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

mplindustries's page

4,253 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,253 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I agree that the +5 should not apply.

If you want to get lawyery about it, point out that the +5 applies to Grapple checks, not to CMB in general, while the CMD is specifically designated as 10+CMB, not 10+Grapple CMB or anything else.


No, you are trading 2AC for increased natural reach.

Everything else is irrelevant compared to how unbelievably powerful that is for a low level spell.

Of course, you're also short quite a bit of damage. It's +1 damage from Strength (possibly another 1 if you're using a two-hander), but there's also the increased damage from size.

For example, a longsword goes from 1d8 to 2d6, which is effectively +2.5 damage on top of the strength bonus.

But really, the reach is where it's at.


If I wanted the most absurd weapon possible, I'd have to go with one of the following:
Iron Brush, Battle Poi, or a Barbazu Beard


notabot wrote:
I've had level 1-10 one shotted in the past. It sucks to have a character killed so easily, but monster abilities such as save or dies/bighits/bigcrits can kill you at any time. Its just how the game is made. How a player handles his character dying is just as important for their development as a player as how they handle their successes.

I totally understand a certain level of, "but that's the game we're playing, so deal with it" attitude, but I'm curious about something:

Do you think what you described (abilities that one-shot players at just about any level) is an example of good game design?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I think a key point you mentioned in your post and then ignored in your example is the "high level" part. Low level parties don't plan because the extent of their possible planning is probably "roll a knowledge check" or, if they're bad at that and clever otherwise, "find a sage or some other NPC to make a knowledge check for us." Frankly, though, even if they knew exactly what was coming, they don't really have the resources to change what'd they'd do in response to that knowledge anyway.

But, once you hit the 5th-8th level range, I would expect to start planning a lot more-it's pretty important, frankly, for the spellcasters to have the right things prepared and that's also when you can start affording random magic items with very specific effects you might need (a specific scroll or a set of bane arrows, etc.).

I'll give you an example--I was playing a 5th level Druid in a group that was intending to travel for several days from one city to another. Before traveling, we asked around town to figure out what sort of crap was going on in the wilderness nearby (what kind of bounties were out, if there were missing people, etc.) and found out a nearby forest that'd we'd have to pass through was formerly home to a logging camp, but the lumberkjacks all recently fled due to an infestation of fire elementals.

So, for the day I knew we'd be passing through the forest, I prepped a bunch of Resist Fires and Quenches and, well, actually the GM was really frustrated with me because of how easily we dealt with the encounter, but he had his own issues.

If we had found nothing out, I think I would have probably stopped at the edge of the forest and cast something like Commune with Birds (or, if I were high enough level, Commune with Nature) to see what I needed to prepare.

Oh, and during the journey, every night, I prepared Hide Campsite before we slept since we heard about dangerous wandering threats.

I don't know--I can't imagine not planning for this stuff, but then, that's one of the things I enjoy most about the game. I don't want to just blunder into a dramatic fight to the death--I want to use my intellect to turn potentially dangerous fights into cakewalks. If only I could find a GM that appreciated that...


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

mplindustries, nice Redskins reference. Very clever actually.

Although the benching of the feat should have been because it's broken and needs an offseason to recover.

I think a lot of people want that to be the reason, and it's a damn good reason since the feat never had an offseason to practice what with the, uh, feat lockout (ok, I'm reaching) and catastrophic injury recovery, but I am pretty sure Shanahan is just losing his mind and burning bridges left and right.

Hey, maybe he's trying an elaborate plan to get hired by the Rams, since every loss from here on out helps them get a better draft pick!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, nobody gets the reference?

He mentioned Shanahanigans...referring to, I assumed, coach Mike Shanahan of the Washington Redskins who just benched RGIII for Kirk Cousins and blamed everything on the owner instead of their terrible defense, historically bad special teams, and lousy receivers in a last ditch effort to save his job (not that Snyder isn't a horrible owner that ruined his team, he's just not the only problem)...

Come on, people, football stats aren't that far removed from game mechanics, and Madden 25 is a great RPG :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
I call shenanigans. In fact, I call Shanahanigans

So, you're going to bench the feat that gives +5 to Prayer and put in one that gives +2 to Prayer while claiming that's the one you wanted all along, that the other feat only got in there because it's friends with the GM, and that it's the reason your character is so crappy rather than the fact that your AC is under 10 and all your weapons have the broken condition?


Haunting Mist is one of the most controversial spells in the game as nobody really knows what it does.

Note, for example, that there's no save for disbelief--so, technically, the mist is real and nobody can see through it. In my opinion, the lack of a disbelief entry is a mistake, but in general, I'd just recommend avoiding this spell entirely until someone straightens it out officially.


