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 Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto. 1,730 posts (2,484 including aliases). 27 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 46 Pathfinder Society characters. 11 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,730 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Feral wrote:
mamaursula wrote:
That can be super tricky, because no player is going to sit down at a table and say "I don't do giant spiders, heights, or killing horses." We are all "surprised" by what is about to be laid before us, so when something that triggers a player at the table it can be really uncomfortable and awkward for everyone. Hopefully the GM and players are understanding. If it's a scripted scenario, there really might not be an easy way around the trigger, and every reasonable accommodations should be made whenever possible. If that isn't possible then...
I don't know if PFS GMs are allowed that kind of leeway as far as reflavoring but I see what you're saying. When the player in question mentions that harming animals is his trigger, the GM says 'Oh, they're not horses after all. The stables are full of forest drakes!'.

EVERY PFS GM occassionally ignores the rules. I'll publicly admit that I don't CARE what the rules are here. If somebody is being made uncomfortable and I can change things to make them comfortable and not materially affect the scenario I'm going to do so.

Within reason. Which is very subjective and ill defined.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
James Anderson wrote:
I disagree. I've looked into making a sunder or disarm build before. Especially against a holy symbol or spell component pouch, it feels like a d*** move, and ruins the day for the GM.

I am cool with this as a DM. I would rather have players surprise me with things that are different. Infact I can not think of a single tactic the PCs as a group could do that would upset me.

The only time I get annoyed is when a player or two is hogging the action from other players.

I don't mind the tactic. I do mind that the bad guys are so absurdly vulnerable to some tactics.

Just about every character played by a competent, experienced player has backups of important things unless there is a roleplaying reason not to.

Backup spell component pouches, holy symbols, weapons, a dagger, etc.

Sundering a wizards spell component pouch should be a good tactic as it forces him to spend a round getting his backup, it shouldn't completely end the encounter.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Kevin Willis wrote:

I've had the experience a few times (and even one is too many) where a GM starts off the scenario by badmouthing the writing, complaining about encounters, and pointing out that she has to change certain thing

One of my flaws as a GM is that I can complain too much about the scenario while running it (not before). Especially at a table where I know all the players well. I try to not do this but sometimes the problem is SO egregious that it is REALLY difficult to restrain myself.

Kevin Willis wrote:
If anything I'd say that creative solutions are more rewarded in scenarios where the listed checks are particularly difficult. However I will say that it can be a struggle for a GM - especially a relatively new one - to allow something. The tendency is to stick to exactly what's written.

One of the areas of greatest table variation is how creative solutions are rewarded. One persons creative is another persons hackneyed or ridiculous. In organized play, creative solutions should really never be REQUIRED.

Don't get me wrong, they should be rewarded. Just not required.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Jared Thaler wrote:

Rules proof:

What is your rules based objection to prohibiting it?

((This really has been hashed out in the rules forum many, many times. It really is kosher and legal. It is also really funny when someone tries this and there are pit traps.))

Off the top of my head:

PCs explicitly follow different rules than NPCs. For example, PCs can't make skill checks against each other. The ride rules assume one character is in control of the other. There is no mechanic on what to do if the rider and ridden disagree.

If I allow this what do I do when the PC wants to ride an enemy?

You spring that at the table and my answer is no.

Consensus in the rules forums, even if it exists, isn't particularly compelling to me.

I freely admit that my immediate reaction is influenced by how incredibly hosey this combination could be, especially with a pair of players playing together regularly. The likelihood of my allowing sonething in a rules grey area is strongly influenced by how cheesy the thing being tried is.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

The OP is definitely overstating things but there is certainly a kernel of truth hidden in the hyperbole.

I certainly recognize several of the scenarios from his descriptions of the railroads. Which isn't a good thing.

I've run exactly two season 7 scenarios within the last week, so I'll use them as examples of railroading. To Judge a Soul parts 1 and 2. Even though the following are in Spoiler comments I'm deliberately being somewhat vague.

Yes, a GM can ignore some of the railroading if they want to and are willing to bend the "Run as written" Mantra.

To Judge a Soul Part 1 Railroading:
There is lots of railroading here.

