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

pauljathome's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,146 posts. 18 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 40 Pathfinder Society characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

The phrase is "weapons or tools". To me a shield pretty clearly falls under that definition. It would be more than a lot silly to allow an ape to use a shield but to NOT let it use a fishing stick.

I wouldn't allow it at a PFS table. Which means that, at the very least, you can expect significant table variance.

Silver Crusade ****

Roleplay interesting characters who interact with my NPCs and the world as their characters would. If you let my NPCs talk a bunch I'll have fun.

Come up with truly unusual tactics which make me think about how to handle things. Unusual is NOT "take advantage of some rules loophole" but more thinking outside the box.

Have fun. Fun is contagious. If you're visibly enjoying yourself I likely will too

Silver Crusade ****

It varies somewhat by convention, but in general

1) every GM at a convention gets a boon
2) boons are available to players in a lottery method. No guarantees but if you play enough tables chances of getting at least 1 boon are good
3) conventions play the same scenarios as everybody else. Gencon and Paizocon are exceptions in that some of the scenarios will be exclusives
4) the exact boons available depends on the convention and when it is run
5) boons are tradeable so sometimes you can get the boon you want that way even if you've get a boon you don't really want

Silver Crusade ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't constantly rules lawyer, ESPECIALLY when it really isn't important. The GM needs to be given at least a little slack in their interpretation. Assume that he is trying to make the game better for you.

On a related note, if the GM makes a ruling that you believe to be incorrect, politely raise your objection and then accept the GMs ruling.

Please don't bring in a wildly overpowered character. Or, if you feel that you must do so, please underplay that character until necessary. Let the GM do at least a bit of damage to you and the party :-).

Keep your head in the game. Pay attention to what is happening, be ready when it is your turn, minimize extraneous conversation, etc.

Silver Crusade ****

RCW wrote:

While I generally agree with the post above, there are GM's that can run cold and do it well if needed. Especially the older scenarios. I will, if asked, run cold and usually the player's don't even notice.

It also depends a lot on what you mean by "cold". Like most GMs I've played and/or GMed a very large number of scenarios. Even if I've forgotten the details running one that I've run before is a long way from "cold".

And, of course, some scenarios can be run cold much easier than others.

Silver Crusade ****

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
I don't really think a refund is fair.

While I understand your position that seems unduly harsh to me. You're essentially punishing a player for lack of experience and knowledge.

He has ALREADY paid a price in that he was without better equipment for some scenarios. Making him continue to pay that price seems unfair.

Silver Crusade ****

I pretty much agree with trollbill.
But one thing to emphasize is that the reason why the GM is turning a player away matters a LOT. The more "reasonable" that seems then the more latitude the GM has in practice.

For example, it is considered nearly universally acceptable to turn away a player with a proven history of being disruptive, cheating, etc.

It is nearly universally considered very bad behaviour to turn away a player because he is playing a <insert class the GM doesn't like>.

The case of a player who refuses to tone down their over powerful character and ruins the fun for everybody else lies somewhere in between.

Other reasons vary greatly by the group, individuals involved, etc.

Silver Crusade

SultanOfAwesome wrote:

I use the term unjustified murder because most do not understand the difference between murder (Which is always evil and never justified, no matter how you look at it) and and other forms of killing, such as execution (Which is considered just retribution visited for murder and rape in older definitions in most of the Judeo-Christian world).

You seem to be using circular reasoning. Murder == "always evil" implies "There is objective reality because murder is always evil".

If by "objective evil" you mean "some external standard of evil that we do not understand or know anything about" then
1) that is, by definition, unfalsifiable and also pretty much uninteresting. "Well, there is this thing that exists. We don't know anything about it and there is no evidence for it but it exists. And you can't prove it doesn't."
2) There is arguably absolutely zero evidence that it exists and lots of evidence that it doesn't. Given that the claim is unfalisiable that does NOT disprove it but the vast preponderance of evidence shows that it is unlikely to exist.

If by "objective evil" you mean "universally or nearly universally accepted as evil" then there really isn't such a thing. There are cultures (historical and current) that accept what the vast majority of people reading this would consider to be rape, murder and pedophilia as not being evil.

Silver Crusade ****

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

But a change like the one I'm suggesting is impossible to result in unforseen circumstances because nothing is actually changing.