Guy Kilmore wrote:
2. Your comment regarding FATE points. In Pathfinder, for instance, people get XP, treasure, hero points, magic items, etc., etc. for accomplishing certain objectives. FATE just narrows that down to a point.

XP is fairly abstract and I don't like Hero Points for the same reason I don't like FATE points, but treasure is pretty in-character, isn't it? It's not some kind of ephemeral meta-currency, it's just real stuff.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
Adventurers complicate their lives just by being, Adventurers.

And that's the way I like it, rather than complicating their lives because they get some kind of meta-reward for doing so.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
These are both game systems, inherent in a game system is a reward and punishment system.

I have to say that I completely disagree with this statement. Roleplaying games are not like MMOs or something where the gameplay itself is not compelling enough and they have to use a Pavlovian reward system to addict their playerbase with. For most players, simply roleplaying is its own reward.

I don't want the system trying to get me to act in a certain way, especially with disassociative meta-mechanics. I just want a system that models what my character is doing.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
You can use that point for anything or nothing....same as the treasure or whatnot you get for beating an encounter in Pathfinder.

But that treasure is an actual in-game thing--this is not The One Ring where you have some kind of abstract "Treasure Score." In Pathfinder, you get an actual item you can use with a value, etc. It's something totally in-character and you can make in-character decisions about it.

FATE points, however, are totally disassociative--they're a metaconstruct. They are not something the character could ever interact with.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
I would agree with you, if the system is breaking your immersion than it is not using the appropriate carrot or stick and to stay with one that does.

Just to clarify, I don't want a carrot or stick--the existence of that is one of the things I disliked about FATE.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
The Rigidity of the Class Abstraction in Pathfinder I find to be more jarring.

Well, I honestly don't love Pathfinder. It's an ok game, but it's far from my favorite. I don't really like classes, and generally don't play games that have them.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
5. My players seem to enjoy the tagging system for that meta gaming success, for whatever reason tags and maneuvers seems to be the go to over FATE points on our table.

I liked tagging as a pure game mechanic--it was a fun puzzle trying to tag things and all that. However, while fun, I wasn't really roleplaying as much as it was just trying to manipulate a game system.

LazarX wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
And again, that's a problem--nobody in real life chooses to fail. Harry Dresden never decides, "ok, well, it'd be really cool if I failed now because I'm hot headed, and besides, it will fuel me later when it really counts!"
Interestingly enough there IS such a mechanic in Cubicle 7's Dr. Who RPG. One example given is a player deciding that his character makes a mistake and winds up getting captured by the Cybermen she's fleeing from, getting some Story Points that can be used later at an opportune time.

Yes, a lot of "dirty hippy games" have mechanics like that in them. It's a trend in rpgs, or at least it was a few years ago.

It comes from a different perspective about what RPGs are about. To people who write/play/enjoy those games, they're out to tell a good story--that's the point of play. They want to do whatever necessary to make this group story they are co-creating to be awesome and so, naturally, the next step in game evolution in that direction are mechanics that directly manipulate the story and incentivize "drama creation," be that by acting on a negative character aspect, accepting a setback to fuel up for later, or what have you.


Guy Kilmore wrote:
I guess I just experience what you experience every time I level up my character or some such, like when I pick a feat, or put ranks in skills.

And that's fine, because that stuff is done in between sessions.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
For instance, I have a player who has a character that "Allen Irons Must Die" as an Aspect. They are in a situation where diplomacy is key, and there is Allen Irons at the bar, sipping a martini with a cocky smile. The player takes a compel and begins a hostile confrontation with Allen Irons. This is the harder and more destructive path in all likely hood. The Fail Option. However, this is the logical conclusion of this character. (He also has the aspect of "Violence Solves Everything.) The Player gets rewarded for playing his character....well in character with a FATE point...while the character pursues his motivation. (After this adventure, the Allen Irons Aspect changed based upon events that occurred in the Ballroom)

Just for reference, I understand how the system works--I've played it and I totally get it. I just don't like it. The compel thing is the worst to me. If my character wants Allen Irons to Die, I'm going to go after Allen Irons, FATE points or not. The meta-reward muddies the water for me and taints the motivation. I should want him to die because he deserves death, and I should pursue that because I want it to happen. Pursuing it should definitely not make me any better at handling other, totally unrelated situations later (i.e. I got a FATE point by hating on Allen Irons, so later, when I face off with some thugs in an alley, I'll be able to spend more resources to beat them).

Guy Kilmore wrote:
I think the FATE point mechanic can be really tricky to use and requires a certain kind of mindfulness that people would not want to engage in. For some players that mindfulness isn't as difficult. (Maybe it is because of my background in psychology and being a social worker, along with players of like backgrounds, that we take to this mindfulness easy.)

