important for many people to be able to envision combat in their game.

Seriously, what would someone loading and firing a musket 4 times in 6 seconds look like?

To me, it makes much more since for the game to use late 1800s weaponry, with revolvers and bolt action weaponry. Which is what I do envision, but its certainly not medieval.


edross wrote:

I played with a guy who by no means meant to be disruptive, but his reasoning skills were so sub-par that they frequently caused problems for DM and fellow player alike.

At one point, 5 minutes into a new campaign the party was speaking to a town guard who offered to give them directions. The player's response "I'd like to join the thieve's guild. Do you know where it is?"

Well thats perfectly acceptable in skyrim.


rockfall22 wrote:


- When a demonic invasion had begun and thousands of lives hung in the balance, he convinced the rest of the party to abandon the city, the people, and go do "something else" because "we've saved this city from disaster, like, ten times... They should learn to watch out for themselves."

Well he has a point.


Tomb wrote:

Just thought of a player I once had. He could not wrap his head around the concept of RPG's. So after explaining it to him for over an hour he finally got it or so I thought.

He had no background because he took something I told him while explaining RPG's to him and ran. I said to him that he could virtually be anything and do anything he wanted. So he decided he would be a rock.
Not some sort of rock monster, but a normal run of the mill everyday rock. I explained that he could not do this because it severely limits him and besides there’s no stats for a rock other than the damage it would do if thrown. He didn’t want to hear it and was very stubborn about it. So I said fine! Then gave him a proposition. If he could tell me how he came to be an intelligent rock I would allow it. So he came up with a generic I was turned into a rock by a wizard story. I asked why did this wizard do this and he replied because I slept with his daughter. Not wanting to prolong the agony I said fine your a rock. Lets start.
I go on and set the scene. I get to the point where I ask the players what do they do. The rock player says I do nothing because I'm a rock. sighs all around. I get to one of my players who response to me is I pick up the rock and skip him across the water. The rock player angrily shouts why did you do that? The other players just says calmly Well you see my character lost his dad at a young age. You see, skipping rocks across the water is the only memory he has of him and you looked like a good skipping rock.

IT sounds like this guy didn't want to play and only came because you forced him to.


Merck wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Hey what is wrong with the amnesia angle?

The Borne triology atarts out that way. Why not my PC Bason Jorne....

Or ManBat have you seen my cool adventurers sash and all the great gadgets I keep in it, and check out my cape and black leather armor....
did you say grappling arrow?

Archer that is green archer

you can call me "the green bee"

I have a character on a homebrew horror campaign who is an inquisitor expelled from his holy order, his name is Ben Velzing.

On a side note, I once sat at a table with three total strangers and the characters they rolled wore:

A half fiend child necromancer

A tiefling rogue noble born who's famile had made a pack with a demon that she was supposed to marry on her 16th birthday (and she could hardly wait for it)

And a serial-killer drow elf warlock who worshipped Tharizdun.

I never came back for the second session. And boy i was so sorry for that GM.

That sounds like a hilarious party to play with. You just have to have the right mindset for the game.


Neal Litherland wrote:

Perhaps the best way to start a huge argument is to get a bunch of Pathfinder players together and to open the floor by saying "So, about the Gunslinger..."

I personally love the class, and the inclusion of black powder weapons in the world. However, I realize other players don't share my opinion. One of the oddest arguments I've come across is "guns don't belong in fantasy," which is typically followed by the assertion that gunslingers are from the 1800s, and not the pseudo-medieval period that Tolkien created.

As a direct result of those arguments I put together this blog post whose purpose is to point out that it might be the name as much as anything else that makes people so resistant to allowing the class in their games.

What do you all think?

A Gunslinger By Any Other Name...

I would say they don't make sense because of how the weapon is used. Muskets were originally used in mass volleys by large groups of troops. An old timey musket would take at least 30 seconds to reload. In close range, you would fire one shot, then drop the weapon and pick up a sword.

The gun mechanics in Pathfinder play more like a late 1800s cowboy. Once you get a few levels under your belt, you can fire multiple times a round and are very accurate. Your musket plays more like a pump action shotgun than an actual musket.

The other issue is that most of the big strong enemies are not designed to account for gunslingers. Look at the touch AC of the high CR monsters, they are all terrible. These monsters were clearly designed around touch attacks being from casters who they could apply their spell resistance again. And gunslinger damage is not balanced around the assumption you hit every time.


Ascalaphus wrote:
@johnlocke: you seem to mean well... but you're advocating that martials get permanency'd buffs by submitting to possession through necromantic magic... :P

IMO, Pathfinder does a poor job of making spells good vs evil. They are just tools.