The entire social portion set in Ayajinbo expects the PCs to pursue their goals in very specific ways. They have to give specific information to even get in, then they have to make set social checks in set order to win over their targets. It is very hard to roleplay it so that the given approach even seems reasonable let alone the ONLY way as written

The combat at the village also assumes that the PCs will decide to fight on the map. Two of the times that I've run this (out of I think 4) the PCs wanted to fight elsewhere. Its a large map to draw to not use :-(

To Judge a Soul Part 2 Railroading:

There was arguably excessive railroading in the aftermath of the first encounter. Some <redacted> appear menacingly and the PCs actions are then basically scripted for them. My characters reacted differently than expected and I had to shove them back onto the tracks reasonably quickly. In fairness, not following the tracks and then being forced onto them was hilarious for me and all the players involved (as all the players knew exactly what was going on)

My problem with that scenario is related but not quite railroading. It is how much it just ignored actual Pathfinder mechanics to tell the story it wanted to.

To Judge a Soul Part2 Ignoring Rules for Story:
The encounter in B5 explicitly lists as options things that are totally not allowed by Pathfinder rules. When I run it I explicitly tell players that they can try things that should have no chance of success because otherwise, uh, why would they?

And the possessed Yeti was mechanically wrong in several respects

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jared Thaler wrote:

We do have a PC here who specializes in riding other PCs. With the other player's permission, he will help them by using "Spur Mount" (Trade 1d3 damage for +10 movement for one round...)

For me, that would fall into the "Not at my table unless you can quickly bring clear and explicit proof that it is legal" category.

I allow characters to carry other characters when reasonable but I'm not going to allow something like that which seems very, very, very cheesy to me.

Silver Crusade

Will do that tomorrow (away from computer right now, doing that on tablet is pain :-( )

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

RainyDayNinja wrote:
Why does the player want to play a level 4 pregen? Just to apply it sooner? I wouldn't recommend it, since there's a much bigger chance of death.

Depending on the scenario, group and pregen this could be a REALLY bad idea. Most 4th level pregens are an active drain on the group in subtier 6-7, they'd often be literally better off with only 5 characters.

Personally, if it is available I usually insist the pregen be in subtier. Playing up with a level 4 is borderline jerk behaviour.

The exception is if the scenario is going to be a ROTFLSTOMP anyways. Then I don't care that much and will let the players decide

Edit: added a bit for clarity

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Kezzie Redlioness wrote:

Like this little guy...


Ok, now I HAVE to build a character around that :-)

Silver Crusade

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Hell, i count it lucky when it isnt borderline useless.

Borderline useless would be a massive step up for most masterpieces, especially with this new ruling

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

2 people marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
Killing all of the enemy.

AND taking their stuff. Never forget to take their stuff

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

John Compton wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
John Compton wrote:

#7–26 and #7–29 are both designed to also last one typical slot (~4.5–5 hours).

I thought you'd finally accepted that 4.5 - 5 hours is NOT a typical slot. Have you officially gone back to the fiction that a 5 hour slot is the norm?

Paul, we still aim for ~4 hours for season 7 scenarios. When it comes to certain experiences (e.g. interactive specials, pregenerated character specials in which players need extra time in order to review characters, and seeker-level adventures), I'm aiming for under 5 hours. Although Serpents' Ire proved a little too long (we're tinkering with that before Gen Con), even then the target for these special events is closer to 4.5 hours.

Why? It's because shooting for 4 hours or less in a seeker adventure means either having only two substantive combat encounters or cutting much of the context, story, and roleplay that helps distinguish high-level play and make it a special experience—not a good way to kick off the first dedicated seeker-level adventures in five years. I also recognize that although I'm very familiar with how long a Tier 1–5 scenario will run, I'm still getting a feel for how long it takes to play through Tier 12+ adventures in an organized play setting. The more of these adventures we do, the more confident I'll be in providing the maximum content in a limited timespan.

That all makes sense to me.

I'm sorry if I came across as abrupt. It wasn't my intention. Its late here and I'm fighting a cold. Which, while no excuse, hopefully at least acts as a mitigating factor :-)

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

John Compton wrote:

#7–26 and #7–29 are both designed to also last one typical slot (~4.5–5 hours).

