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

wraithstrike's page

32,023 posts. Alias of concerro.


RSS

1 to 50 of 32,023 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

They are done the same way as if you do not multiclass.

Also if you are the only stealthy character the others may ruin your stealthy. However if you go ahead of the party then you need to be able to escape or be a decent combatant if you are corned.

You don't really need stealth to avoid charging into a fight. If you have a high perception you might hear the enemies well before you seem them. That might give the party a chance to buff up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

When Paizo issues a ruling that is not liked.....

Overacting forum member: Paizo devs are morons/idiots/etc. How could they do that? They are ruining the game for everyone. Now (insert catastrophic event that is not likely to happen) will happen. Continues rant with wild exaggerations, and more insults some of them passive-aggressive.

Later on.....

Overacting forum member: Why don't those lazy Paizo devs do their jobs. Why are we not getting more FAQ's?

--------------------------------------------------

I guess they feel like Paizo devs have to put up with verbal abuse. Nobody wants to put up with that. It is possible to disagree and not be a jerk while doing so.


No. I like PF's better. Athletics combines too many things for me, but so does stealth in PF. I wish it had stayed like it was in 3.5.

Being able to lie and disguise yourself or not even related so it makes no sense for those to be combined for me. I understand it makes book keeping a little easier, but it kills immersion for me.

There are others also, but I think I have said enough for now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I think Jason gave the RAI of the spell.

Maybe. Jason is awesome, but perhaps not infallible. I think he really missed the boat here. His post that was quoted above allows this example:

Mage wants to charm a NPC to kill himself so he casts Charm Person on the guy.

Mage: Kill yourself.
Guy: Haha, I trust you, friend, but I can and will disobey that request.
Mage: OK, go kill all the people in that village over there.
Guy: I don't want to.
Mage: Too bad, I am more charismatic than you are so do it!
Guy: Crap, I still don't want to so I will kill myself.
Mage: Booyah! That's what I wanted all along!

All of which completely ignores the part that the charmed guy will not do harmful things.

Sorry Jason, I think you spoke too quickly on this subject and maybe didn't consider all the ramifications for this first level spell.

wraithstrike wrote:
If you fail the check you have to follow what is wanted.

Maybe, as long as it isn't harmful. And as long as it is something that a trusted friend could talk you into without any puppet-mastery mind control

The problem here is the vague wording that allows two different parsings of this sentence:

Charm Person spell wrote:
You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.

Parsing one: You can convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do by trying to make an opposed CHA check.

Parsing two: If you try to make it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do, you must make an opposed CHA check.

Both of these parsings are perfectly valid interpretations of that sentence. the first version suggests that ANYTHING is possible if you make the check. The second version suggests that you cannot make him do anything without making the check. The first one is inclusive - all things are possible (as long as you make the check). The second one is exclusive - nothing is possible (but a check...

He has not retracted the statement, but me not liking it does not make it "not the intent". Honestly I won't follow the intent, I think we will run it the same way.

It was also supporting an "FAQ" that was issued which takes the entire PDT to discuss.

We should not confuse what we don't like or what may not make sense with what the rule is or is not.

The once upon a time ruling of not being able to flurry with a single weapon comes to mind.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Another example: mobility

If the free attack is classified as an AoO, the opponent with mobility gets his dodge bonus, as he should.

If it's just a normal free action attack, he wouldn't.

That pretty much seals it for me. Using the simpler wording to classify it as just a free action attack would break it. There are probably other examples as well, but this should really be all that's necessary.

I agree that it is a free AoO, but the wording does not support it it. The wording just says you get an extra AoO at a -5. There should have been an extra line saying "You do not need combat reflexes....." or "You do need combat reflexes .....". That would have sealed it.


I have a lot of characters I want to play, but I also want to at least get them to a certain point. If they dont get there I will play them again in the next game or try to have them rez'd in the current game.

