|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Is that so? Huh....didn't play much of 3rd addition, so that's news to me. And it makes entire sense logically. By chance, do you know where that rule was hidden? Not that I don't believe you, I'm just genuinely curious on that. Either which way, thank you all for the responses. So my assumption about the 1 times strength mod was right.
I would like a citation also. If course Paizo may eventually say they don' follow the 3.5 rule, even if it is found, but for now I like the ruling.
There is no official answer for this, and no monster that does this. The off-hands on official monsters use one-handed or light weapons, and they tend to have multiweapon mastery(special ability), instead of the MWF feat.
doc the grey wrote:
By the official rules you can take monster feats if you qualify for them, but some GM's houserule it so you can't or they assume that because it is in the bestiary that players can't use them. However there is no wording that anyone has ever produced to support that.
This is what I would say if this is based on concept. Since archers benefit from higher strength there is no reason as to why the 13 strength would not already be obtained.
In my last post I said "Unless the switch-hitting is based on concept instead of need.."
If you need for me to explain further I will, but otherwise that should explain why I mentioned the other feat.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
AC is a "chance to miss". That is not the same as a "miss chance" which has a specific meaning in the game, and works far differently than AC.
If you roll a nat 20 on an attack roll then you do not have a "chance to miss", but you still have to deal with a "miss chance" unless you have some special ability.
Nobody is forgetting anything. You are trying to misuse a term so it is not represented properly.
Since nobody has disagreed I guess fighting is part of the standard for this comparison. :)
Getting sneak attack to ranged attacks is not easy so I would look at it as a bonus when it happens unless you have a plan to make it happen coconsistently. I agree that precise shot and improved precise shot should be taken ASAP. To answer your question manyshot is a free extra damage and it will boost DPR more than rapid shot.
Yes because you don't need full attacks, and there are ways to cut done on movement so people can't "run away". Also many of the bad guys also rely on full attacks to be more effective, but the PC's are normally going to be better at full attacking. Even if you trade single blows the offense is still going to be the focus. Single blows just delays the inevitable.
Also barring certain special builds healing is really not what you want to be focusing on. Most bad guys also don't have access to healing. Even many BBEG's don't have someone on hand to give them hit points or to remove status affects.
If they do have someone that does that, then the players are likely to focus fire and kill him so they can get back to the BBEG. However like I said non-BBEG fights are even less likely to have a healer. Yes, a GM could add healers, but from real life experience and many of the online forums it is not a common practice.
Yes a PC at one hit point is just as effective, but he may die in the next round.
Well a GM can do any number of things to compensate, too many to even mention. It also depends on how far he pushes things. Some GM's make the game slightly harder. I know I do, but I don't push it into an arms race. Many people don't like the "competitor*" GM. However for the most part I let the players enjoy their optimization.
*Every fight will be difficult no matter what you do.
I guess I'm thinking more about how PCs function and whether it is effective to invest in defense. For example, does it make sense to invest half your feats and equipment into defense, and the other half into offense, or should one invest 90% into offense?
Most people invest more into offense than defense(Armor class) since it wins fights. The defense I really pay attention to is saves, and if I am a caster miss chance.Weapons and other offensive items cost more than armor so it is not likely that you will invest in defense equally.
Actually hold person specifically calls out that it gives the paralyzed condition. It then goes on to be more restrictive by saying you can not take any actions while paralyzed. Basically the spell was made to go beyond paralysis normal limitations and shut you down completely.
From earlier comments, and I honestly don't remember if it was this thread or another bloat thread it seems to cause a lot of friction, and it causes more friction every time in some groups. Someone even said saying "no" will cause problems with their friendship so to some it is a big deal. However the blame is still rightfully not on Paizo. The friend needs to respect the fact that the GM is still the one running the game,....
I won't go into a list of other problems with this that have nothing to do with Paizo.
Actually the game rewards offense over defense. So if you want to be rewarded then you optimize more. The reason this is true was alluded to in your own post with the "single monster encounter". That monster is not generally going to provide the same challenge of a 3 monsters. Action economy says that generally the less actions an enemy has the less they can do. So by killing/disabling them more quickly you are able to make it more likely that you will survive. How do you kill/disable? You do it with offense.
