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. 1,431 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,431 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.

Malwing wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Malwing wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

Alignment. Specifically, I would remove class requirements regarding alignment.

I am okay with alignment being a general representation of a character's beliefs, but the alignment should reflect the character, not shackle her.

I would make the exception be Paladin. From what I gather a Paladin is so LG that he gains superpowers. At the very least Paladin abilities should wildly vary based on his alignment, kind of like bloodlines for each of the nine alignments. Now that I typed that up I'd love to see Paladins become different alignment lantern corps.

Paladins could easily be reflavored to be the armed branch of a particular god. That would give them more flexibility in alignment(on par with Cleric).

I would also like to see alignment violations handled through role play rather than automatically losing class features. Instead, if the Paladin or Cleric starts acting against his chosen deity's interest, the consequences would be up to the GM and based on roleplay.

A GM strip massive portions of a characters power away based on something as vague as alignment isn't fun. It creates bad feeling between the players.

Anything in the rules that can seriously harm a character should be clearly defined.

I'm more in favor of Paladins not being as alignment flexible as a cleric because the thematic differences begin to blur. It's already possible to build a battle-cleric just being a martial divine warrior makes it harder to justify his existence. But I do believe the theory that the Paladin had alignment restrictions because it's alignment was as much of a source of power as the deity it represents or almost fully in the cases where it has no deity, so I really like the idea of paladins having sets of canned abilities based on their alignment. It differenciates them from clerics as not simply divine warriors but Paragons of multiple deities virtues...

I understand what you're saying, but the number one priority should be encouraging cooperation and teamwork between the people playing the game. Thematic concerns are much less important. Putting vague requirements on how a character can act can create conflict between party members and the paladin and between the paladin and the GM.

A more experienced group may know how to deal with this, but a group that is new to the game won't.

ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
To get around the I'm not getting hit then take the feat that makes things attack you or just annoy them with attacks. Fighters can help by blocking of enemies and fighters can provide assistance with high SR characters. You need to build a team based on what you know or think is in the dungeon. I agree that if you think its full of rats then AOE spells are great. But if a party of clerics and wizards opens the door to a CR9 encounter without a fighter tank to block off the baddies then you are dead. Also if you don't like fighters having few social skills then use things like rogues and bards as skill trick ponies. thats all a bards good for in plenty of things anyway. fighters are not there to negotiate with foreign lands, they are there to defend they're cause and to challenge foes at all levels, not just high levels but low levels too. The main "problem" you have with fighters is that you can't be creative enough too make them effective. There was on fighter I heard about that at 15th level was doing like 200000 damage, more than the 20th level mage. also, for a magus tank, you have to be high level for good armour and have to always have defensive spells which dilutes the purpose of a magus which is to be able to blend martial attacks with damaging spells.

Sure, tank fighter works okay at blocking off a doorway against melee opponents so long as none of his allies are also melee.

But if the encounter happens in an open area, the enemies are ranged, or your friends are melee then the monsters aren't going to go after you. They will target your companions.

Malwing wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

Alignment. Specifically, I would remove class requirements regarding alignment.

I am okay with alignment being a general representation of a character's beliefs, but the alignment should reflect the character, not shackle her.

I would make the exception be Paladin. From what I gather a Paladin is so LG that he gains superpowers. At the very least Paladin abilities should wildly vary based on his alignment, kind of like bloodlines for each of the nine alignments. Now that I typed that up I'd love to see Paladins become different alignment lantern corps.

Paladins could easily be reflavored to be the armed branch of a particular god. That would give them more flexibility in alignment(on par with Cleric).

I would also like to see alignment violations handled through role play rather than automatically losing class features. Instead, if the Paladin or Cleric starts acting against his chosen deity's interest, the consequences would be up to the GM and based on roleplay.

A GM strip massive portions of a characters power away based on something as vague as alignment isn't fun. It creates bad feeling between the players.

