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. 543 posts. 10 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 15 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 543 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade ****

Nefreet wrote:

Once you GM some more games, however, you'll start to realize how useful the ITS is when you need to do audits for a scenario (especially Seasons 4 & 5).

The most common reason I've seen is whether anyone has a Lissalan Rune or Brand. There are several scenarios where that matters, and where there are detrimental (or beneficial) effects to players that do. Auditing let's the secret remain in place until it is revealed.

How is it easier to look at the ITS than the character sheet?

Especially since these items do NOT have to be on the ITS (some aren't purchased with money and some were acquired before the ITS became mandatory)

As far as I'm concerned the ONLY definitive record of what a character has is their character sheet. Even in the ideal world where all players keep their chronicle sheets and ITS rigorously up to date that would be true. And it most certainly is true in the world that I live inn where lots of players paper work is more than a little imperfect.

Silver Crusade ****

So are feather step slippers.

There are lots of great boots. The problem is deciding which one.

Silver Crusade

Vincent The Dark wrote:

I just learned about the Boon Companion feat. Are there any other traits, feats, or magical items that do the same or improve your companion in any way?


There is the horse master feat, but that is only useful for cavaliers who multi class (especially good for Battle Heralds)

But in general there are a gazillion ways to improve animal companions once you buy their intelligence up to 3 and open up almost all feats

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

The ability to cast 3rd level spells in this case does NOT mean spell-like abilities.

That's an unfortunate side effect of a FAQ entry, and frankly, we should re-evaluate that FAQ entry since spellcasting is NOT the same as spell-like abilities.

Well, I'm glad I never engaged in those shenanigans then.

I kinda object to the term shenanigans. I think the ruling was a bit wrong, but I waited until it was crystal clear what the ruling was and that the developers intended it to be what it was before I built a Mystic Theurge.

My primary objection isn't the power level, its that the ruling practically forces one to play Aasimar or Tieflings (PFS) for all sorts of characters.

Silver Crusade ****

Erevel Ver Nao wrote:
Not sure if my question is covered, I didn't see one like it. Can I use the same character I'm using in instore sessions online also? If so does the progression of my character carry back over to my instore character session?

Yes and yes.

Silver Crusade

DesolateHarmony wrote:

PFS gives you a 20-point buy, which is pretty good for an animal shaman. But really, you have to decide if you are going to primarily be a wild-shaped melee combatant first, or a caster first. They have different builds and feat progressions.

Guides are really useful for this sort of thing, but you have to be able to adjust to the specifics: Druid guide with animal shamans

I disagree with this. PFS rewards versatility. You'll be better off building your druid so that it can do a decent job at BOTH melee AND spellcasting. Not in any particular scenario, admittedly. But over the career that versatility will really pay off.

All the guides tell you to specialize. While probably good advice for a home campaign it is NOT good PFS advice. Spread your stat points, feats and purchases around.

In some scenarios my druid (lion shaman now retired at l13) was the party tank, in some she was the healer, sometimes the scout, etc. Her role varied a lot depending on what else was at the table.

Silver Crusade

Druids (and shamans) are sufficiently powerful that I wouldn't worry TOO much about making it efficient. As long as you take reasonable options you'll be fine.

Silver Crusade

Disk Elemental wrote:

When you're invested a significant amount of time into a character, losing them because of bad luck is just unacceptable.

I wouldn't go that far in general. In my experience, most experienced players want some risk and are comfortable with death when the dice go really south.

What I find bugs people much more is when the character loss seems unfair. Many people hate

The Dalsine Affair, especially at low tier
for exactly that reason.

I'd most certainly fudge to save a new players character, and softball first.

Playing up does change things a bit. I'd REALLY encourage a level 1 to not play in a 4-5, especially a front ranker. And at some point playing up has to have increased risk. At some point (depends a lot on player and circumstances) I'd stop fudging and play hardball.