I thought you'd finally accepted that 4.5 - 5 hours is NOT a typical slot. Have you officially gone back to the fiction that a 5 hour slot is the norm?

Silver Crusade

GM Hmm wrote:

I guess what I'm saying is that I'll be weighing multiple factors. I want good roleplayers, and people who love Tengu, who will move story forward, and a somewhat balanced group. Will you be able to watch me interpret your favorite module in a very different way than you might?
If so, I'd love to have you apply.

That sounds eminently reasonable :-)

Righto, definitely will be submitting a character, probably no later than Tuesday. I'd love to see your interpretation of this module.

Would you have any problem if I reflavor a Raven Familiar as a Crow familiar? Somebody has to have a Corvid familiar :-)

Edit: Altered for clarity

Silver Crusade

I am very definitely very interested but before I spend the time to lovingly create a character (with a back history that likely includes Wb4 goblins for no other reason that I had a hoot running it) I thought I'd check if the following disqualifies me

This is probably my favourite Paizo module and I have both run and played it several times. I could probably just about run it without the book :-). I think that I'm pretty good at keeping player and character knowledge separate but nobody is perfect and you might prefer to let new players at it anyway.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:

The only actually effective "anti-magic" option is GM fiat. Antimagic field is a joke

OK, I'll bite. Please explain how antimagic field is a joke. Lets take level 10, standard WBL, no custom crafted magic items as the baseline for the campaign.

Silver Crusade

Uh, guys, you're kind of missing the point.

The rules are NOT written to the point of mechanical precision that lets you say what RAW clearly is. They can NOT be written to that point.

The rules are somewhat ambiguous. Which means that you make your best stab at what they mean.

Personally, I'm in the "obscuring mist == invisibility" camp but it really is NOT 100% clear cut.

Silver Crusade

the Diviner wrote:

Personally if I were to create a MT I would go Wizard (Spirit whisperer) 5/ 1 Cleric/ MT.

The Spirit Whisperer allows you to pick a Shaman spirit and at level 5 you get one of the spirits hexes. So then choose the Lore spirit and the Arcane Enlightenment Hex. That gives you divine spells allowing you to qualify for MT.

This means you only lose one level of Wizard progression. The Only downside is that the Spirit whisperer is fairly lackluster otherwise. But for the extra spells gained through the Cleric/MT I consider this to be worth it.

I'd expect significant GM variance as to whether or not they'd allow this. I certainly wouldn't allow it in PFS

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nennafir wrote:
Just use a mithral buckler and don't bother with proficiency.

Just need masterwork, no need to go to the expense of mithral.

@Swoop - Out of vague curiousity, which trait gives light shield proficiency?

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Jessex wrote:

Someone is really using PETA and animal rights type arguments for something besides jokes?

1) Domestic animals cannot exist in the wild. So if they are not kept by man you are condemning them to extinction.

Only partly true. Feral domestic cats, for example, are very good at surviving in the wild. For example, colonies live in abandoned whaling stations in quite hostile terrain in the Southern Pacific

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A GM can easily house rule specific cases.

The general restriction against templates is one I agree with, for game balance purposes. The templates often REQUIRE GM adjudication to make them work, applied without supervision they can easily yield poor results.

There are enough legal overpowered choices as is, Ivshudder to see that list expanded with young advanced creatures

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

4 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the things that mildly irks me is that the Society, in world, shouldn't be as accepting as is organized play. I really can't see the Society allowing open followers of Rovagug, Urgothoa, etc.

It does, however, make sense to me that the in world society accepts followers of Asmodeus. His followers are at least sane and predictable.

Silver Crusade

Buffing characters are very effective characters right now. They'd just get even more so if the extensions of buff spells were extended.

Note that lots of buffers use metamagic rods of extend anyway. At level 5ish that is 10 minutes. I've seen entire dungeons cleared with the one set of buffs

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

I like the idea of broadening the quests. I'm getting tired of the current Evergreens (note, I appreciate that we've been getting 1 a year. But I've STILL played AND GM'ed every single one more than twice)

One suggestion that I haven't yet seen (only skimmed the thread, admittedly).