Again, I don't think it's difficult, I just find it undesirable. My background in psychology doesn't make me like it any more--in fact, it may contribute to my dislike even more, since again, it's not really about character psychology at all, it's about player psychology.

I don't want to consider my character as someone separate from myself. I do not want a reward cycle to incentivize acting in character. Acting in character is the entire point for me, so bribing me to do it is just a distraction. I don't want to affect the story directly and have unrelated things I did earlier increase the likelihood of my success via meta-mechanics. I only want to interact with the world via the agency of my character and I want to do so as my character.

Heck, until I started reading gaming fora, even the idea of speaking in 3rd person at the roleplaying table was alien to me (and I would still find that very jarring if it were to ever happen at a game I was a part of).

Guy Kilmore wrote:
At the end of the day, I think FATE, like any RPG system, lends itself to certain play styles better than others.

Absolutely. However, FATE is not just "better for another style." It is totally unsuitable for the playstyle I enjoy.


Guy Kilmore wrote:
I guess my table has had a different experience, the utilization of FATE points seems to make things more focused on the characters and what they are doing.

I see this issue come up a lot when I talk about roleplaying, especially on other forums. I wish I knew how to instantly clear up the confusion, but I don't, so just bear with my explanation.

The very fact that you're talking about the players being focused on the characters and what they are doing is exactly what I'm talking about that creates distance between the player and character. That is the very thing that severs the immersion and creates "dissonance" for me.

I don't want to think about the character as separate from myself. I don't want to think about what they would do, I want to think about what I would do.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
They make the choice where drama and failure occur.

And again, that's a problem--nobody in real life chooses to fail. Harry Dresden never decides, "ok, well, it'd be really cool if I failed now because I'm hot headed, and besides, it will fuel me later when it really counts!"

That kind of thinking is disassociative--it involves a choice that the character would never make, that is not associated with that character. Only the player would make that choice on behalf of their character, and only because it provides more fuel (FATE points) for later actions. The decision is steeped entirely in the metagame.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
I do think that with SotC and Dresden suffered from the fact that they had too many aspects and FATE points. The later version of FATE really slims it down so FATE points are much more limited, meaning that you, as the player had to be involved in the drama to get mechanical impact. I also think that there is more player responsibility in evolving your character. If you don't adjust your aspects during play then, yes, you can hit that disconnect.

No, the disconnect for me and those I play with occurs because you, the player, have to be involved in the drama and adjust your aspects during play. The very thing you consider immersive is, well, the opposite of immersion.

See, you're getting immersed in the story, but I don't want that, I want to be immersed in the character. As soon as I think of my character as someone that is not me, I'm not immersed.

To me, the story is not something we're manipulating directly. We don't get together to tell a cool story together. We're not looking to play story-games.

We're getting together to, well, play the role of someone else. We want to be that other person in that other situation. We don't want to be conscious of that person as being someone else, we want to make decisions from their perspectives and interact in the world as if we were them.

The story for us is emergent--it emerges from what we do, but we don't purposefully build it in any way. The story happens later, after the game, when we talk about what happened.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
I guess I just don't see how FATE points get disconnected from your character when it is your character aspects (motivations and descriptors) that generate them and justify their use.

But their use is based on metaconcerns (i.e. FATE points) not anything in character.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
I do think FATE based systems make a paradigm shift in thinking about how we roleplay, because in FATE failing is not bad. This is because failure is interesting and FATE likes to reward the interesting actions. Our table found it hard at first to have your character choose to fail something.

It's a difficult paradigm shift because your character is not choosing you fail, you are choosing to fail.

On the one hand, I fully recognize that as long as someone is having fun, they're not playing wrong, but on the other, I have a hard time figuring out what FATE and other narrative storygames like it have in common with roleplaying.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
(If I am coming across as argumentative, I apologize, not really trying to pick a fight; just trying to see where the feedback loop comes into play. The only real way I can see it is if someone gets real metagamey, but to be honest that can be an issue in any roleplaying setting.)

It's no problem, as I said, I'm used to people who like FATE being confused by my stand. I just hope you don't consider me rude for my answer.


Skaldi the Tallest wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Personally, I like table variation. :)

Just to be sure we're using the same term to mean the same thing. You're talking about playing the same PC with the same sheet at different tables with different GMs, each of whom has decided the rules work differently. So, your Druid needs a high strength/con for the GMs that say the abilities work as described in Universal Monster Rules, you need a high wisdom for the GMs that go with the Polymorph subschool and a high charsima for those that stick with the (Su) description.

Or for a less specific case. Each GM that you have running a game for you deciding that, say, grappling works differently because of some ambiguous wording or something that looks off to one of the GMs.

Yes and no.

