|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
That logic does not hold because your items are not another person, and the game assumes you can bring them with you. The game does not assume you can bring other creatures along unless it is stated.
As an example the cleric has a supernatural ability allowing him to teleport. It does not allow him to bring anyone else with him.
Also-->Even when grappling you and other person are not in the same square so you can't even assume they are using any holes you think you made in the ground/wall. Since you do not grant them the ability to travel you can't assume they are making their own holes or can travel through stone.
I have never played so I don't know, but I also think intent is the rule, not the letter. RAW does not work by itself.
With that aside it would annoy me to no end if a I had a GM who did not know the rules well, and I would not ignore rules.
Maybe if they have a reason to interact with them yes, but my post that was replied had nothing to do with that which is likely why I overlooked it.
I was speaking about a situation where someone is already engaged, and not treated well because people want to add houserules.
This guy is going to fail miserably. Other than trying to hide items how is he being adversarial? I had a player trying to claim everything in a recent game, and he used no strategy so I(fellow player) became content to let him get himself killed.
I was stating that to clear up how disguise actually works.
With regard to the idea of charisma drawing attention you only said charisma determines that. I am sure the game does not change your charisma when you put a disguise on.
Basically you came up with a non-rule, and it has been pointed out that it does not really work well in a game. If you are a spy it would get you noticed, and if you use disguise your charisma is still on so whether you are disguised or not it would get you attention you did not ask for, if your "auto-attention" was a real rule, but it isn't.
Now some GM's may use it to see who gets noticed first, and that is not a problem, but that does not mean people with low charismas get ignored or those with high charisma bring attention without trying.
Obviously if I am saying it can then I think it can, but that is not the same as "default use".
If that is the case he is only sitting at a table and watching the game, not actually playing. I would not award him anything.
Joe M. wrote:
As indicated in the other thread, I'm not sure I see a real need for clarification—looks to me like it'll just come down to GM discretion, which I'm fine with—, but maybe enough folks feel otherwise that this will count as a frequently asked question. Dotting for interest.
I think GM discretion was fine before the 10 by 10 rule, but now people will argue that by the rules ____ is free and ____ is not. Those in PFS probably care a lot more than I do however. :)
You never said you were imitating another person, and "changing the impression of your charisma" might just make people wonder why they never noticed you(the fake you) before. It might not actually draw any less attention. It would really depend on what the NPC thought of the person you were imitating.
Run the game for the other players. If he participates great, if not then don't worry about it. If you are worried about not having 4 people then you might want to get one more player. At some point however you need to let him know he is expected to participate.
What exactly does he do in the game?
Joe M. wrote:
I was speaking of observable stimuli not so much spot vs search since those don't exist anymore.
In any event the new thread is here.
When I said "not be noticed" I was referring to people ignoring you per your and Ashiel's previous conversation. Disguise might make people not recognize you, but that is different than not being noticed if charisma makes you more noticeable, since it does nothing to alter your charisma.
I think the 10 by 10 search should only be needed if things are not currently observable, but I don't know if that is what the rule will be. The trap door hidden under the rug would fall into that category.
The reason for the move action as a rule is so players can't keep rolling perception checks also. Even in 3.5 it was a move action to use listen or spot on your own if you missed something the first time, and it was not limited to a 10 by 10 area.
It seems as though there is going to be an FAQ or errata to the rules saying that a 10 by 10 area is the limit for move action perception checks.
Some interpret that to mean you need them to pick up on things that a reactive check is used for "observable stimulus", may not notice.
The question is "what counts as observable stimulus"?
I understand that a complete list can't be given but examples would help.
Would a hidden door that is in line of sight count?
Would a hidden door count that is behind a curtain?
Would you get a reactive check to notice someone hiding by using stealth and/or invisibility?
Press the FAQ button please. If they are going to errata perception I think it makes sense to get as many questions out of the way at one time instead of having one FAQ/errata spawn more FAQ's.
Joe M. wrote:
"Observable stimulus" does need to be better defined. Since I have free time I will go ahead and start an FAQ for that. If the secret door is behind a curtain or under a rug then I would say it makes sense to go through more trouble to find it but otherwise I think it just slows things down.
Which social skill allows you to not be noticed?
Matrix Dragon wrote:
A while back I came up with the question of what happens if a summon T Rex swallows you and then it is dismissed.Do you get left behind?