Maybe allow a quest to be played either ENTIRELY with pregens or ENTIRELY without pregens. So, effectively, if a brand new player steps in it is pregen only. But experienced players will either have their own character or will rapidly create one (possibly by taking a pregen and changing the name :-)).

That adds a little complexity but not much. In practice, it amounts to pregen only with brand new (or nearly brand new) players without having to actually define the term.

Silver Crusade

Hogeyhead wrote:


Have any of you been saved by choosing to fail a save?

I had my character fail his save against his own create pit spell (he was on the lip and moving would have killed him). The fall knocked him unconscious but he was now away from the rabid raging badger and so survived :-)

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:

Part of the mechanic is making a Discovery roll (Knowledge/Sense Motive check) to learn the best skills to use to influence an NPC. It's set up to be analogous to the Knowledge check you make upon encountering a monster to remember tidbits about it.

Is this made explicit to the player? That is my single biggest issue, it is generally not made clear in the scenario how explicit the GM should be about the rules being changed/ignored in a scenario

In a couple of scenarios, making such a check took ones "turn" and so was a bad idea if one had good diplomacy. In others, it is necessary. And the players need to know.

On the one hand, I kinda like not having everything be diplomacy and having to figure things out by talking to the NPC. On the other hand, I kinda dislike the fact that the character that I've spent lots of resources getting its social skills high doesn't actually get a benefit from those social skills, even in social situations.

I fully acknowledge that the social skills in Pathfinder have some pretty major flaws. Ultimate Intrigue is a wonderful source book for a home campaign focussing on intrigue. But I am not at all sure that forcing these rules into some PFS scenarios is a good idea. It makes it pretty hard to build an effective character and internalize the rules when the rules keep arbitrarily changing.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tony Lindman wrote:

At one of them, they made some unfortunate choices on what skills to use

I haven't played this scenario yet so I don't know if the following applies to this specific scenario or not.

Paizo loves to invent new rules subsystems that violate their own base rules. How many mutually contradictory chase mechanics has PFS had now? How many times have the rules for social interaction skills been negated by fiat?

One of the biggest problems I have, both as player and GM, is that lots of scenarios seem to want the players to guess what skills to use. Or they expect a very particular approach by players. They routinely ignore the ACTUAL rules in the CRB. That comment above about gather information bothers me.

I find that you have to be pretty explicit to convince a player to use Know Arcana rather than diplomacy to befriend someone, otherwise they're likely to assume that the skill that is explicitly for befriending someone might actually be the one that is used:-).

Silver Crusade

Imbicatus wrote:
Unless you have an insanely high DEX, or are a monk or arcane caster. Then you are best off with a haramaki or for monks, bracers.

Bracers are an atrocious deal for most of the game since mage armor is far, far superior until ~25K for a +1 to your AC is a good deal.

And mage armor is usually dirt cheap. Even potions at 50gp a pop are a pretty good deal.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Locally Core is dead. I ran a weekly game for a little under a year but it was always pretty much the same group and that group decided a home game was a better fit.

Now I get my fix online.

Silver Crusade

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

If you have the Endurance Feat, you can sleep in Medium Armor. You can't sleep in Heavy Armor, and if you are woken up for combat, putting on your heavy armor takes longer than most combats last, and you can't even put on your heavy armor properly without an assistant.

There is a kind of Medium Armor, the Armored Coat, that can be donned and doffed as a Move Action. That can make a huge difference.

Its not perfect but many of my characters have a set of armor that they wear as their pyjamas. If they're wakened in the middle of the night their AC will be lower but hopefully still be hugh enough to be somewhat useful

Silver Crusade

The wording IS ambiguous. But the various examples clear up the ambguity.

@dragonhunterq : That is the flaw in your logic. Your initial argument is correct but it only establishes that the text is ambiguous. The examples clarify the ambiguity.

Silver Crusade

This will actually have relatively little impact on me. I think that there are only 2 Masterpieces that I've actually bought on my characters (most are still utter crap even with the lenient ruling)

Triple time - Clearly they just retrain this for an additional spell. Pity but I can live with it

Symphony of the Elysian Heart - Even with the lenient ruling using this shut down bardic performances so the ruling doesn't change things. And it is still worth a spell slot for the incredible power of this Masterpiece under the right circumstances

Silver Crusade

initiative: 1d20 ⇒ 4

Woo hoo?