Yes in that, I like the idea that GM A's game is going to be different from GM B's game, which includes, but is not limited to rules interpretation.

However, I would never take the same character sheet to another GM--that's absurd. No, if GM A ran the rules as written and required Charisma for those abilities, I would play a druid who didn't care about Poison, Trample, etc. If GM B ran the rules the way many here are interpretting them as keying off of Wisdom, I'd make a Druid that cared a little bit more about Wisdom. If GM C ran the rules as I would houserule (that they use the universal monster rules), then I'd play the Strength/Con focused druid straight up.

But under no circumstances would I ever play the same character sheet for different GMs, nor would I play with GMs that wouldn't tell me those sorts of rulings ahead of time.

(Insert a rambling rant about how PFS and other types of global games that cannot abide by table variation are ruining the hobby here)


Skaldi the Tallest wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
so you should ultimately just houserule it, and I think the best houserule is to copy the ability's save (so Strength for Trample, Con for Poison, etc.).
And that's a great bandaid solution for most folks out there. Unfortunately some of us are stuck in the lands of RAW. If Paizo could just speak up at some point and say "No, it's written in the bestiary. Use the rules in the Universal Monster Rules." or "He's a Druid, duh. Use Wisdom." Or even "MPL has it right, use charisma for all of that stuff." It'd reduce a heck of a lot of table variation for those of us that face that.

Personally, I like table variation. :)


Taenia wrote:

Wild shape depends on Beast Shape which is dependent on Polymorph subschool. Which says the DCs are based on the spell being cast.

Druids use wisdom so wisdom would be their casting stat.

This is where the problem starts. Just because the Druid can cast spells and does so with Wisdom does not mean that suddenly, the DC of Supernatural or Spell-like powers that they have are based on Wisdom, too.

The default attribute for Supernatural and Spell-like powers is Charisma, unless it is otherwise stated. It is not otherwise stated. There is absolutely zero precedent for just deciding that the stat is Wisdom because Druids can cast spells with Wisdom.

If some random demon took levels of Druid, would all of their spell-like ability save DCs suddenly be based on Wisdom instead of Charisma? No, of course not.

I don't think it is necessarily correct that a Supernatural ability that references a spell/the polymorph subschool should suddenly have a DC that mimics a spell anyway (I am 90% confident that it's still 10 + 1/2 level + stat, not 10 + spell level + stat), but I am 100% confident that you don't just suddenly change the default stat for these sorts of things to Wisdom.

And this is basically the point I was making all along--the actual rules here (it should be 10 + half level + Charisma) are not good. Setting the DC to be based on Charisma makes no sense, so you should ultimately just houserule it, and I think the best houserule is to copy the ability's save (so Strength for Trample, Con for Poison, etc.).


James Risner wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
If the average bard can deal X damage in a round without expending resources, then Weird Words (which does expend resources--Bardic Performance rounds) needs to deal more than X damage.
Sorry, what I sort of mean is that if the Bardic Performance is as good as you describe it is too good.

I don't understand this at all. Am I correct that you are saying a Bard should be able to deal more damage without expending any resources whatsoever than they could deal with a Bardic Performance that expends resources?

Really? I don't...I can't...what!?


James Risner wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Weird Words need to deal better damage than an average bard's turn could deal without expending resources
That is the root problem. The damage needs to be limited or expend significant resources otherwise it is a big power up.

I think you read that sentence as:

Weird words, without costing resources, needs to deal better damage than an average bard's turn could deal.

However, what was intended (and I was grammatically correct, though I can see how it would be confusing):

If the average bard can deal X damage in a round without expending resources, then Weird Words (which does expend resources--Bardic Performance rounds) needs to deal more than X damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
Hmmm, I asked you not be so insulting, so you decided to be moreso!

Guess I'm a douche ;)

CWheezy wrote:
I guess picking options in the game means you are a douche.

Only when those game options are known to be broken and douchey.

CWheezy wrote:
Also, I enjoyed you absolving the developers of responsibility by stating that they can just say "Why change the rules? You are just a jerk for picking that option!"

No absolution is given. I said that is what they would say, I never said it was good that they'd say it.

I am not absolving errors, simply being realistic about what will be fixed. I think large amounts of the game are problematic. They do not care. It is unrealistic of me to expect them to change, and it is ridiculous of me to specifically play using problematic options in problematic ways and ruin other people's time just because they have not/will not change those problematic things.

CWheezy wrote:
Usually, I prefer my developers to take responsibility for the balance in their games

And I'd prefer to be a millionaire. They are not going to fix Simulacrum just because you keep creating wish factories in your home game and ruining the fun of everyone else in your group. They are aware of the Snowcone Wish Factory--they have made no changes. This is fact, not forgiveness.