Silver Crusade

Daedalaman wrote:
The thing that annoys me most about the use of numbers as in character knowledge (mostly hp, but not limited to) is that it makes certain in game things meant to overcome these difficulties completely useless, ie deathwatch, a spell designed to tell a healer how close to death his teammates are can be rendered null and void by saying "I'm down 15 of 20 hit points." Essentially making it a spell that no one ever prepares because "why would I ever prepare that if I can just ask what your hp is at?"

Except, of course, deathwatch doesn't do that either. Its granularity makes it almost useless for a healer tracking his companions

Silver Crusade

lovecheese45 wrote:
We're level 2 and my new GM threw a mob at us with +23 to hit... instantly murdered the level 1 gnome sorcerer.

Assuming that was meant as a fair combat encounter you might want to have a talk with the GM. That is absurdly unbalanced.

Silver Crusade ****

Have: Ifrit, Oread, Undine, misc others
Want: Kitsune

Willing to trade 2 for 1

Silver Crusade

Michael Eshleman wrote:
Dan Simons wrote:
I also make people declare that they're assisting a skill check in advance, and and saying how they're going to do it. Once the primary has rolled, no jumping in and say, "Wait, I'll assist you." Too late.

Because clearly its impossible to add a helpful comment (assisting with Diplomacy) or make a last-minute adjustment (with Craft) or any number of skill assists that could be done after the original roll.

To me this smacks of adversarial GMing which is something I dislike.

The problem is with players who decide to aid the high roll but roll their own check with the low roll.

So I try and make sure that everybody knows who is doing what before the dice hit the table.

Silver Crusade ****

Nefreet wrote:

I'm noticing the amount of auditing that is required for scenarios is increasing. I ran another Season 5 last night that required one. As I said earlier, if having an ITS does anything, it's helping the GM perform a quick audit.

There are scenarios that require audits???? That is SERIOUSLY bad news.


I found out what I needed. I was looking for two things in particular, and we moved on. No characters had one of the things I was looking for, and only 2 had the other (which I thought was weird, as the scenario assumes most, if not all, of the PCs have one).

Of course, when it came time for said item, everyone claimed they had one. When I asked them why it wasn't on their ITS, they said because it was given to them as a boon on a Chronicle sheet, or they just hadn't written it down.

I admit that my bookkeeping is sometimes imperfect. The one thing that is guaranteed to be up to date is my herolab character sheet. If you want to know what my character is carrying that is where to look.

Note that most of my characters predate the ITS so you can NOT expect the ITS to have everything. And for chronicle sheets I often did things like misc: 200 to cover potions, scrolls, wrist sheathes, etc etc etc

Silver Crusade ****

Mattastrophic wrote:
Prethen wrote:
I'm seeing more and more games offered at my local game store and online that I keep saying, "Done that one"..."Yep...done that one too". And, the funny part is that I've only been playing since like last October.

I wonder if what's going on here is that you aren't doing enough higher-tier scenarios, or if your group is not running enough 5-9s and 7-11s. This seems to be a common problem, with groups getting permanently stuck in the low Tiers due to a desire to accommodate everyone.

So, stick with few characters, Prethen, and you won't have this problem.


From my point of view as a store coordinator a huge amount of flexibility is lost when you go below 4 tables. Ie, the size of the local community greatly effects things.

I pretty much need to run a low tier every week for the newcomers. Often 2. That really limits the number of modules, high tier, etc that I can schedule

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

Guess what? In character making a check or aiding another doesn't really happen either. "The two of us work cooperatively to break down that door" who's aiding? Who's rolling the "real" check. It's already an abstraction. Trying to suggest that how players make that decision is metagaming is ridiculous unless you are prepared to say the entire pathfinder rule set is a "metagame" and the "real" game is "adventures in Golarion" I doubt most people are prepared to make that statement.

This is a very good point.

The example up thread was the GM not wanting the players to compare diplomacy scores. But, in world, they are BOTH making arguments trying to convince the person. The only issue is how to resolve that mechanically which, by definition, is at the rules level.

Silver Crusade ****

Chris Mortika wrote:

Making sure that everybody at the table gets a chance to shine.