Silver Crusade

Cuenta wrote:


You don't multiply multiples.

I am unsure about this. You may be right.


I am unsure if you get 1.5x str with a lance while wielding it in one hand. Appropriate rules...

This is answered in the Core FAQ. The question isn't quite the same but it is close enough

Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?

Silver Crusade

Piccolo wrote:
My player asked me what is the exact damage inflicted when a mounted Paladin scores a critical hit? 6d8 damage plus the Paladin's Strength bonus? And what about the Strength bonus to damage, do you get the +50% damage bonus from 2 handed weapons as well?

Short answer - A lance critical kills just about anything it hits.

Longer answer - You calculate damage for a two handed weapon (lance). So, assuming a medium character, that is 2d8+(Str mod * 1.5 + power attack for two handed weapon + magic + smite (if applicable) + whatever buffs) * 2

Then multiply all that by 2 (3 with spirited charge).

Note that if that is the first hit on a smite against an undead or evil outsider that is double level damage BEFORE being multiplied by 3.

So, yeah just about autokills anything remotely close to CR appropriate.

Edit: I believe that Stone dog is wrong. In this case, it IS x6 damage. Because the lance explicitly says that "A lance deals double damage". Or triple with Spirited charge.

Not that it makes a huge difference. x4 is likely enough :-)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My Painter (L7 witch) has :
Skill focus - craft painting
Deific Obedience - Shelyn to get that +4 bonus to craft skills
Spirit Talker - Almost completely so that he can learn Crafters Fortune
Inner Beauty - Largely for the bonus to Craft

His familiar, before the recent nerf, had cooperative crafting :-).

his goal (which was reached before the recent nerf) was be to able to take 10 on his day job to get a 50 :-).

Of course, he is a WITCH. He is also my Eyes of the Ten baby. So it was hardly as if investing all this made him ineffective. A slightly less effective witch is still pretty darn awesome

Silver Crusade

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

As a PFS GM, you aren't supposed to do that. There isn't ambiguity about the ability to throw throwing shields as a Free Action.

I rather vehemently disagree. As I have said many times, many people use "RAW" in what I consider to be a completely incorrect fashion.

The rule is ambiguous.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Hmm wrote:

I've been thinking for my next play by post of doing a private PFS recruitment for an all Tengu or all Kitsune table for a replayable. I think that could be super fun to see in action.

Murder's Mark of Crows.

The Snowy Foxes of Summer, or Master of the Foxy Fortress?


Please, Please, pick me.

Silver Crusade

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

If I ever bring such a character to the table, I will present a character that I invested a piece of mundane special equipment a 5000gp magic item occupying a belt slot I would totally would have occupied with something else, and a Feat. How many low-damage, Free Action attacks does he think is fair to buy at that price? Honestly, I think a couple of bonus attacks is fair. And I think it would be fair to be allowed to use the Free Action loop in conjunction with other Feats, such as making Ranged Attacks of Opportunity via Snap Shot Feats, for example.

In all honesty, my reaction in PFS would be a simple "I'm sorry, it really doesn't work that way. I know there is ambiguity but that is my ruling. You can either play your character without the ability to throw shields as a free action or you can play another character. I've got lots of pregens if you don't have another in tier"

Limiting it by number of free actions doesn't work for the reasons that people have given so I essentially have the choice of allowing it or forbidding it in its entirety.

Silver Crusade

Jared Thaler wrote:
Given that RPG stands for Role Playing Game, if you aren't going to be doing any roleplaying, you are missing out on 2/3rds of the point.

While I personally agree that roleplaying is a large part of the fun there are many people who do little roleplaying, play PFS, and seem to enjoy it.

PFS caters to lots of different tastes. You can definitely play the game with little roleplaying if that is what you wish. At my table, I'll try and encourage you to roleplay but won't force tge point

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Or you can just edit the pdf. Or convert the pdf to some other format and edit that. Usually simpler

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
Drogon wrote:
andreww wrote:
I see quite a lot of Kitsune and almost none of the rest.