That isn't correct.

Players can expend limited resources in earlier encounters thus making a later encounter harder. Or they could gain various negative conditions. Those are the most obvious ways that order of encounter s can matter but there are many other possibilities.

Silver Crusade

Meiliken wrote:
To be completely logical, there is no such thing as good and evil. They are false philosophical human constructs that have no place in the universe other than what mortals conjure from their imagination. The universe does not know good or evil, it only knows existence and non-existence. Logical fact.

To assert the non existance of something is most definitely NOT "completely logical".

Even if they are philosophical human constructs, that doesn't make them false nor does it mean that they have no place in the universe.

It is interesting that you think it a logical fact that universe knows things.

Note - The above is mostly my being pedantic. You'd be best to NOT assume that I hold any particular beliefs based upon it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to start with two caveats.

1)Real world morality is far more complicated than Dnd and this makes all the real world questions essentially meaningless. Following answers are for campaign world only

2) The answer varies a lot by campaign, by player and by character. Following are the answers for most of my characters

Billybrainpan wrote:

1. Is there a direct correlation between good/evil and law/chaos?

Game world - Some correlation.


2. Is anything inherently or irredeemably good/evil?

Game World - varies immensely by campaign.


3. Can you know how good or bad an act is without exploring the whole scenario first?

Game World - With rare exceptions yes.


4. Should the morality of a player affect their character?

In theory, no.


5. Does the morality of a player affect their character?

Absolutely it does. Look at any discussion of alignment on the net and it is very clear that real world player morality affects what is seen as good, evil, etc.


6. Does committing an evil act make you evil?

Game World - It depends on the act, the reason for the act, the repentance after the act and the particular campaign. In general, a single act will not make one evil.


7. Committing several evil acts in pathfinder will change your alignment to evil. How does that relate to real life? Is that an accurate portrayal of morality?

It does not relate to real life in any way since morality in the real world is far more complicated

Silver Crusade ****

My biggest issue with the current rounding rules is when you start with a number that is clearly in the low subtier and end up in the other subtier due to rounding twice.

2.6 going to 3 going to subtier 4-5 is one example. If you combine this with 5 players the result can be very bad.

Silver Crusade ****

From the comments on the product page, it seems like there are many parts of the book that leave much to the interpretation of the GM. While this is absolutely the right way to go with a book of optional rules it would be highly problematic in PFS.

The variant multiclassing rules sound interesting but there are almost guaranteed to be significant balance issues (the combinations are so numerous that they can't possibly have all been play tested).

My guess is that the classes will be made legal and almost all of the rest of the book won't be. If the variant multiclassing is allowed I suspect the power creep will be quite significant over the next couple of months as new combinations are discovered.

I can't see the new summoner really coexisting with the old one. No idea how they'll handle that. I think the fairest solution would be to grandfather the old one but require new characters to use the new one.

Silver Crusade

This issue came up today in PFS. I'm interested in the RAW answer.

I'm not talking about the interaction of light and darkness spells, just asking about basic light from a sunrod (so, 30 ft bright light).

In the following example, how far would the light go? How far would the person P standing at the corner be able to see down the corridor? Would low light vision change that answer?

X - corridor
L - light source
P - Person


Silver Crusade

Shillelagh seems the obvious approach. Either as a druid or as a wand via Use Magic Device

Silver Crusade ****

kinevon wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
countchocula wrote:
I have a question when it says "Once per adventure that grants a Chronicle sheet and at least 1 XP" does this mean we do not get a check if we are going slow track? probably reading into it but thanks in advance.
I don't think that this got answered.
John Compton's answer

Thank you. I missed that one.

Silver Crusade ****

countchocula wrote:
I have a question when it says "Once per adventure that grants a Chronicle sheet and at least 1 XP" does this mean we do not get a check if we are going slow track? probably reading into it but thanks in advance.

I don't think that this got answered.

Silver Crusade ****

Michael Brock wrote:

No, they can't be applied retroactively.

Totally understood but man I REALLY wish these had been out a few weeks ago when I played Slave Masters Mirror (my character would have qualified for 4 of the 6 conditions) :-)

These look excellent. Lots of flavor, boons are useful, best of all the boon benefits the entire party. Suddenly all my characters will feel part of a faction again.