This is sort of basic, but it takes conscious effort. For me, this happens in two parts:

1) When the players introduce their characters at the beginning of the game, I look for elements that will interface well with the scenario plot. We're going into Belken and Zack's playing a half-orc barbarian? Cool. There's going to be a bunch of traps, and Susan's character just got some equipment to help with Perception? Good.

2) About halfway through the adventure, I just look around the table and take a mental inventory of who's already gotten to do fun things, and who hasn't. The bard has done nothing but buff her colleagues? Let's see if there's any way I can give her a chance to shine against the shriekers or the harpies. The gunslinger has misfired every single time he's tried to fire his weapon? That's a great story, though, and I'm thinking he'll either finally get a shot off at the flying tentacle monster, or else I can give him a chance to club somebody over the head.

How do you manage to do this within the limitations of PFS play?

Note : I am genuinely seeking advice. I've had times when I wanted to do this and couldn't figure out how. In a home game one can add/alter stuff to do this but that route is closed in PFS.

Silver Crusade

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
Another thing that annoys me is when players just assume they know something in character. Like for example, when the tongues cursed oracle meets a young girl and a cleric is doing some tests on her to see what's wrong with her and why her body temperature is so cold, the player is like "OH she's a black-blooded oracle, her blood is black runs cold and she's got a negative energy affinity as if she were undead" like being a level 3 oracle gives him an automatic 30 on all oracle related things. Then when I say he needs to make a roll and he gets a 29 (rolled a 20 and had a +9 bonus), as I decided that black-blooded oracles are DC 30 to know about outside of the darklands, he got even more mad trying to say no DC can be higher than 25, forcing me to pull out the book to show him the DC can be as high as 30. Which, yeah me being the GM should have made the 30 DC okay, but he thought he shouldn't have needed the roll in the first place, he's not going to accept an impossible at his level DC.

In fairness, one place where people disagree greatly is in how much of the world/rules characters know.

Practically speaking it CAN'T all be reflected in knowledge skills since some characters just don't have the skill points to buy what their character "should" know. And what skill is "know in character what druid archetypes exist and what they look like?" anyway?

I personally handle the issue by giving significant circumstance bonuses based on character background. I'd likely give an oracle at least a bit of a bonus for knowing about oracles.

Silver Crusade

LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Razmir took the test of the starstone?
Only if you buy in to fringe Razmiran propaganda.
One thing that is very unclear to me is how many people know that the cult of Razmir is a fraud. An entire country worships him, after all. And certainly the module Masks of the Living God strongly implies that it is a fairly widespread belief that he is a God.

It's more or less the worst-kept secret of Golarion.

In world, I'd say that the further you get from Razmiran's borders, the less likely you'll be to find folks who believe he's a god, though.

It sounds a lot like Scientology, It's not exactly a secret on how much of a fraud religion it is. That hasn't stopped the flood of converts, including some Big Names, from signing up. It also hasn't stopped it from wielding tremendous influence. Scientology is very good at silencing it's ex-members through the threat of legal action.

1) thanks James

2) I like that analogy

Silver Crusade

James Jacobs wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Razmir took the test of the starstone?
Only if you buy in to fringe Razmiran propaganda.

One thing that is very unclear to me is how many people know that the cult of Razmir is a fraud. An entire country worships him, after all. And certainly the module Masks of the Living God strongly implies that it is a fairly widespread belief that he is a God.

Silver Crusade

Dan Simons wrote:

Many times the PCs are being grabbed out of the hallway in the Grand Lodge and sent on a mission together without any foreknowledge of each others' abilities. How do they find out about each other? They talk, presumably, but no PC should ever say "I have a +9 to Diplomacy." However, they could say "I took Diplomacy 101, 201, and 202 while in Pathfinder training, plus people seem to naturally like me," as compared to the guy who never went to Diplomacy class (i.e. no ranks) because he was too busy taking and retaking "Sword swinging for dummies."

And many times you've been traveling with them for weeks.

In the real world experienced people gauge another's rough ability very quickly. When a stranger sits down at your table how long does it take for you to have a pretty good idea how experienced they are?