Are they all run by Hmm? d-;

In all seriousness, I see very few of any of the Tien races in these parts. Aasimar and tieflings actually STILL outnumber them.

I mostly run online and most of them are PaulJ...:)

Hey, I only have 3 :-). Or is it four?

But I have restrained myself and have NONE in Core :-) :-)

Silver Crusade

Maggus wrote:

The rules clearly say you can throw it as a free action and since in PFS you are bound to RAW

People keep saying this about PFS but it really is NOT true. GMs are allowed (arguably required) to decide what the rules mean when there is reasonable doubt. And I would definitely say there is reasonable doubt here.

Silver Crusade

Imbicatus wrote:

The effects overlap, but expect table variation on if the incorporeal ac applies.

I've taken advantage of this quite a few times in PFS and never had a GM say no. I never thought that it was remotely an issue

Silver Crusade

Gratz wrote:

I'll second this. If you live in Europe, I don't see any reason to subsribe. The discount doesn't come close to offsetting the shipping fees. I don't know how much it costs to ship to other continents, but I guess anything else than north America, isn't big enough as a market to justify distribution centers.

It probably won't make you feel any better, but tbe shipping to Canada is also pretty high. High enough that we also lose out big time if we subscribe

Silver Crusade

I often buy these for my martial characters. I treat it as paying 50 gp for the option to drop my shield as a free action and nothing else.

Worth it for the cost.

Being able to actually use it to make an attack as a free action is absurdly overpowered and fairly obviously not the intent.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

CBDunkerson/pauljathome: If you're confused, look at the rest of the rule or other related rules.

In other words, you admit that context matters greatly. That you have to INTERPRET the words based on other parts of the book at the very least. Which, in turn, means that you have to interpret THOSE words in the context that the book constitute rules for a game, that English and common sense sometimes prevails, etc etc etc.

I assure you that I am not at all confused. I just realize that writing is a very imperfect medium and will not support the weight that some people try to put on it

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
graystone wrote:
"Weapon Focus: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon." What is the second step here?

Interpreting which of multiple possible meanings of those words is most likely the intended meaning.

For example; "the selected weapon"

As an additional example, that text actually says that you get a bonus to the roll. So, a 19 becomes a 20 which is an auto crit.

Also, of course, what is "an attack roll"? Does it apply to dazzling display? Does it apply to the roll to see if you're affected by concealment? The roll to see where a splash weapon that misses lands?

If you follow the rules forums at all you will constantly see arguments that are as silly as the above examples.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
pauljathome wrote:

Intent >>>> words.

Lots of people (especially on these forums) try to hold the words as written to an utterly absurd standard.

1) there literally is NO such single thing as "rules as written". Human written languages are not anywhere close to 100% unambiguous.

What is the BAB of a 1st level Fighter?

If you say 1 then you have just invalidated your point.
If you say anything else then you d not have a gaming system, you have magical story hour.

If you think human writing is 100% unambiguous then I suggest you read up on semiotics and related subjects.

But to answer your question, please tell me what you mean by Fighter. I've seen children described as fighters. Is that what you meant?

Everything has context. Obviously, I think that I understood your question because we share context. But your very simpke question IS ambiguous. Only by intuiting your intent can I answer that question.

Please do NOT respond by tightening up your question as that totally misses the point. Obviously, language can be tightened up to reduce ambiguity but at the cost of increased verbiage and turgid prose.

Agsin, I'll use the example of contracts. Some very well trained people work very hard to make the wording unambiguous. And continually fail ( as lawsuits show)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Intent >>>> words.

Lots of people (especially on these forums) try to hold the words as written to an utterly absurd standard.

1) there literally is NO such single thing as "rules as written". Human written languages are not anywhere close to 100% unambiguous.

2) even in actual legal documents such as contracts and laws intent matters greatly. Trying to hold game designers to a higher standard than lawyers is ridiculous

3) Paizo is trying to make its books easy and fun to read. That exacerbates points 1 and 2 above.

4) Paizo fully realizes that they cannot specify everything. They intelligently don't try. Which means that the rules HAVE to be read with intent firmly in mind

1 to 50 of 1,730 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.