Anything in the rules that can seriously harm a character should be clearly defined.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
deuxhero wrote:
The biggest problem is prehaps that while fighters can fight, so can every other PC class (supposed to anyways), but most classes can do something else out of combat.

But every other class runs out of steam. The problem with the balance at the moment is that fighters are not on-par with everyone else because they took unlimited uses into account when they balanced them.

Make a fighter on par in combat with a full caster and have their lack of out-combat be compensated by never running out of combat steam.

This is a team game and even if your fighter can fight all day, he will need to do so without his companions. There are a few scenarios where the GM forces you to go through a bunch of encounters in one day, but thats not the norm.

Stealth has a similar problem. Sure, the rogue is amazing at stealthing ahead, but its useless for combat because you need your team and sir clankz a lot will alert all the enemies to your party anyway.

Craig Frankum wrote:

Only retort in a similar reply to the way I was replied to earlier.

In 3.5, your 'judge' character was a Lawful character. Alignment wise, I'm finding it hard to understand his argue on why he took the 'law' into his own hand and portrayed himself as judge and executioner.

The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword.

Alignment. Specifically, I would remove class requirements regarding alignment.

I am okay with alignment being a general representation of a character's beliefs, but the alignment should reflect the character, not shackle her.

Elinor Knutsdottir wrote:

While it's true that players rarely intentionally violate their code, there is a strong tendency for players to interpret their code so that they can do whatever the h*ll they like. "I'm chaotic good, which means it's ok for me to torture bad people because my chaoticness means I have a personal view of what's good and I'm not willing to abide by the generally accepted view that torture is evil." (I have a real chip on my shoulder about chaotic good).

Which is to say that moral codes have a tendency to create conflict between a player and the GM. When I GM, I don't enforce alignment requirements and I have not had the game suffer for it. If they want to write their personal code of honor, thats fine. If they break it, their are RP consequences for their character.

ShadowyFox wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
In my opinion, enforcing consequences on people for code violations rarely goes well. Players almost never intentionally violate their code, so will perceive the ruling as unfair. Its a problem I have with mandatory moral codes.

The moral code here is mandatory & proving to be the problem. Probably, for the future, it would be best to tell the cavalier player "Hey, you're about to break your edict."

That would probably prevent or stem these problems in the future.

I think thats a better idea, but it removes agency from the player.

The player is confronted with a difficult moral decision(IE, how to handle a group of unconscious bandits) and after he thinks it through and makes a decision, the GM tells him he loses class features if he does that, which is frustrating for a player.

In practice, the code becomes a list of things the character is incapable of doing, because any time he about to violate the code, the GM warns him.

ShadowyFox wrote:
Jason Rice wrote:
So to the OP: you have my opinion, but ultimately its your table. If you don't like it, make it clear to the player, without being vindictive or retaliatory. Ultimately, EVERYONE is there to have fun, and being extra harsh on a player to teach them some lesson or another (like throwing extra, unplanned encounters at them to show them how much they messed up) is wrong. It destroys the fun.
True, you don't want to be vindictive, but there needs to be consequences for a character that actually ignores part of his rules. If a paladin ignores his code, then there's nothing wrong with throwing undead and evil enemies so that he sees, IC, that there are consequences for his actions.

In my opinion, enforcing consequences on people for code violations rarely goes well. Players almost never intentionally violate their code, so will perceive the ruling as unfair. Its a problem I have with mandatory moral codes.

Declindgrunt wrote:

scroll of disintegrate soonest a cast can make it is 10th lvl it does 2d6 per caster lvl so 20d6 at that point and if they hit 0 hps from it they turn to dust. oh hey thats a pesy giant/troll/ annoying adversary bye bye

here a link for the spell

edit: the scroll costs 1800 gold if made by a sorcerer, 1650 gold if made by a cleric/druid/wizard, and 2400 gold if made by a bard, as for the base class's the book doesn't say.

The problem is that its a really easy fort save and any giant or troll is going to make it.

Fighter can be easy if he just wants to hit things with a 2 handed weapon so long as he knows about power attack. If he wants to do something different, it gets very complicated with the huge array of possible feats.