I'll definitely admit that it is hard to differentiate between small differences. But its easy to tell a +5 from a +10


It would be like me walking up to you and asking you what your Diplomacy score is - a meaningless question. How good are you when talking with people? A much better question, but one that can only be answered with adjectives, not numbers.

I agree that I prefer in character discussions where possible. But "really good" is pretty meaningless amongst strangers.

And, again, in real life one gets a quick feel for where people are relative to each other.


All of my players seem to appreciate the reduction in metagaming and increase in pseudo-realism at the table. At GenCon many of my players also said they were going to steal these policies for use at their own tables.

I disagree that your approach is more realistic.

I strongly suspect you're far less rigid than you're coming across as. Because if you're as absolute as you say I'd expect you to have received considerable negative feedback. I'd certainly have told you why I'd never play at your table.

Edit: I just saw your post above. As I suspected, you ARE a lot less rigid than I was interpreting you as.

Silver Crusade

trollbill wrote:
One thing that annoys me is DMs who make announcements about their DMing style when you sit down at the table. Such announcements invariably end up being some warning to the players about how the DM strictly adheres to something. In theory, the DM is being polite by making this announcement. In practice he is making all the players paranoid about their behavior and I do not find paranoia conducive to fun. Strictly adhering to something in a home game where everyone is on the same page is fine. But in organized play, where there is a huge variety of play styles, strictly adhering to anything to the point you feel it is necessary to make an announcement is bound to drive players away, or at the very least, make them feel uncomfortable.

I find this very interesting. I'm one of those GMs who announces stuff before hand. I honestly can't see where anything I say would cause paranoia, but obviously I'm biased.

Could you please give some concrete examples of "bad" things GMs say?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dan Simons wrote:
kinevon wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I have the same pet peeve, to the point that I don't allow numbertalk at my table... In terms of hit points, skill bonuses, or any other number. Players should be able to describe their characters in the same terms as they would in real life.

So, do you letr them set up consistent equivalencies, or do you just enforce mumblety g@&$?

And what do you do when the real life descriptions would alreay be a number? "I am 5' 6" tall."

So, is a +9 Diplomacy good, mediocre, or excellent? Or would you just let me describe it as, "I can automatically assist anyone performing Diplomacy."?

Sorry, when a skill number can ligitimately range from -3 to +30 or more, not even counting ACP or encumbvrance, it is hard to force someone to use a non-numeric descriptor withotu a defining table.

Heck, even as a GM, I have to check the spell detect magic to give the proper aura strength reading...

Do Native Outsiders radiate their alignment at 1st level if they are not a Cleric/Paladin?

Kinevon, I completely disagree with you, and this same rule is something that I brief in my "tables rules" talk before my games begin. In character, ability scores, hit points, and skill ranks are meaningless. If one character asks another how he looks, I don't want the player to say that "I'm down 6 hit points" because that number has a totally different meaning for a first level wizard vs a 12th level barbarian. I tell my players to describe their health from the perspective of the character: "I'm barely scratched" or "I'm about to fall over from blood loss."

Same with skill levels. There is no set scale! If your character thinks he's the best diplomat in the history of diplomacy, say it that way! I don't care if it's a +21 or +2. After a few rolls the other characters will step in and say, "No, I'll take the lead this time, you assist me." Use your words, not your numbers!

While I sympathize with you I strongly believe that you are wrong.

With hit points, a healing sort needs to know how many points you are down in order to decide how to heal you. In world, whatever the heck hit points represent to you, surely the experienced combat medic magically empowered by the gods would have a pretty good idea if you need a cure moderate or cure critical.

And hit points mean so many different things to different people that there is no way that somebodys description is going to be meaningful to somebody else.

Similarly with skills. A group of adventurers traveling together are soon going to know who is better at what skills. Especially in a PF world where the differences between characters are vastly greater than in reality.

The characters see a lot more than do the players and interact a lot more. Having the players know their character numbers is necessary in order to partly bridge that gap.