You are aware of the Snowcone Wish Factory and know it is problematic. Hey, maybe don't do it! If you know about it, know it is problematic, and do it anyway, guess who now also becomes a problem?


Prince of Knives wrote:
I wanna clear something up real quick - this is not necessarily how tiers work.

And I want to clear up real quick that Pathfinder tiers and 3.5 tiers are not the same.

For one, Paragon Surge makes spontaneous casters equal to prepared casters in options, so that divide is irrelevant now.

Also, I was talking about tiers in a very general sense, using my own stance, which is loosely:

9th level casters and Master Summoners > Summoners > Other 6th level casters > 4th level casters > Barbarians > Full BAB classes without spells > Monks/Rogues

NPC classes don't matter in it at all.

So, if you compare Hunters to the game in general, they are one of the weakest 6th level casters, but they're still 6th level casters, so they're better than rogues and fighters and whatnot. But if you compare them to Druids, they gain practically nothing in exchange for losing Wild Shape and 3 levels of spells, so they are terrible overall.


24 Damage for a high level anything is always going to be disappointing. The ability is weak. Period.

I'm not saying that is not what the developers want--they might--all I'm saying is that it will make zero players happy except possibly for those who hate Bards and never want them to deal threatening levels of damage.

Weird Words need to deal better damage than an average bard's turn could deal without expending resources (arrows don't count) or else the archetype is a trap and would do better to simply not exist at all.


Quantum Steve wrote:
By your interpretation Summon Monster lasts only 4 rounds, from immediately before your action on round 2, to immediately before your action on turn 6.

No, by me miss counting it lasts 4 rounds. Just before round 7 then, I guess is right.

I see what you did there.

But Call Lightning still lets you call a bolt immediately before your turn on 2, and then during your turn on 2. It's not changed by my miscounting another spell's rounds.


Quantum Steve wrote:
So, why does the Clairvoyance last the full 5 minutes, 50 rounds (101-150 inclusive), but the Summon Monster only lasts 4 rounds (2-5 inclusive)?

Summon Monster lasts 5 rounds, from immediately before my action on round 2, to immediately before my action on turn 6. It includes 5 actions--one immediately upon completion of the spell, and once each on turn 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The same is true of Call Lightning. If I use every available standard action to call lightning with Caster Level 5, I get one immediately before my action on turn 2, and then once each on my turns 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Quantum Steve wrote:
What about Sleep at lvl 1? When does your opponent wake up?

It lasts from immediately before my action on turn 2 to immediately before my action on turn 3.


Quantum Steve wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Are wrote:

Edit: With standard action summoning the creature would come right away on the same turn, since the spell would no longer use the special rule for spells with a "1 round" casting time. Thus, it would act immediately, even before your move action if so desired.

This is telling. I don't think the 1 Round cast time changes the duration of a spell in any way, whereas you seem to think it does. I don't understand why you run it that way, but I do think you're right that we won't otherwise agree here.
So, you would say that a spell such as Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, with a 10 minute casting time and 5 minute duration, would expire before the spell was finished casting?

No, obviously :P

If I began casting Clairvoyance on round 1, it would complete immediately before my action on turn 101. If it lasted 5 minutes, it would go until turn 150 and end immediately before my turn 151.

Just to clarify, if I cast a Summon Monster with a caster level of 5 on turn 1, it triggers/gets to act immediately before my action on round 2, then on each of my actions in round 2, 3, 4, and 5. It would then disappear/desummon immediately before my action on round 6.


The text I see on the srd is:

"A broken soul can make a touch attack to cause hideous, painful wounds to rip open in the target's body. This touch deals 2d6 points of slashing damage and 1d6 points of Dexterity damage, and causes the touched creature to fall prone in a fit of convulsions and be dazed for 1d4 rounds. A successful Fortitude save negates the Dexterity damage and the convulsive fit."

So, convulsions are just a flavorful descriptor for being prone and dazed.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
mpl, and how is that approach different than my default "get together and talk this out, find a compromise or look for a different group" advice?

Because your solution gives neither validation nor support--the person leaves your comment unsatisfied and the thing is, nobody is going to see a forum message saying, "Why not try talking to the group about it?" and think, "Oh man, why didn't I think of that?" Who posts here before they consider alternatives like talking? Wouldn't talking to the group be everyone's first idea? I'm pretty sure if they're here complaining, they're after something else.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Sometimes I think the threads go on and on with thousands of words deconstructing the personal motivations and life histories of people nobody ever met and never will meet just because it gives people a chance to vent their own private frustrations and project them on a group of strangers.

... and I'll add to that the observation that in my experience, the people who start throwing around words like "douche" or "jerk" on the slightest hint of pretext are the ones doing the most obvious projection.