Rogues problem is that the way they are designed, you think you are doing a lot more than you actually are. A new rogue player is going to think he is doing tons of damage rolling his fistful of sneak attack die, when he really isn't. He is going to think he should max dex, put some points into int and probably dump strength. He also suffers from being very dependent on a specific set of feats and items. The rogue even gets some trap talents that actually hurt his damage.

These classes are easy to play, but hard to build. A poorly optimized rogue or fighter is going to be awful. And it can be difficult to fix later down the line.

Bran Towerfall wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
What he should do is grab each turn but not maintain the grapple. Then his opponents will always be grappled on their turn.


what would be his(direbear) tactical advantage of grabbing him?

ty for replying

The enemy has the grappled condition on his turn. Which means no two handed weapons, no running away, probably impossible to spell cast.

Also, the bear can choose to treat the grab grapple as a normal grapple. Meaning next turn he can maintain the grapple normally and pin the enemy. Which means they cant do anything to the bear.

What he should do is grab each turn but not maintain the grapple. Then his opponents will always be grappled on their turn.

One thing to keep in mind is that your hit die don't change when you res. So a 1 hit die hobo isn't going to rise as one of the stronger undead. So its gated by how strong you were in life.

Vorpal Laugh wrote:
Instead of taxing adventures, a country could require them to have a charter and pay an annual fee. The relative cost and difficulty of obtaining the charter can help contrast different places feelings about adventures. One place might require you to belong to a state run "guild" and submit to magical tracking and a magical interrogation. Another might require every member to register with a magistrate, another has a fee, but rarely checks if you renewed.

Personally I have always found this idea kind of silly. It implies that "adventuring" is a profession and that its so common that each country has developed an entire branch of government around them.

Adventurer is a very vague title which includes a lot of things.

carn wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

1.) It makes no sense. Wizards don't rely on their spell books in combat. In addition, the enemy can loot and sell the book after the battle is done. If the enemy targets my spell book, it should only be when he knows he is dead anyway and wants to spite me.

2. A wizards spell book should be hidden on his person unless he is using it. It isn't going to be easy to target when it is concealed. Once he has a portable hole, it will be hidden in there.

1) If im an evil overlord comanding hordes of underlings (who effectively just achieve giving the PCs enough XP to level up, so they can face me), it makes tons of sense to tell them to target the spell book of the wizard. The underlings are to weaken the PCs. A high level wizard might be weakened less by being killed than by loss of spellbook, because he is cheaper to revive than rewriting his spellbook.

2) A strong wooden door has hardness 5, hp 20. Such doors would offer a somewhat decent protection (meaning you survive with only a few pieces missing) against a hand grenade exploding on the other side. Yet the fireball blows through the door via heat, meaning it heats in the short time it explodes to several hundred degrees. The only reason the posessions of a wizard in place of the door not being heated to several hundred degrees (which would incinerate any paper at once) is thats its a game of fun and not realism. So realistically destroying an enemy spellbook hidden on person would be trivial for a lev 5 caster. The only reason therefore that the evil overlords do not rountinely try to destroy the spellbook is that they cheat by metagaming and therefore know that for some bizarre reason heavy wooden doors are destroyed by lev 10 fireballs via heat, but the wizards poossesions are never heater by nearby fireballs.

1. Its even cheaper to just repair the spell book(free actually) with a second level spell. Although honestly, this Big Bad seems to be metagaming super hard. It would be a better idea to keep his underlings alive and to have his entire forces go after the PCs than to send them out over the course of multiple days in small waves to "weaken" the PCs.

2. Well this applies to all items, not just spell books. Otherwise, we would see parties losing most of their inventory every time an enemy wizard cast fireball. And I figure the enemy wizard figured this out the first time he cast fireball on someone.

Mike Franke wrote:
Soemthing else I always think about paladins...regular humans think about right and wrong but also easy and hard. A paladin only thinks about right and wrong. That does not mean that a paladin can not pick between easy and hard as long as both are "right" but this often makes it appear to others that Paladins only pick the hard way.