Silver Crusade

KestrelZ wrote:

Three people are known to pass

Four. The only God alive on Golarion, the Great Razmir, blessed be his name :-)

Which kind of illustrates your point that people really don't know :-)

Silver Crusade

trollbill wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
trollbill wrote:
4) Player uses an effect, spell, etc. on a monster that is immune to that type of effect, for example, a Witch using Evil Eye on a plant creature. Then, after you tell them it has no effect their response is, "Oh, well, I wouldn't have done that then. I do this instead."
A witch of 18+ intelligence, especially one who made his knowledge roll to identify the creature, ought to know how his hexes work and what they can affect.
I understand the point. But at what point should you draw the line between what the character does know about how its powers work and what the player should know about how their character works?

I prefer to err on the side of character competence.

Silver Crusade

PSusac wrote:
The only real advantage that airwalk has is that you can battle-train a mount to use it, and thus have a flying mount.

Air walkers don't have to make fly checks to hover or to make sharp turns. Quite useful for people in heavy armor with no fly skill

Also, there are characters who can run faster than they can fly. My dwarvren cleric with speed 50 in medium armor prefers air walk to fly (he tends to memorize both, mind),

Silver Crusade ****

Jiggy wrote:
Humans are good at everything.

So are Aasimar and tieflings. At least when you include all the varisnts

Silver Crusade ****

Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Close the alternate type aasimar and tiefling floodgates. Seriously, there's no reason not to be one.

Reasons to not be an aasimar or tiefling:

• Your concept involves a specific race
• You want a bonus feat at 1st level
• You want to be small
• You want a race-specific archetype/spell for another race
• You want some racial weapon proficiencies
• You want that dual-minded half-elf's +2 Will on your fighter
• You want that dwarven save bonus against spells
• You want that half-orc tattoo luck bonus to saves
• You want +2 to two physical stats, like STR/CON (dual-talent human)

Should I keep going?

I agree with all of the above (Especially the first). However, there are an immense number of characters that, purely mechanically, are best done by an Aasimar or Tiefling. And some of the early entry prestige class characters all but require them (I have a Mystic Theurge who is Aasimar from necessity. I'd much prefer for her to be human).

I'm enough of a power gamer to dislike knowing that an Aasimar bard is significantly better than my Human bard. It bugs me that I had to pay a price to be human.

Silver Crusade ****

Nefreet wrote:

But, ultimately, if you're a GM who needs to audit 6 characters, you're the one that will wish they all had ITSs.

If I do a quick audit the information I want is actually fairly hard and time consuming to acquire.

Total money gained
Total value of current equipment

That is the information I'd like to see tracked

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is an incredibly broken and overpowered bardic masterpiece (pageant of the peacock) that you might want to consider.

Silver Crusade ****

Jeff Mahood wrote:

Ran it last night.

1) said, "Well, screw it, we'll just smash the statues and deal with the lanterns later."

I was at Jeffs table and I think I was the one who said that :-)

My character was the only one with knowledge engineering, and only at a +6. And with only the 4 characters there was no "spare" to play with the lamps. Might easily work better with more players. Smashing the statue just looked like a much better use of the action economy.

My biggest single issue was with legendary magic. I had to constantly delay and make very quick decisions to decide what to cast. Even with an experienced player limiting himself to CRB spells it took time and was frustrating since I "knew" I was making seriously suboptimal choices.

The power disparity between the character using the book, the 2 of us using the chronicle sheet, and the pregen using the template was also obvious.

Although (at tier 3-4 with 4 character adjustment) the fights were less tough than I expected. A group of 4 well built and well played characters could likely have succeeded without mythic power.

I'd second Jeff's opinion that it didn't really feel mythic. The chase scene had the most potential but some really bad die rolls on my part stopped that. Its hard to feel mythic when (after the surge) you're still failing to make progress with trained skills :-(

Silver Crusade

Druids are definitely a very powerful class. Up to about level 8 or so they're probably a contender for the most powerful class (only a contender, its very arguable).

But beyond that, while still staying very powerful, they pretty clearly start to lose ground to the other full spell casters. Wizards and sorcerers still pretty much rule, especially if twinked out.