First, using the word "douche" here was just for fun--it's always for fun. It's a funny word and I'm rarely serious about much of anything.

Second, I don't see what's wrong with deconstructing the motivations and histories of people you'll never meet in order to vent private frustrations. Isn't venting private frustrations something positive?

What I'm saying is two things:

1) There's context to consider as to who is actually being more unreasonable.

2) No matter who is wrong, the complaining player generally just wants some validation and sympathy and nothing more. They're not really looking for advice--they don't really want to find solutions. They just want to be told their complaints are heard and they are not alone. Once they have it, they just go back to the same group and have absolutely no issues from then on.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

mpl, the simple realities of probability and group dynamics would indicate to me that at least 75-80% of the time, the person coming here to complain is likely the problem person.

That's why my advice is almost always in the "get together and talk this out" vein, instead of "yeah, you're group sucks. Buncha pansies probably" vein.

Every now and then I'll see a thread where I will conclude that there really is a problem with the group, not the individual, but that's rare.

And you know what mpl? It generally has exactly the same solution. Talk it out and work out a compromise, or find a different group.

Bringing back some sort of "Neener, neener, I talked to all the 'experts' and they told me you guys all suck" response is pretty much never going to help.

I don't think talking with the group about the issue is ever bad advice. But that doesn't mean the complaining player is wrong.

And telling them their group is full of douches is absolutely not the same as telling them to tell their group that they are all douches.

Sometimes, people are upset about something in game and they come and complain. They like the validation they feel when the forum tells them its not their fault and the group was being unfair, etc. Then, they are satisfied and go back to the same group and have fun again with no further issues.

But if you tell them that they're the wrong ones and they need to adjust their attitude, they're going to get defensive and feel worse about the whole thing, making them more likely to cause more problems and escalate things until it really is a "get out of the group" situation.

The vast majority of people that complain just want sympathy and validation, not solutions, and if they receive it, the problem usually ends right then and there.


It is very rare that I see homebrew spells that aren't stupid and broken.

However, these all seem fine to me. I don't even think the auto-stabilization needs to come out. It's so minor, and frankly, the spell needs it since it's giving up half the Strength bonus and 10x the duration of Bull's Strength.

Teeth of the Wind seems a little underpowered, honestly. By dealing Slashing Damage, it becomes susceptible to DR, which is a major concern and very common once 4th level spells come into play. Caster level + Casting Stat also makes for a fairly anemic CMB for Bullrushing. It fits the general formula that most spells have, sure, but as anyone who ever actually tried playing a character with magical lineage for toppling magic missiles will tell you, it's just not high enough to beat CMDs with the way they scale.

Alexander Riggs wrote:
The only thing that really bothers me is the maximum damage on teeth of the wind. 15d6 is a lot for a 4th-level spell, and will let 15th-level casters who have it spam a lot of damage.

15d6 is the standard cap for 4th level spells. Look at Dragon Breath for confirmation. Plus, as I said, the Slashing damage is weak.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Yeah, this thread seems to be going the same way.

"Yeah, all the people you game with are douches! Tell 'em to go to hell!"

I guess that'll just have to be the continuing default board reply for these situations....

Isn't always siding with the group over the individual just as bad as always siding with the individual over the group? Do you not think context comes into this at all?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
if the player both knows what they're doing and is a douche.

I think this is actually pretty offensive!

Blaming the players for using options printed in the books is pretty unfair I think! It is the developers fault for not fixing or releasing errata or a faq stating what exactly you can do with them.

I never absolved the developers in this matter. However, if you know a certain option will break the game and you do it anyway, you are being a douche because the very best reason you could have to actually do it is to prove some kind of weird point to the developers.

There's no benefit to actually doing it (unless you want to ruin the game, which is kind of douchey, isn't it?).

Quadratic magic is B.S. But it's in the game. So, assuming you are playing it anyway, the options are:
1) Cut the game short (E6, E8, just stopping at 12 or whatever)--this is my preferred option if I have to play it
2) Restrain yourself to things you know won't ruin everything
3) Ruin everything

One of those choices makes you a douche.

CWheezy wrote:
I think a lot more things would be "fixed" if players were not against changes.

And I think you need to read more of the developers posts if you think that. The Snowcone Wish Factory would not get fixed because the developers would just look disapprovingly and say, "Come on guys, really? Don't be a douche."

CWheezy wrote:
I prefer a game where I can pick simulacrum and use it

You totally can! But you're a douche if you use it in a way that breaks the game (like making a wish factory).

Because the game has design flaws in it, you can follow all the rules and still be a douche, because some of the rules are bad.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Spiderman has always been my favorite super hero, and I was severely disappointed by Tobey Maguire's portrayal.