There are drawbacks, but it the drawback is not on Paizo's side. The drawback is between the GM and his friends who keep buying books even though they know the GM does not like to allow everything. Then they get upset when he does not want to allow the latest book. The GM then blames Paizo as if it is their fault that his friends keep buying books.
It would be like if some kid is living with his parents, and they don't want any pets so the kid buys a pet from the local pet store anyway. Then he tells the parents "but I already bought it", when he already knew from previous discussions how the parent would likely react.
So the parents are now blaming the local pet store.
I understand how such things can cause tension in a group, but people need to realize when something is a "my group" problem, and not a "Paizo/Pathfinder" problem.
Barachiel Shina wrote:
Calling people whiners is not constructive even when it is true.<---I am not saying that anyone is a whiner. I am just makinga point.
Also the playtest does not last long enough to cover every possible exploit, and the main class can differ enough from a playtest version to present its own set of problems.
With that aside, thanks to my board member Ashiel I have gotten past the opinion you just presented about the summoner being "not very good" without the eilodon. The summoner can also fight well if it has to fight later on, and at higher levels when it gets access to Gate. However many games don't reach that level, but summoning is one of the best tactics in the game, and the summoner does it very well.
There are also the other issues with regard to making spells available at lower levels. Not to mention that it gets access to some of the better spells. If you go with the master summoner things just get worse.
Meredith Nerissa wrote:
Doesn't the price hike only really apply to slotted items? Neither weapons or rods are slotted items.
When dealing with custom items such as this the GM has to determine the price. I think 150% is fair since it is outside of the normal usage.
edit: The magic item creation rules for making unique items are really guidelines, and it is more of an art than a science.
Sir Constantine Godalming wrote:
I thought sword and board paladins all took antagonize as either first or second feat....
There are a lot of people that do not like that feat. I for one have banned it because it kills verisimilitude for me.
If there was a way to trick the enemy into taking a bad tactical position that would be fine. The problem would be that some GM's who take things to extremes may count that as lying or being dishonest and make paladins fall.
PS: I have no idea how to make that would work mechanically, and in a way that is acceptable to the players(including GM's).
The rocket tag phrase is not so much a matter of depleting hit points. It is about the fact that whoever goes first wins. As an example if the one party goes first and they put the other party on the defensive then it is just a matter of time.
The rocket tag statement is also a nod to who fires the rocket first will likely win, not just how devastating attacks(to include magic) are at higher levels.
A battle can be basically over when you still have over half of your hit points remaining. At that point the soon to be victors are in the mop up stage.
Even if a fight last 5 rounds I can normally tell by the end of the 2nd or 3rd round who is going to win barring a miracle.
I think the issue here is that one side is discussing a better "character" and the other is discussing a better "rogue". What we have to do here is to define and agree on what it takes to make a rogue a better rogue.
Some say the rogue is a combat class, and others will say it is a skill class with combat potential. Both those that like the rogue and don't care for it have said both things.
Weslocke I have only skimmed this post, but I don't think rogues do terrible at most tables. They just could do better in many people's eyes.
I think a lot of it depends on the overall power level/optimization of the table and how much the GM goes by the rules.
PS:Saying how well something does or does not play at your table is not nearly as helpful as saying why it does well. Unless of course you just wanting to be a dissenting voice against those who are talking down against the rogue, and did not intend to be helpful.
There are many things that make you helpless. Being held by a grapple is not one of them.
Dragons would be immune to hold monster because it applies the paralyze condition. If you are paralyzed you are helpless because you can not defend yourself. Basically if someone can walk up and slit your throat, then you are likely helpless. That is why being paralyzed and being unconscious count as being helpless.
Thanks, everyone. I'm the GM ALL.THE.DAMNED.TIME, so this would be a good investment, I think. I just have to save up for it. I'd be the one to foot the whole bill, though, as no one else would really use it, I'm afraid.
I did not purchase all of my books at once, and I don't purchase every book that comes out. I do try to get the hard cover books though. The settings books are purchase if I really want to use them, and in that case I do the bundle, even if I don't need the other books.