I know that the OP absolutely loathes animal companions and I think that is slanting his opinion. Especially now that oracles, sorcerors, etc can all get companions these days.

One place where they DO excel is in how easy it is to build a good druid. Obviously system mastery is still rewarded but it is pretty hard to build a druid who isn't quite decent.

Silver Crusade

The Mighty Grognard wrote:

earthglide does not let the user pass through WORKED stone (look it up if you don't believe me).

There is no such restriction as far as I can see. Certainly there is NOT that restriction in the prd nor in my bestiary in the universal monster rules. Where are you finding this restriction?

Silver Crusade

Prince of Knives wrote:
On the subject of paladins (but why is this in the rules forum?) I found something that the BoED said about Good and sexuality to be fairly profound; while individual dogmas may differ, what Good as an alignment/planar faction cares about is that sexual relationships are defined by consent and mutual respect. A paladin being sexually active, hiring a lady of negotiable affection, or being such a lady doesn't preclude that requirement at all, since all it's really asking is that you remember that the person you're with is a human being with wants, needs, and fears - and that you remain sensitive to that.

I like this, but it has some interesting complications.

It strongly implies, for example, that while the paladin would have no issue with a courtesan who voluntarily chose that life he would have significant issues with somebody who was essentially forced into prostitution to survive, or with sex slaves, etc.

"consent" is not a trivial thing to define. As is shown by countless court cases in the real world. Clerics and paladins are often going to be in a position of real authority, further complicating things.

And gray is so much more interesting than black and white, even with paladins.

Silver Crusade ****

I have no problem with specific mythic scenarios (as long as it remains a reasonably small subset of total scenarios).

I just don't want more power creep into normal scenarios.

Silver Crusade ****

In PFS they start with 3 tricks per point of intelligence plus the bonus tricks as determined by their masters effective level.

Silver Crusade ****

Bunnyboy wrote:

In typical battle in my group, the tank will gather lot of enemies and hold them around himself, blasters nuke him with the enemies and healer make him better before another turn.

So, now you are saying that we aren't allowed to do that?

Many of us are saying that you can only do that if the player of the tank agrees to it.

I don't think anybody has any problems as long as the player agrees

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Don Walker wrote:

Yup, page 5 under Additional Resources. The last sentence:


You must inform the Game Master that

you plan to use Additional Resource material before play
begins, so he has a chance to familiarize himself with the
new material.

Never noticed that.

Its rather silly. Almost everybody up here falls into 1 of 3 categories

1) playing a pregen
2) so new to PFS that they likely have no idea what the Additional Resources document is.
3) are playing with lots of stuff beyond the Core Assumptions

Silver Crusade ****

Matthew Morris wrote:

I'll admit I was hoping for something more lasting, like "You retain one mythic spell" or "You retain one mythic feat" or the like.

If they'd done that I'd have quit PFS as I presume the power gamers would be able to build absurd characters at lower levels than they currently can.

I"m guessing the current boon isn't a huge deal. At worst translates to trashing one encounter per character. I don't like that but its less problematic than some of the season 4 boons.

I think PFS has far too much power differential between experienced and inexperienced players already and vehemently oppose things making it worse,

Silver Crusade ****

Maybe I'm just lucky in our players but I've NEVER seen any actual problems up here. We tell new players "no PVP without player permission" and people accept it. They don't ask exactly what we mean, they don't try and push the limits, they just cooperate. People only ask to do something that might be considered PVP if they have a good reason, people generally say yes for precisely the same reason.

Is all this discussion just theoretical? Or are people semi-regularly seeing actual problems?

Silver Crusade ****

Why would a scan conceivably NOT be acceptable? It is exactly as easy to cheat with a photocopy as a scan (at least in the practical sense of "passing an audit")

Silver Crusade ****

Michael Lehofer-Chavez 865 wrote:

It is snide and smug to try new things and challenge people to consider their ideas of good and evil? I guess you are not a fan of philosophers? Or morally gray situations.

I'm not BNW but I would like to point out that PFS is perhaps not the best venue for getting people to challenge their characters views of how Pathfinder defines good and evil, let alone how the player views it.