I thought Amazing Spiderman fixed the franchise--I liked everything about it except for the interminably long "let's line the cranes up" sequence and the Lizard's bizarre looking face.

The key for me, I think is that, well, as another said, Peter Parker was kind of a dick and he should be. He's always been a smart-ass. It's the reason I like Raphael to best of the ninja turtles, too. He beats up the bad guys while unleashing taunting one-liners--he's supposed to be like that, and Tobey Maguire never captured that aspect of the character.

Nothing about this trailer was especially exciting to me. Electro was never really a villain I cared about, but frankly, I'd be excited about this sequel no matter what they do with it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree, it depends on the circumstances.

"Nobody likes how I am ten times stronger than them! It's not my fault that they can't powergame!"

No, that guy is a douche.

"Nobody likes how I am ten times stronger than them, even though I offered to help them build their characters and have curtailed my power to a significant degree and focus mostly on buffing them so they can function competently against basic threats."

In that case, the group is douchey, not the player.


Animals with one big attack are just about the only characters for which Vital Strike is worthwhile.

Improved Natural Attack and Vital Strike will be excellent for what you're doing. I still generally think pouncing with 3+ attacks is better than one big attack with Vital Strike, but with Strong Jaw and Animal Growth, it will still be quite vicious.


It depends on what you're comparing it to.

The Arcanist and Shaman have 9th level spells, so they are tier 1. The Hunter and Warpriest have 6th levels, so they are tier 2, etc. The Investigator is clearly a replacement rogue and is better than a rogue, but it's obviously not top tier, etc.

However, when you compare them to classes in the same situation, yes, they're all weak except the Arcanist.

The Hunter offers nothing that a Druid can't get except teamwork feats (and they lose too much to pay for that gain). The Warpriest is a Cleric with more feats, which are, clearly not worth losing spells. The Brawler is worse at fighting unarmed than a Fighter.

The Skald is a great example of this phenomenon, actually, as they are an awful class, but they still have 6th level spells, so they're still better than, say, a Fighter, Monk, or Rogue.

No, you know what, it's not just the Arcanist. The Investigator is better than the Rogue and about equal to the Alchemist. The Shaman is pretty equal to the Cleric I think, so they're not exactly underpowered either. But the other 7, yeah, are on the weaker side of the classes you should compare them to.


The Snowcone Wish Factory is the worst.

RAGELANCEPOUNCE is as bad as the Hulking Hurler thing.

Master Summoners are pretty ridiculous.

As "savvy" as the developers have been, they left quadratic magic, so basically anything with 9th level spells can break the campaign if the player both knows what they're doing and is a douche.


Are wrote:

Edit: With standard action summoning the creature would come right away on the same turn, since the spell would no longer use the special rule for spells with a "1 round" casting time. Thus, it would act immediately, even before your move action if so desired.

This is telling. I don't think the 1 Round cast time changes the duration of a spell in any way, whereas you seem to think it does. I don't understand why you run it that way, but I do think you're right that we won't otherwise agree here.


Are wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Are wrote:

Can I ask how you (HangarFlying and mplindustries) handle summoning spells? Say, any summon monster spell cast by a 10th level wizard in round 1?

By my interpretation, the summoned monster will be able to act 10 times (during rounds 2-11), while by your interpretation it seems that it can only act 9 times (during rounds 2-10, since you say the duration begins the round of casting).

They act 10 times. Immediately upon finishing the casting, then on each of the next 9 rounds (rounds 2-9).

So, in your view, the summoned monster, once it appears, gets to act twice before an enemy can act? When it appears (just before your initiative count on round 2), then again on your round 2?

If that's not what you're saying, then please state how you see it working, if the caster acts at, say, initiative 20 and the enemy at initiative 10.

Yes. It acts immediately upon completion of the spell, and on your turn.

Any other interpretation makes standard action summoning pointless (unless you're desperate to move more than 5').


Are wrote:

Can I ask how you (HangarFlying and mplindustries) handle summoning spells? Say, any summon monster spell cast by a 10th level wizard in round 1?

By my interpretation, the summoned monster will be able to act 10 times (during rounds 2-11), while by your interpretation it seems that it can only act 9 times (during rounds 2-10, since you say the duration begins the round of casting).

They act 10 times. Immediately upon finishing the casting, then on each of the next 9 rounds (rounds 2-10).


Rikkan wrote:
So if I summon a creature using Summon Monster I, it disappears as soon as it appears? It disappears before turn 2 even starts so it can't even make a single attack?

If you are Caster Level 1 and you cast Summon Monster 1, they appear immediately before your turn on round 2, they get their actions as normal, then they disappear before your action.

PS - Summon Monster 1 is not a very good spell.