Congratulations on this, you have surpassed yourselves

Silver Crusade

Alexander Augunas wrote:
before slinging design insults at the PDT.

I most certainly wasn't slinging insults at the PDT, unless your definition of "insult" is "say anything critical of what they produce".

Silver Crusade

Am I the only one who thinks that this is likely to lead to a LOT of power creep?

Sure, beefing up the ftr is no huge deal. But do druids really need to be able to rage? Do wizards and clerics need more options?

ACG made it very clear that what Paizo considers balanced is very different from what I considered balanced (I think there's a lot of power creep in that book).

At the moment I'm hoping that little of this is made PFS legal. But I expect that the new classes, feats, multiclassing, etc will be legal. And the power level will be ratched up at least a couple more notches.

Silver Crusade

Unfortunately, I think not. If it had access to its masters feats, traits, magic items, masterpieces, etc it would say so. I interpret "just like its master" as meaning that it has its masters performances, it takes the appropriate action to start, etc.

Silver Crusade ****

I've run about 3 Core scenarios and played 1 module, 3 levels of Emerald Spire and 6 odd scenarios. The highest level thing I've played or run was subtier 4-5

I'm finding Core distinctly harder (both as a GM and a player). Its certainly still winnable but its harder. One death so far but that was partly aggressive play and largely bad luck (crit rolling above average against a favoured enemy). The subtier 4-5 could have been a TPK but the GM was softballing a little. One scenario I ran would have been a TPK but I softballed a little.

Core is definitely starting to cause better play to occur in general. People are actually caring about tactics. Poor tactics can doom you.

There is definitely less room for mismatched parties, parties playing up, characters who don't pull their weight, players who don't pull their weight, etc. One or more problems here can really be a problem.

Going through a LOT more expendables. Especially CLW charges.

Almost all of the Core that I've experienced has been with experienced players, not new players. With that group, I like the effect.

But I expect lots of later season higher level scenarios will be quite deadly, especially with a GM who doesn't like to pull punches.

Silver Crusade ****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If you have a table of level 1s or 2s, common sense says you don't allow a level 4 pregen to play at that table.

No, it doesn't. If I want to allow a 4th level pregen in a party of 1s, I do. I've done it with regular PCs, I see no reason not to allow a pregen the same way.

Common sense tells you to do what is fun, and if three 1s and a 4th level pregen is fun, you are welcome to do it.

I might allow a level 4 pregen with 3 level 1s and 2s but only if ALL the players voted for it in a secret ballot. Even then, it would depend on the scenario. It would be more likely the more difficult the scenario.
Or there could be a confusion/dominate and turn the level 4 into an unstoppable engine of destruction.

I'm not sure a 4th level barbarian is much more dangerous than a first level barbarian to a L1 or 2 :-).

Joking aside, you're right. Hence my "might" above :-)

Silver Crusade ****

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If you have a table of level 1s or 2s, common sense says you don't allow a level 4 pregen to play at that table.

No, it doesn't. If I want to allow a 4th level pregen in a party of 1s, I do. I've done it with regular PCs, I see no reason not to allow a pregen the same way.

Common sense tells you to do what is fun, and if three 1s and a 4th level pregen is fun, you are welcome to do it.

I might allow a level 4 pregen with 3 level 1s and 2s but only if ALL the players voted for it in a secret ballot. Even then, it would depend on the scenario. It would be more likely the more difficult the scenario.

Silver Crusade ****

Andrew Christian wrote:

It does not mean that, and lists aren't parsed that way.

No rebuild is allowed. There is no reason for Mike to comment.

Sorry, but making an emphatic statement does NOT change the fact that the sentence is ambiguous. English is a context sensitive language and a great many constructs are inherently ambiguous.

I suspect that we could find grammar guides that would state the sentence unambiguously meant one alternative or the other. They'd be wrong. It is ambiguous.

Silver Crusade ****

Walter Sheppard wrote:

A lot of core for us has been forcing us to use good teamwork and tactics. Get that flanking, deny that sneak attack by getting concealment, spread out if expecting a fireball, etc.

Which does open up one rather interesting issue. Those tactics largely rely on player ability. Having a smokestick to eliminate sneak attacks is pretty darn advanced (very well done, mind :-) ). Not all experienced players are that good and fairly few beginner players (one of the main targets for CORE) are.