Now, I don't think permanency+Magic Jar is a good way to buff martials, but it would be a buff.


Pharoah4187 wrote:

OP: You're the GM. Your ruling is official, even if the item gets errata that contradicts how you want the item to work. All complaints should be responded with, "Rule 0, biyotch. Learn it, love it, get me a soda." If the players don't like it, let them make a case and change your rule (or don't) accordingly.

That being said, I think the obvious intent here is a free attack at the expense of an AC bonus granted by the shield. If you add a Quickdraw Shield(which you COULD claim that the strap systems are incompatible with one another), it doesn't really alter the game balance in any meaningful way. If the player adds "Returning", no worries since he/she can't move from the square and still catch the shield (in addition to it arguably no longer being hooked up properly to function as a "Quickdraw Shield") and it won't come back until the end of the turn. It would effectively result in one free attack per round (and, I would rule, would require a move action to re-clasp the shield in such a manner to allow the Free Action).

Another alternative to this problem is to enforce an Attacks Per Round limit. The player gets one Free Attack, period. More than that, and they've effectively taken a Standard (or Full Round) Action. The wording on Free Actions is enough justification for that. If something feels like cheese, it probably is.

If the player tries Blinkbelt shenanigans, point out that a belt is a belt and the Quickdraw Shield is it's own specialized series of straps that explicitly allow storage on the back.

If the player then insists that "flavor text doesn't matter", see above about Rule 0 and then start enforcing all the little things that you're already letting the player get away with that he/she is either misunderstanding or thinks that you don't notice, because at that point they can either accept it or whine on somebody else's time (and, traditionally, they accept it and bring it up whenever they need ammunition on how GM's are stupid and make stupid rulings).

Rule 0 is not how PFS works. A GM who oversteps his boundaries will get asked to leave.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris P. Bacon wrote:

If slumber is becoming a problem, a quick fix is to allow the creature a new save every round. You can also add some minor henchmen who can go and kick the big bad to wake him up - the hex only works once per day.

Also, evil eye doesn't work as mentioned above: the penalty only applies to ONE type of roll at a time. It's still very useful, though, especially to nuke an opponent's saves to soften them up for Slumber or Agony.

It won't matter if it gets a new save next round because someone already coup de graced it.


LazarX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm not too concerned about the "shenanigans" or the imbalance of a fighter getting permanent darkvision, or any other valid spell from permanency, since he would already be able to do it himself with use magic device and a few scrolls.
I've noticed that you're frequently "not too concerned" about shenanigans when it expands the power of spell casters, whom I've noticed are far from needing a boost.

You have it backwards. This is a buff to martial classes who can now get permanency without buying UMD. They don't even need a wizard in the party. They could hire a high level NPC wizard to enchant them with these powers.

If you want to boost casters, rule that permanency can only be used on the caster . Because this way its a caster only buff instead of a group buff.


Fleet of foot.

You aren't sniping, so all swift of shadow does is reduce stealth penalty while moving by 5.

The thing about stealth checks is that its really easy to boost your stealth to huge levels(invisibility+silence for instance).

Movespeed on the other hand is huge. 30 feet means you are walking as fast as your other party members, so if you guys have to flee combat, you won't fall behind.

If you are walking from town to town, you don't need to be carried. Very useful.


There isn't anything you can do about being magic jarred(even the trapped in your own body thing isn't really in the rules).

All you can do is wait for the possession to end and hope that the possessor is nice enough to not just kill your character before the effect ends.


I don't know if making fighters last all day long is the best way to approach it. Pathfinder is a team game so even if you make the fighter last all day, he still needs the rest of the party.

It would be useful if you planned on having the party face lots of combat per day, but many campaigns don't have that.


Tell the paladin player ahead of time that there will be unwinnable encounters. Make it clear that what happens to his character is up to him, but that he shouldn't drag the party members into it without discussing it OOC with them.

Don't argue over whether his actions are in line with the paladin code. Nobody benefits from that argument.


Monks and druids avoid it because "lawful" and "chaotic" are even more vague term than "good". Good luck trying to figure out when a druid is being too lawful to stay neutral good.

"I think new players have more problems with how they perceive alignment than how they deal with alignment requirements."

The problem is that players perceive alignments differently and this difference can cause someone to lose their class powers.

" PCs, especially new PCs routinely follow Murder-Hobo logic when it comes to how they deal with things regardless of their alignment and so tend to see Lawful Good as a straight jacket then a definition of their character. "

Well for a Paladin, it really is. Its not even a question of if he wants to do the right thing, its almost always in his own interests to do the right thing. Because his power is tied up in it.