Whats really hard is when your party wants to do something wrong and then you have to fight them.

Another idea: Leadership and animate dead to maximize your followers. Then set up a lumber mill.

Your group will serve as the muscle to protect the mill and deal with any wild life that tries to fight back.

I like the Control Winds Control Weather bomb.

1. Either level up to 9 on a druid or get some other way to use control winds.

2. Wait till the wind is severe, or creating a severe wind with control weather.

3. Cast control winds to create a 360 foot radius tornado. You will utterly destroy everything in that area.

4. For optional fun, take the metamagic feat that increases the radius of the windstorm.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

Killing someone doesn't ensure they won't harm another living thing though. I mean, now they are on the abyss and will either fuel demons or become a demon themselves.

at least this way you're offing them before they gain levels and turn into bigger demons upon arrival.

True, I think the ideal solution is to convert them into a soul gem and destroy the gem(but for some reason only evil people are allowed to do this).

The only good solution is to kill them then venture into the abyss and kill them permantently, which is supposedly less evil than giving them a quick clean death.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lanith wrote:
Now we all know the player doesn't have an alignment, or a clearly defined moral code for that matter, but trying to kill a subdued, unarmed, bound person is not "good"; no matter how you spin it.
Yes, it can be good if the person you have bound and helpless actually deserves execution. Some truly horrible people (ie, the villains) commit acts of such despicable depravity that they do not deserve to live. Speeding their trip to the afterlife and its just rewards and ensuring that they will never harm another living thing again is a valid way of doing good. Its only a problem for lawful good in areas where the act would be unlawful for them (or would be against the regulations of whatever code they're following: paladins are stuck with both)

Killing someone doesn't ensure they won't harm another living thing though. I mean, now they are on the abyss and will either fuel demons or become a demon themselves.

Stormfriend wrote:
Leathert wrote:

The fact that you know the authorities are somewhat corrupt doesn't mean that the characters do. Sure, in some countries of Golarion, it probably common knowledge, for example a good character would have a hard time in Nidal. But in the "better" countries you cannot automatically assume that handing criminals over to authorities is worse than killing them outright. A lawful character especially is supposed to do that. If the authorities kill them because of their crimes, well, that is law in action, they got punished for what they did. You cannot take the law in your own hands every time just because you think it might be a more merciful death, not in every country. Especially if you have any knowledge of religion and planes and you know what's waiting for the dead bad guys afterwards.

I'm talking about non-monstrous humanoids here mostly, and assuming you're not in the middle of nowhere, where it would be mightly difficult to get the villains to authorities.

We're not debating what's lawful, but what's good. They're completely different things. In many ways being lawful is easier, which is probably why there are so many lawful stupid paladins out there.

So here's a question: if you capture an evil cultist and the options are: hand him over to the authorities who will torture and kill him, and then his soul will go somewhere really nasty; execute him cleanly but his soul will go somewhere really nasty; or let him go so he can kill other people, what do you do?

To make it worse, when you kill an evil cultist, he now becomes fuel for demons.

Shifty wrote:

Accepting that the CE and NE characters still dont have anything to do with CN...

The best you have is that a CN wizard is against killing children?
Somehow he's magically anti-social and anti-establishment, running his own fundamentalist agenda, and yet only manifests this against NPC's and never against the party - even if they turn around tomorrow and do something completely at odds with his disestablimentarianism?

That sounds like totally non-metagamey and completely legit.

Eh any jerk PC should focus his jerkness on NPCs. It isn't fun for the group. The rule of fun trumps all.

David knott 242 wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Torture is not really effective.

Eventually, they just admit to anything, whether it is true or not.

The victim may even try to commit suicide after awhile.

Basically, mechanically, it's just a bonus to intimidate.

I would note this act as a mark, and after a few marks, I would begin an alignment shift, one step, towards evil.

Torture is effective when the information can be verified. Because in that case saying something false won't stop the torture.