If CORE requires good tactics and good item selection then it IS substantially harder.

Which is arguably a very good thing, mind.

Silver Crusade ****

Andrew Christian wrote:
No class, prestige class, or class feature dependent ability score was altered.

The wording in the guide is unclear.

"If a class, prestige class or class feature-dependent ability score is altered" can legitimately be parsed as "if a class is altered" or as "if a class feature-dependent ability score is altered". English is ambiguous that way.

The former makes more sense to me and so I think a rebuild is allowed.

I think we'd all agree that changing a wizard so that they threw cleric spells instead should allow a rebuild. With my interpretation of the above, that is guide approved. With yours, it is not.

Silver Crusade ****

andreww wrote:
Dave Setty wrote:
Don't expect much difference in challenge. The strong options are as strong as in Standard. Really the only exceptions are swarms.

I suspect that most of the challenge will come due to have a larger proportion of classes which struggle to contribute, especially in the higher tiers. A number of those classes also lose some important archetypes such as Quingong for Monk or Scout for Rogue.

A Fighter/Rogue/Bard/Monk group is likely to have a far rougher ride in 5-9 and 7-11 than Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Paladin.

Partly. But even the strong classes have lost lots of options. No Create Pit, snowball, Saurian Shamans, Aasimars, etc etc etc etc.

And at least the rogue has SOME use now (trapfinder and disabler). But I agree that the stronger classes lose less than some of the weaker classes

Silver Crusade ****

Generally, expect things to be harder. You'll need to play smart and not rely on the bad guy going down before his initiative comes up.

Defenses become more important, healing becomes a little more important.

You have fewer options and the options you do have are often going to be somewhat more expensive (in gold, feat cost, higher level spell, etc).

Definitely you should be a lot more careful about playing up, you should strive harder for a balanced party, season 4 and some 5 scenarios with unbalanced parties of 5 may well turn out to be killers.

But the game is still very, very playable. A barbarian was always close to the most powerful melee character (certainly, more than powerful enough), wizards are still very verstatile power houses, etc.

Silver Crusade ****

The reporting system is very very error prone. If any of your games had a single non core character you're now non core.

When reporting a game there is a warning when this happens but it is fairly well hidden and EXTREMELY easy to miss.

Its an INCREDIBLY bad user interface right now.

Silver Crusade ****

This should be moved to the PFS board

I'd be very surprised if it was made legal in the Core PFS Campaign. And probably be rather appalled (I am guessing that the power level will be comparable to recent material and NOT to the CRB).

As to the Regular Campaign, who knows? My vague guess is that it will either be nearly 100% legal or nearly 100% illegal. No idea which.

Silver Crusade

Most GMs allow an Animal Companion to start fully trained.

The most important tricks are Attack (make sure you take this twice), Down, Defend. At least 1 of Come or Heel. If you're using Animal Archive Flank is great.

The biggest advantage of raising intelligence isn't just extra tricks learned its the opening up of feats. This can be awesome if you have a particular plan in mind or just "meh". I doubt I'd bother for a snake.

Ask the GM how he wants to handle initiative. Many just have the AC go on the characters initiative as it simplifies a lot.

Assuming that the character puts max ranks into handle animal, buys a masterwork tool, and is NOT abusive the handle animal rules ARE gross overkill. A lot of GMs have a house rule something like "Don't abuse the animal and I'm not going to make you roll all the time for things it is trained to do".

One place that GMs differ a lot is on what the animal can "naturally" do. Some GMs allow a cat to climb but not a horse. Some GMs allow a dog to naturally flank but not a tiger.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trik wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Now that we have acknowledgment, can we get to,"how can I move forward with this character?"
I think that's been addressed a few times. The general consensus is that unless you are willing/able to spend significant prestige on a rebuild, the best option is to throw it in the trash and start up a character you will enjoy. I think everyone can agree that it's not really worth investing large amounts of time into something that you don't think you'll enjoy. There's the possibility that you're wrong, but there's also a good possibility that you're right (as you probably know what you enjoy more than anyone else). May as well put that same time into something you are relatively certain you will enjoy.

For the record, I won't be trashcanning either of my affected characters.