Are wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Going by your count, I can see the issue. You are thinking the spell comes into effect immediately after your initiative on round 2 (20.1), but it actually comes into effect immediately before (19.9).

No, initiative 20.1 is immediately before 20, just like initiative 21 is before 20. That's why I wrote it before, rather than after..

D'oh! Brain fart.

Ok, so then how are you counting duration rounds wrong, then? You are not counting round 1 until the round after the spell is cast--why? Round one of any spell effect is the round in which it is cast.


Going by your count, I can see the issue. You are thinking the spell comes into effect immediately after your initiative on round 2 (20.1), but it actually comes into effect immediately before (19.9).


Let's use real initiative counts here, ok? Let's say the Druid has an initiative of 20. I'll refer to rounds as A, B, C, etc. So, round 1 is 20A, round 2 is 20B, etc.

If you cast a spell on 20A, round 1 of the effect lasts from 20A-20B, yes? So, when you cast Call Lightning, round 1 is from 20A-20B. The first lightning drops immediately before 20B, and then 20B begins round 2.


Are wrote:
Spell-durations don't begin while you're casting the spell, so I don't see any way the text can possibly refer to the round of casting.

Spell durations start when the spell is cast. The spell is cast and completed in round 1, immediately before round 2 starts.

Are wrote:
Besides, if it worked that way, why would the text even say "each round after the first"? It would have been easier (and less confusing) to simply say "each round".

No, because then people would be saying, why does it say each round? Can I call a bolt in the first round? Do I actually have a standard action available? What if I cast a quickened Call Lightning? Can I call one on the first round?

It's clarifying text, it's not portraying some secret meaning about when you can drop bolts.


I totally disagree here. The first round is the round you're casting the spell. You get a free bolt in round one (i.e. immediately before your turn). Then, on the second round, you can call down a lightning bolt as a standard action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

How do people see discussions like this and still think WBL is a good thing in any way? I am even more convicted in my "no magic items at all" stance.

That said, once again, I need to advocate for the removal of Consume Items as a balance point, because my players will never get to do it.

hey, lets make it even harder for martials to keep up with casters because a new caster profits from it!

magic items exist for EVERYONE.

Huh? I'm not removing magic items because of the Arcanist.

I remove magic items because I hate magic items in my game. My problem is that if they balance the Arcanist around using Consume Items to keep their AR up, they'll be really boring in my game since they won't have any AR.

I am fully aware of how powerful full casters are, so I have plenty of things in place in my game to prevent that. Spellcasters have never taken over my games, and actually, it's never really come up because the vast majority of my players avoid prepared casters like the plague (because Vancian Magic is tedious and unfun).

I just don't want the Arcanist, a class I think is cool in concept, to be balanced around eating items.


Taenia wrote:

RAW is pretty clear. Even though its a supernatural ability its one that refers for specifics to a spell. That in turn refers to the polymorph sub school which lists the saving throws based on spell + casting stat.

I don't agree with you, but since you say it's clear, then tell me, what is the casting stat in question?


redward wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

How do people see discussions like this and still think WBL is a good thing in any way? I am even more convicted in my "no magic items at all" stance.

That said, once again, I need to advocate for the removal of Consume Items as a balance point, because my players will never get to do it.

You're arguing for the removal of an ability because of your house rules?

Yeah, well, it sounds better when I say it :P

Yes, I play without magic items--is it really weird for me to not want an ability requiring magic items in the game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How do people see discussions like this and still think WBL is a good thing in any way? I am even more convicted in my "no magic items at all" stance.

That said, once again, I need to advocate for the removal of Consume Items as a balance point, because my players will never get to do it.


I think the danger of making the Hunter spontaneous is that it would make a class designed to fight in tandem with their companion into a class that casts spells in combat.

See, prepared casting is far friendlier to utility, non-combat situations, and the Druid list is especially well suited to that kind of strategy. They can just buff up and ignore spells otherwise during a fight (which also allows them not to prioritize Wisdom so much and focus instead on fighting stats). Spontaneous casting, though, is notoriously poor when it comes to utility and non-combat magic, but generally is more flexible during open combat.

I'm not sure the hunter should really be throwing Entangles and Calling Lightning rather than shooting a bow or swinging a scythe.


One thing to change: Rage Song is a buff only a tiny fraction of likely allies would ever want and actively penalizes 90% of potential party mates in return

One thing NOT to change: I'm not impressed enough with anything yet (note, I love the new Arcanist, but the survey is about the first iteration where it was boring)

Favorite Class: The only one that I would ever even consider playing is Investigator, and I still probably wouldn't at that.

Least Favorite Class: Skald, though Warpriest and Hunter are both made obsolete by their parent class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I were you, I'd just dump Strength and take Piranha Strike instead.

1 to 50 of 4,253 << 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.