But at some point the torturer must ask the victim something that he doesn't already know the answer to, if he is torturing somebody for information. If the torturer aleady knows the answers to all of the questions he asks, then he is just being a sadistic jerk. Otherwise, his only clue as to the torture victim's reliability in answering the key question is how many lies he has already caught him in.

One possibility to consider, if the torture is brutal enough, is that the torturer might actually manage to kill the victim before he says anything useful. The torturer and his associates can take a severe hit to their reputations if that happens often enough.

I would encourage more mental than physical means of intimidation if possible. One of my favorites is to have a summoner's eidolon mention that it has not eaten in several days, with the implication that it is thinking of eating the prisoner being questioned (when the real reason is that the eidolon is an outsider with no physical need for food).

Could you please show me a proof for this? You would make al ot of money if you could show than P=NP.

Compare it to other means of electricity resistance. Way too cheap for what you get.

Revan wrote:

My basic philosophy is this: for Paladins to exist, the basic premise must be true that evil is never necessary. It can be easier. It can be tempting. But in a universe where paladins are chosen by the gods and endowed with holy power so long as they are unswervingly righteous, it must be fundamentally possible to be unswervingly righteous and still succeed--or else the gods are malevolent.


In Pathfinder, gods aren't omnipotent. On the contrary, Pathfinder lore has the gods slowly losing ground to the abyss.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Maybe I'm the only guy that feels this way, but after a few levels of treating my PC like a real person with friends, enemies, goals and worries, I'm not usually worried about the power balance between PCs - I'm more focused on the power balance between my team and the villains. Is a 16th-level wizard villain a bigger threat to my team than a 20th-level fighter villain? Sure, I reckon so - he can come at us in more unexpected ways. Good thing my wizard buddy has me to cover his back against the "send 20,000 Uruk-Hai to their front door" angle while he worries about the more esoteric possibilities... Is he more flexible, more powerful than me? Sure, if he has a few hours to think it over and make an educated guess as to what's in store. Doesn't matter; point is that the people out there don't get to choose which of us to fight; they're gonna fight all of us.

I think the wizard would be much better off against the 20k Uruk-Hai than a fighter.

High level fighters main strength is that they can do ridiculous DPR and end most enemies with a full round attack.

Fender_Brawnanvil wrote:

So i have been thinking about trying out a arcane casting class but cant figure out which on to try so i just want to hear opinions and pros and cons.


At low levels, they are pretty even, but I think power creep has made the wizard ridiculous at higher levels.

Once you start getting spells with durations longer than a day, I think the wizard pulls ahead. For instance, Animate Dead and contingency both cost the sorcerer a spell known.

Also, at higher levels the wizard afford to leave low level spell slots open and in a few minutes minute(with the Arcane discovery), he can prepare spells to solve any problem that isn't time sensitive.

On my old wizard, I had probably 20-30 low level spells known that could solve a wide variety of puzzles the GM put forth.

Just look through the list of low level spells and see how many could potentially be useful on a rare occassion. At higher levels, you can cheaply know all of those spells.

LazarX wrote:
Haladir wrote:
I just don't get why so many GMs seem to want to screw with paladins like this. (Other than simply being a jerk, of course.)

Because being a jerk like this is seen by some to be "cool" and "edgy", it goes with our generational cynicism about morality, and authority in general.

People who take on the roles of Paladins tend to irritate those who don't believe in the concepts of inherent good or authority, and have learned to affect an almost reflexive skepticism of any who do. It's kind of like the "Skeptical of the Innocent" trope. In their minds people like this are either lying, or self delusional, and so the aim becomes in proving those suspicions right.

I don't think thats fair. I think that the Paladin code screams "plot hook" at GMs.

I mean, if you have a wizard who loves to fly, you provide opportunities for aerial combat. If you have a grappling fighter, you provide challenges where grappling can shine. So, if you have someone with a moral code, you should challenge them on that.

The problem is its rarely fun to be challenged on your code.

1 to 50 of 1,431 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.