IIRC the initial cost to fully use Herolab is $20.
I mainly use it to create characters faster, and I can save the character in the same format that Pathfinder NPC's are in using a pdf file.
Some people use it to quickly modify characters with buffs while they play.
When you buy Herolab you get one system such as Pathfinder, Shadowrun and so on. If you want to access the extra books such as the APG, bestiary 2 and others you have to purchase them. However some books can be purchased at a discounted rate if you buy a bundle.
Herolab however is not a rules source or a substitute for knowing the rules since it does have errors. I often have to go back and fix things, but that is a lot faster for me than doing everything from scratch.
If I was only a player I probably never would have purchased it, but as a GM I like it a lot more due to the time it saves.
You can also create your own monsters and even classes, but that is beyond the basic program and depending on what you want to do it might require some coding.
I have never used the encounter builder so I can't really say much about that.
PS: There are normally ways to implement house rules so that is good. As an example you can give a character free skill points or assign new class skills.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
I am not saying the GM's are trying to screw the players over. Many times they are oblivious to what is going on. As an example the restarter GM's(the one I experienced and others I heard about) don't mind making new characters. They actually enjoy it, and it is that same attraction to something new that makes it hard for them to stay focused on one thing. Since they enjoy the "new thing" they don't see why it would bother someone else.
My perception is based more on conversations with other players than my own experience since I have only had one "restarter" GM. If my one experience was the only time I had heard of it, I would just attribute to that one person.
You do not need the two-handed archetype. Just using a weapon in two-hands is all it takes to be more effective.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
The problem is that your positive spin on things is not what is going on most of the time.
As an example the restarter would have to challenge the "players" versatility by asking them to choose a different type of class such as a barbarian, and then a social/skill monkey type. However the restarts don't generally have anything mentioning a different character type than the last type that was played.
You could play the exact same build every time, and it would not matter.
Many of these GM's think that this makes the magic items special [i]to the players[/b], but I made a thread on this asking players if it makes them(magic items) feel more special. In the end the number of people who felt it made them special was very low, which is exactly what I thought it would be.
Meager Rolmug wrote:
Someone has not seen a well played wizard before. The eidolon can be banished, and then the summoner killed before he uses the spell that can summon the eidolon again. If he does bring it back, then protection from ___ may mean the eidolon can't do much unless it is TN. In that case send it away again.
If your grou['s casters are worthless as a normal thing other than some GM's antimagic area they are not played our built well.
A caster does not need the "perfect" spell. He only needs one that is good enough to bypass ____.
Reading it again I agree with you.
It is easier to find players that like a certain type of game than to convince players they will like something they are against.
Sometimes we as GM's can really like an idea, but our players may not. If you have a steady group, and they really don't like the idea then you may have to accept that and not run the game.
Since it should be able to keep high level adventures and powerful monsters out it likely has a few artifacts in place and guardians.<--How I envision it.
As the GM I am assuming you want the players to eventually get in so we might need to know the level of your group so we don't take things too far.
The average person is not using a PC class which is what the retraining rules are for. Even then you have to be certain classes in order to retrain.
You still need the aptitude or a good in world reason to explain why there are not more PC classes if you(general statement) why more people have NPC classes instead of PC classes.
I think that the willingness to listen to the players and admit when you are wrong is very important. Before anyone takes this the wrong way, that does not mean the GM has to bend over backwards to give the players everything they want.
Also being fair, and proactive with communication also helps. As an example if you don't like gunslingers, don't let me play one, and then nerf it out of existence. Just tell me up front so I won't play it. Personally as a player I don't care for the class. That was just an example.
Be consistent with your rulings.
Don't have all(a very high percentage) of your NPC's be jerks. There have been quiet a few times I wanted to stab some shopkeepers in the face.
Be somewhat flexible. Players are not always going to stay on the rails. If they go off the rails try to deal with it, and nudge them back onto the rails.<---I understand this is not easy for everyone.
Mithral medium armor can also be light. Not only is your idea not RAW, it has nothing to suggest it being RAI.
Nardoz Zardoz wrote:
Yeah, those are correct. Thanks for the images.