----------------------- Changing topic--------------
Also if you feel like character deaths mess with the story then you might want to tone combat down. What you are trying to do is indirectly force the players to not change characters. Games that are lethal tend to have a higher turn over rate so it you may have to make some adjustments if you want the story to continue.

Rarely using difficult fights outside of boss fights so there is a lower chance of death might work.


Chess Pwn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

I agree that wording seems clearer to me as well. There may be specific pathfinder rules concerning AoOs that they wanted this extra attack to fall under. Off the top of my head, the ability to interrupt actions.

For example, a spellcaster starts to cast a spell I get an AoO with a Fortuitous weapon. I hit, great! Damn, he made his concentration roll. Ok, now I get a free attack.

When does it go off? If it's not an AoO, there's nothing to say that it interrupts the spell and has a chance to disrupt it. It's certainly not a 'readied action'. However, if it is classified as an AoO, then the timing is already adjudicated in the rules.

You've already hit with an AoO in order to activate Fortuitous, therefore you're already interrupting the action.

The other thing that occurs to me is that you can't take AoO in certain situations, such as when you are blind. However, since you have to hit with an AoO in order to activate Fortuitous, those are also not a factor.

What? Where in RAW does it say that free attacks interrupt actions? Readied attacks, sure. AoOs, sure. But 'free attacks'? I don't think so. If you have RAW otherwise, feel free to link it. If you can't find it, which I don't think you'll be able to, then surely you have to agree that this provides the motivation for the somewhat more complex words classifying this free attack as an AoO.

Sure, Fortuitous doesn't change what provokes, it just gives you an extra iterative AoO.

oh I have the answer to this one. There's a FAQ that says if a monster has the grab ability on its attack then he can make the free grapple attack off of an AoO hit as part of that interrupt action

Yes, this FAQ does exist. I just found out about it within the last week.


There is no mention of a "free AoO", but I do think that was the intent. I suggest everyone press the FAQ button if you have not already done so.

Debating it is something I won't be doing because I don't think I can prove anything.


This ruling sucks IMO. In my games INA will actually increase the base damage, and so does adding spikes to a shield.

Just to be clear I am not saying the devs suck.


The only way I am paying more than is in the book is if the GM lets me know he does not always follow the book, and then I know the NPC won't take less that a certain amount. Not even my good characters would over pay. I am likely saving the world or the city so I see no reason to pay more.

The only time I have not played in a game where I was not trying to stop some catastrophic event was when I was playing an evil character.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
When did Paizo make any comments about the unchained rogue?
It's always fun to be right

Thanks for the info. The best thing I heard was redoing the talents and the +4 to hit. However the rogue is still not a combatant with skills, which is the flavor the OP wants. However it may stop the anti-rogue comments or at least reduce them.

There are other good things in this video also.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
bookrat wrote:
It really feels like circular logic here.
It really feels like circular logic here.
So you agree? Disagree? I'm not understanding the point of your reply, here.
yes

Bookrat I am suggesting you cut sling load on this one.


Jack of Nothing wrote:
First off I don't think this person was saying their rouge was bad. From what I'm gathering they wanted melee combatant with some skills, not a skills monkey with some combat.

This is what I got out of it also.


threemilechild wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
That's not how EXP works in Pathfinder. The people a level ahead will always STAY a level ahead. There isn't anything that allows a lower level character to "catch up".

This is a pretty common misconception. The XP needed for each level increases so drastically that a character who is behind catches up in levels without catching up in XP.

Here's an excerpt of the XP track:
Medium
2000 (2nd)
5000 (3rd)
9000 (4th)

Imagine that the party is 2nd level, at 2200 when Bob dies and is replaced with Bill, who gets set back to 1st with 0xp (the minimum). Bill catches up to 2nd level at +2000xp, before the rest of the party reaches 3rd level (+2800xp.) They may continue to level just before Bill does, but it depends on how big the chunks of XP get; his missing 2200 xp becomes less and less likely to make him fall just out of range as the numbers get bigger and bigger.