For instance, imagine that the paladin and his chaotic wizard friend are debating law and chaos. If the Paladin convinces the wizard, everything is fine. If the wizard convinces the Paladin, the Paladin players needs to reroll because his character lost most of his powers.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
For the Full Plate remark, I've known games where the GM gives very high 1st level gold because the campaign was unfair so he wanted to balance out the High CR with Higher quality equipment. Rangers are alright, I'll admit that rangers can be much more effective, but the favored enemy is a weakness as well as a strength because I know people who build more effective casters than melee expecting to always fight favored enemy which is not a class problem just like people building skill trick pony fighters which takes away from the class. Also my argument that the campaign is more important than the class isn't to say that class isn't important, it just says that you can make fighters that can fight better at low level and get through more of the campaign are often more effective than arcane casters that have spells all over the place which takes away from your class. Also when I talk about two weapon vs tank I mean two different characters, not one that is really versatile. I'm saying that sometimes a fighter is equal to or even greater than a caster. Also the fact that you can take a level of fighter and give any class automatic proficiencies and a combat feat that can be used to increase martial efficiency for whatever martial class, even ranger if taken at the right level. And as for your elves and gnomes killing dragons and demons, do you really think that its hard to belive? Because elves and gnomes are often used for the spellcasters and rangers that you like so much. I want to know why fighters are given a bad rap because they aren't as magical as wizards or as versatile as summoners. Also for paladins, their saves aren't the problems I hear about them, I hear its that they are terrible at doing some of the things like tricking that others need

They get a bad rap because while they are very good at hitting things and not getting hit, a large portion of the game doesn't depend on +hit and AC.

If you compare them to other weapon users, those classes are almost as good at those things while being much better at everything else.

For instance, a ranger gets good fort and reflex plus his class features benefit from wisdom. He has 4 more skill points per level and he has spells that are useful out of combat.

He does get fewer feats, but he is allowed to skip prereq feats and doesn't need to invest into skill points or boosting his saves.


Jason Rice wrote:
Haste has already been nerfed. Doing any more makes it worthless, in my opinion. Or at least nerfing it more makes it a 2nd level spell. To see the original version, see 3rd ed (not 3.5).

Even if you removed everything except for the extra attack at full BAB, it would still be a really strong spell, because it would make your party members do over 60 percent more damage up until level 11.

Look at it this way. A fighter casting haste with UMD on only himself is going to do more damage by round 3 than if he had attacked. And thats a pretty terrible scenario for the spell.

If you have three fighters, one of them could cast haste and do nothing for the rest of the fight. The group would still do more damage than if all three had full round attacked.


Quatar wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
I think it's worth noting that something is always going the be the " best option" for a given level.

That's not true.

There might well be a "best option" for a certain build, or a certain party combination, or a certain situation.

But if one spell is a "best option" almost regardless of all circumstances, with maybe the exception of a few (Haste isn't so great in an all-caster party for example) then it might be too strong.

I'm not sure I'd call Haste the best spell. It certainly is for some groups, but I also don't think it's really overpowered.
I could understand moving it up one level though without destroying it.

The thing about haste is that it scales really well with level. If your party has at least 2 people who full round attack, then haste should be your first spell in any serious fight. This holds true up until they can buy the boots that give them haste as a free action.

Look at it this way, haste will make your party members do about 80 percent more damage, if you have two people who do damage, then that wizard casting haste is doing 1.6 times as much damage as either of your full round attackers. And thats every round.


I agree. Haste is a massive increase to party damage. People say "its only one extra attack", but that attack happens at your full attack bonus plus the attack bonus from haste.

A level 6 character with a 2H weapon is looking at about 80 percent more damage when hasted. The +1 to hit combined with an extra attack at your FULL bonus is massive. And when you cast that on the entire party, it makes encounters much easier.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
I'm sorry if i insulted people with that creativity remark, but its angering that fighters are called useless when several times they have saved entire parties from TPK.

Nobody has said fighters are useless. Even a commoner isn't useless. We have said that there are better classes. I will agree that a magus is a bad example for comparision.

I think a ranger would be a better example. Rangers are significantly better with a sword and shield because they get extremely good bonus feats. They get shield master 5 levels earlier than a fighter. Two weapon fighting without the dex requirements and a pet that is good for soaking up damage and deals consistent damage regardless of how defensive the ranger is.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-master-combat---final

1 to 50 of 1,461 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.