The bar AFTER the session seems like a much better place to me.

Silver Crusade

Majuba wrote:
Good luck aiding on a delicate diplomacy check as a sabre-tooth tiger.

Good cop bad Cop (tiger:-) ). Under the right circumstances I allow intimidation to aid diplomacy.

Or the ever popular (usually done by the Cha 5 dwarf) "I aid by keeping my mouth shut"

Silver Crusade ****

The Morphling wrote:
There is a complete lack of understanding by most GMs regarding the "PvP" rules. I've had a GM flat out tell the Alchemist they can't throw bombs into combat, even with Precise Bombs, because they "might miss" and splash on other players.

The rules are (deliberately, I presume ) fairly open to GM interpretation.

Up here, we generally interpret them as "the target has veto power over things that can harm it done by fellow PCs". We tell that to new players. I have NEVER seen a case where there has been an issue. One player will ask the other player if they're OK being fireballed OR a player will volunteer that they're fine being fireballed because they have evasion.

Just having them rule means it never comes up :-)

Silver Crusade ****

Adamantine crowbars don't get past hardness.

One aspect of hardness that I dislike is that it makes the two handed fighter far more powerful (relatively speaking) than it already is. No big deal if hardness is rare, quite significant if it is common.

Silver Crusade ****

trollbill wrote:

That's no fun. How is the party Wizard, er, excuse me, make that party Magic-User, supposed to kill himself and half the party when he underestimates the size of the room he is throwing a fireball into and the backdraft from a 33,000 cubic foot fireball rushes down the corridor?

When the players actually understand math things like that which were intended to limit spells really made them significantly more powerful. Toss in some resist fire spells and suddenly a single fireball cleans out entire dungeons.

Silver Crusade

Jiggy wrote:

"Playing like that is a phase you need to grow out of." [ooc]<-- Heard this said, not by a powergamer

I have actually heard that said by players who are still power gaming but to a significantly lesser extent. They still make powerful builds but no longer make absurdly overpowered cheese builds.

Silver Crusade ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:

This assumption of robots (or fear) invading PFS is strange to me. They aren't anything new; Paizo isn't pandering to people that enjoy steampunk—Numeria is a place that exists in their world. It's been there all along. We just might be exploring it in PFS for a change.

Golarion is often described as a "kitchen sink" world where one can play out all sorts of different kinds of adventures.

Given that, it is not remotely surprising that people like some parts of the world far more than other parts. Most people are going to be seriously LESS interested in adventuring in some parts than others.

Numeria is one of the larger departures from "normal" fantasy in Golarion. Hence, it is likely to see a reasonable number of people who find it an area not to their tastes together with a reasonable number of people who are excited by the idea.

I think that is all you're seeing right now

Silver Crusade

Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

Animals do lethal damage all by themselves already.

They need to be taught a trick to do non lethal damage.

No, they take the feat that currently exists in the game that allows them to do unarmed damage. You can't use a trick to replace a feat.

You have nothing left to stand on.

RAW, they can take the feat if they are physically capable of taking it. Nothing about mental states in RAW. They are physically capable.

The game has lots of races capable of using unarmed strikes AND natural attacks so the one doesn't preclude the other.

Real world, animals can be trained to do non lethal unarmed strikes.

Silver Crusade ****

I haven't read Mythic and don't plan to for one scenario.

Can anybody tell me how much more powerful a character is going to be if they use the whole book rather than just use the rules on the Chronicle Sheets? Is my shaman going to be totally outclassed?

Silver Crusade

Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:
An animal is not physically capable of doing an unarmed strike
I don't even know how to respond to a statement like this.
The point being, every unarmed strike a creature makes is inherently considered a natural attack.

Improved unarmed strike allows one to make a lethal or non lethal attack.

In the real world, animals can be trained to do non lethal attacks.

So, by your own logic, animals MUST be able to take improved unarmed strike. They are physically capable (as shown by real world examples), they have the INT, they can buy the feat.

1 to 50 of 543 << 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.