I suspect they'll both end up primarily single classed with a somewhat strange dip class "for flavour". They'll both be a bit weaker than they could have been (weaker than either their prestige class would have been as well as weaker than the single classed version of themselves would have been). But they'll be a little different (which is always fun) and still quite viable at most levels. I'll probably have to be a little careful about playing up with them

Silver Crusade ****

Andrew Christian wrote:

The characters can still get into the prestige classes. That hasn't changed. It will just take two or three more levels than the player originally thought.

Since we're currently being pedantic that isn't actually true.

I have a Tengu rogue/brawler/cleric who was going for Arcane Trickster. He was planning on satisfying the arcane casting requirement via long nose which qualifies as Alter Self (note that while the entry requirements specify Arcane caster the class itself just gives you spell levels). He used a trait to get Mage Hand.

I refer to it as a divine trickster.

Given his Int and Cha are both 10 or less there really is no remotely viable way for him to get into Arcane Trickster.

Note : I'm not saying the character is now useless. Just saying that Arcane Trickster is no longer an option

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
You could also show them John Compton's initial ruling.

That is perfect. Thanks.

Silver Crusade ****

My only issue with making a game 5 star only is that it means the only chance I'll have to play it will be online (no local 5 star GMs and no local VOs). I suspect there are quite a few areas that fall into that category

And I imagine the competition to get into the online games will be fierce :-).

Silver Crusade ****

Z...D... wrote:

My halfling druid with his battle kitten. He was very fun to play with but at higher levels he will eventually become greatly under powered

A druid should NEVER become greatly underpowered. At worst, it becomes only normally powered.

My druids role changed significantly as she levelled up but she never came close to underpowered (she is L14 now). Just buffing the battle kitten (trivial if it is a big kitty, a bit harder for a small cat) makes for a reasonably powerful character

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just had a totally amicable discussion with a GM about the legality of my grandfathered Mystic Theurge character. The character had early access via the old SLA tricks (Aasimar together with Trickster domain in this particular case).

It occurred to me that was a trivial discussion today might be more difficult 6 months from now.

Is there any way of somehow archiving the old grandfathered state for posterity?

Silver Crusade

i know this will be pointless but I HAVE to vent.

The current interface for PFS is absurd. Its exceedingly complicated, it takes too long, and it is very error prone. With an error apparently causing Core characters to irrevocably become shifted to the regular campaign.

The instructions don't even mention what has changed with the Core Campaign. Some pointers and hints would be kind of nice.

So, first I have to add the scenario manually before reporting it (As opposed to just selecting it when I reported it like I used to do). Fine, I guess I can live with that. Be nice if the instructions told me this

Then, I start entering things. If I get ANYTHING wrong a rather subtle warning message tells me that it will convert everything to Core. That Error message should be a LOT clearer (at the least, it should be some kind of ask me twice box)

Whoever decided that was an appropriate action to automatically take was in error. Its intensely bad design.

So, I enter PFS IDs one by one. If one of them isn't core I get that subtle little warning messsage. I then cannot just delete that record or overwrite it. No, I have to completely leave the session and start again.

Or, at least, nothing else that I did caused the warning message to go away.

So, I enter things. And, despite everything being correct, as far as I can see, nothing makes the warning message "Prestige does not count. Missing character number" go away. Its populated the fields correctly but still wants to warn me.

So, I post. Kinda looks like it worked. Except there is a message that I've already run the scenario. Which I did, in non Core mode of course.

I really hope that things improve. You've turned what used to be an unpleasant time consuming chore into something much, much, much worse.

Silver Crusade ****

I just noticed that a chronicle sheet has the wrong price for a partially charged wand.

It lists the price of a CL3 wand with 9 charges as 135 gold.

do I
1) just get a bargain?
2) assume that it is meant to be a CL3 wand with 3 charges
3) assume that it is meant to be a CL1 wand with 9 charges
4) just not buy it because it is wrong
5) ??

Silver Crusade ****

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

And of course Golemworks Incident:


Chrysalis Black. So much messed up stuff going on there.

Loved him as a villain. But

it is just absurd that he isn't evil. Worst alignment decision ever.

Silver Crusade

Does this table override specific cases? For example, the Shillelagh spell explicitly states that it would do 2d6 damage but the above formula means it does 1d8 (ouch)

Silver Crusade ****

David Higaki wrote:

One thing to note, though, is that in actuality, the requirements for the Prestige Class(es) didn't change at all. What changed is something that counted as a requirement no longer counts. I understand that indirectly, it feels like a change in the prestige class requirements, but it really is not.