PS: I was not proposing anyone actually try this because it was outside the intended use of the spell.
logan grayble wrote:
That's a good idea. They also tend to give you a reason to go into areas you might not really want to go into.
logan grayble wrote:
This is a variant of the "you met in a bar/tavern" trope.
Are you still with the GM? If so have you spoken to him as players?
Actually there there is no rule or proof that a 7 would be a terrible stat that makes you a lot less functional, as in "You must deal with random nonsense that nobody else has to deal with".
Basically what happens is GM's feel like the game does not do enough to penalize low charisma so they go make things up and try to justify it.
Back on the topics of 7's or lower.
Also I realize some businesses owners have more leeway, but on average it is likely a bad idea to be a jerk to 1/6 to 1/3 of your customers.
edit: Gerald Ford award according to google--> The award honors an individual who has provided significant leadership as an advocate for college sports over the course of his or her career.
Bill Dunn wrote:
I think the problem is the real life time it is taking up, more than the game time. As someone mentioned up thread it can take a lot more time.
Another alignment shift threat, seriously why is this so black and white? It's getting tiresome. : /
I would say having the person wit the lower charisma not be noticed as much as the one with a higher charisma is not remotely the same as making dex checks to walk.
That is not what I compared it to.
I brought up how GM's would have an NPC go out of their way, such as a shopkeeper or bartender, to treat an PC worse, when the PC had done nothing to warrant a cha check. By the same token walking does not require a dex check.
You don't need an feat(not game term) of athletic ability to walk, and it should not take effort just to buy something from someone when it is a straight forward deal.
You give give them 5 copper, and you get your drink. That is all it should be.
Brother Fen wrote:
I don't think the player is required to play just because the GM makes a story. It is more complicated than that. From what we have so far there was a breakdown in communication however.
logan grayble wrote:
Did your characters have no ties to the local area? I can definitely understand neutral characters or ones with no attachment letting someone else handle the issue, but if the characters were good and had family/friends nearby it might be difficult to walk away, assuming of course the situation actually threatened the place where you lived.
It is a good idea to give the characters a personal stake in the quest. As a player I try to find one, and a GM should try to help foster a connection also.
You are basically asking adventures to represent the bad guys.
What you can do is buy an adventure and make modifications to the story-line. If you don't want to shoehorn the party into being evil, then have the opposition also be evil. That way someone who may not like the idea of supporting House Throne might be able to get behind it, if hurting House Throne will also cause Cheliax more harm than House Thrune would. Basically it is a "lesser of two evils" deal.
It's only a caster stat for casters that use that stat. In the above example with touch of idiocy which is what this subtopic is about the character was intelligence based.
I see what you mean now, and I agree, but depending on how that rule is written some will run it that way. Hopefully Paizo is reading this.
Pathfinder deities don't have stats, but 3.5 had a book with deity stats in it. There is also nothing detailing the Test of the Starstone.
3.5 is mostly compatible with Pathfinder so that might work. The rules should also be on 3.5's SRD, but I dont know if any prebuilt deities are there. Pay attention to divine ranks.
Look at the divine rules section and maybe the epic rules section.
More reasons for me to pretend this errata does not exist once it becomes official.
One of my player's rogues is using Telling Blow (from the 3.5 PH II), which allows you to add your sneak attack damage on a critical hit. I'm guessing that feat would be overpowered if used by the Unchained rogue?
It does not add the sneak attack damage twice so it might be ok.As an example if you are flanking and getting SA damage anyway the feat did nothing, but if you stabbed someone, and it was crit when you would not normally get SA damage then it would be added.
Thanks for the info. I think a customized template might be needed.
"Customized template" is really simplifying what I am saying, but I don't have any actual mechanics.
Basic Dragon stage 1 would require X amount of sacrifices, X amount of gold(also a good way to keep this away from players besides the GM just saying "no"). Maybe some knowledge and spellcraft checks would be thrown in.
Dragon stage 2 would require you to already have be a stage 1 dragon, and make more sacrifices etc etc as noted above, and the pattern continues.
At some point, maybe around dragon stage 4 the ritual is more difficult since it may have to be personalized much like a lich's transformation, but the number of sacrifices and gold still increase. <----suggestion
However since most of the "how to" is flavor because players will likely never get to do this anyway we can probably take care of the mechanics first, and the requirements seconds.