I don't understand the distinction you're making.

How is it not a change to say that SLA no longer satisfy the requirement?

Silver Crusade ****

DarkPhoenixx wrote:
Kinada why i do not play PFS anymore - if you truly play you character you gonna screw other people from their fame points. Its too "competitive" in that regard.

It really isn't. You just have to create a character who has a built in reason to be a Pathfinder, a character for whom cooperation is quite important.

With that in place the issues are generally extremely minor,

But not all character concepts make good Pathfinders.

Silver Crusade ****

Jeffrey Fox wrote:

Though I do wonder if the reaction to the grandfathering of some characters will make it hard for the same decision to be made in the future and take the grandfathering of some option off the table completely and forced us to only have the guides option.

Which would be sad for some future players.

As I said, and obviously only speaking for myself, I'd have been as happy with the rebuild option for my existing Mystic Theurge as I am with the grandfathering.

And my wannabes don't get anything either way so they don't care.

Silver Crusade ****

Mark Stratton wrote:


To me, they have already gone beyond what is typical for them to do (that is, early entry characters can still play, provided they met certain requirements.) It is...

They've changed what the default effect of this change would be but I don't think that it is at all accurate to say that they've "Gone beyond it".

The Guide to Organized play wrote:

If a class, prestige class, or a class feature-dependent ability score is altered: You may rebuild your character to its current XP, maintaining the same equipment

Now, admittedly its not clear how to parse that but I THINK that it is saying that the default expected action would be to allow a rebuild. Certainly for characters who are in the Prestige Class, arguably for all characters aiming for the prestige class (that quote is exceedingly unclear wrt who gets the rebuild)

I'm honestly not sure if I'd prefer a full rebuild on my existing Mystic Theurge as opposed to grandfathering it. I certainly wouldn't complain if I got the rebuild instead of the grandfathering.

And I think a fairly good argument could be made that the guide says that I should be able to rebuild my Mystic Theurge wannabe. If you accept that, then I'm being offered LESS than promised, not more.

Silver Crusade

Dervish Dance is one obvious route. And one of the innumerable Dervish archetypes (Dawnflower Dervish Bard being my personal favourite).

You might want to play the Dragon's Demand module for access to a cool (but not at all overpowered) item.

Especially as a follower of Shelyn you can get your day job Perform Dance up to pretty much absurd levels if you so choose (trait for +4, Deific Obedience, Skill Focus, magic item)

There are some bardic masterpieces based of Dance. And of course having an absurd acrobatics score (from Versatile Performance) can be quite useful

Silver Crusade ****

Winks Blastum wrote:

I would be miffed if I bought the supplement for the main reason of getting a trained animal just to find out it just got banned. I have a tiger as well, in a four player table it comes along (Level

7 PC), a six player table I'll take my riding dog instead. Five player depends if party make up is short on melee. That being said I maybe played that PC only 3-4 times last year.

I believe in earlier organized play campaigns the animals added to the average level of the table, so even a bunch of 1st level characters would be playing a higher difficulty level if they brought a menagerie of animals with them

As a level 7 PC Johns proposal would make your tiger still quite legal.

The problem is only really bad at the lower levels

Silver Crusade ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Good luck to the people who had their character planning negatively effected by this, hopefully you can find a proposal that can solve the issues that some of us see with the current option and be able to find a way that limits the chance of abuse.

Unfortunately, the disconnect is that I (and I think a great many others) just don't see any appreciable chance of significant abuse in some of the extant proposals.

Which makes it essentially impossible to come up with better proposals.

Note, I am NOT saying that you and others are being silly or alarmist or unfeeling or anything of that sort. I just honestly don't understand your position. Which means I can't try and change it.

Which is why I wish (wish, NOT demand or expect) Mike would speak up. Even though I recognize why he doesn't and admit that I wouldn't either if I was in his position :-). But absent input from him there is next to 0 chance of changing his mind

Silver Crusade ****

David Higaki wrote:

Off-Topic edit: All in favor of Jiggy as forum historian, say 'Aye'.


Finally, something we can (nearly) all agree on :-)

1 to 50 of 1,146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.