This allows you to be the same level as the group for certain periods of time, and the earlier you die the earlier you catch up, but if you die later it takes longer, and even when you get the same level, they will still level before, so you still never really catch up in the sense that others mean when they say "you never catch up".

In 3.5 you could actually catch up with the number of XP the party had, so you really could catch up.


TrustNo1 wrote:

What should I do about characters who die and want to re-roll a character? I know this seems like a silly question, but when you think about it, there are penalties for resurrecting a character. For instance, a raise dead spell costs a lot of gold. Not only does it cost a lot of gold, but the character comes back to life with 2 negative levels, which costs gold to get rid of. However, there doesn't seem to be a penalty for re-rolling. When I suggested that the player re-roll a character with a smaller point buy they seemed offended at the idea. What should I do? I don't want to promote the idea that players can make poor tactical decisions, die, and have no negative repercussions because they simply made another character.

The reason I ask this is because I come from a school of thought that characters in my role-playing games are the main characters in a story. I hate a story were 'main characters' come in and leave without any impact. A death in the party was always something that had a significant impact on the party. We usually scraped together every bit of gold we had to bring the character back to life and back up to par. Now, I am DMing for a group that doesn't seem to care about PC deaths and think that they can continue without negative consequences. Any advice?

You should tell someone by audio or text about how you run the game. When players have died while I was GM'ing many chose to come back to life, some wanted new characters. It was never an attempt to game the system or avoid the difficult route. Maybe your player feels like the character is not equipped to survive in your game. Also there is no reason the new character should suffer for the previous character IMO. Now in order to keep things fair with regard to equipment you can give them the same gold as the party. If you have made getting equipment difficult then you can put some restriction on what they buy.

Just because you enjoy playing a certain way that does not mean others will. Did you ask the player why they wanted a knew character?


The trait is assuming that your character had a life that would lead to it being taken. I see no reason not to allow it. It is not something you have to justify with knowledge checks. I think the GM just does not want you to have it, and if that is the case they should just say so instead of making up excuses.


chbgraphicarts wrote:

Poor Rogues, they're the ultimate Catch-22 of Pathfinder.

---

People go "WAH! ROGUES ARE BAD!" and refuse to play them for basically no reason.

So the Paizo puts out Archetypes that give more popular classes rogue-like qualities in order to fill the gap of the dungeon-crawl-monkey role.

Leading people to go "SEE, THE ROGUE'S BAD BECAUSE OTHER THINGS DO WHAT THEY DO!"

It's the most annoying self-fulfilling prophecy in the game.

Anyway, you can also stay a Rogue for now and wait a few months to see what the Unchained Rogue is like - it SOUNDS, so far, like it's going to be based more on positioning & tactics in combat and hampering the opponent while still being a skill-monkey dungeoneer who sneaks.

When did Paizo make any comments about the unchained rogue?


I will post more when I get home. You will not need high dex for TWF so unless it is just for flavor. Also do you get new equipment?

edit:Also, what skills are mandatory, which ones are "really like keep, "up for sacrifice" and "just took them because I had the skill points"?


Rhedyn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

5) Rogues are worthless. They suck in a vacuum. They were dead in the CRB. They have been thematically killed with other additions. This has only been verified by myself extensively playing a rogue in Rise of the Rune Lords and all other campaigns in which I have witness rogues present.

4) I agree. A wizard is a wizard. You don't NEED that extra slot to be effective.

3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.

2) I agree. If anything PF rewards versatility and penalizes specialization. One character can be good at everything or the best at one maybe two things.

1) I agree. Healing is useful. Not every combat goes as planned. Hyperspecilization into healing is a mistake like we talked about in #2.

I will respond to point 3 later because even as a power attack advocate I know it is not true, and I am only referring to characters that attack in melee not archers or non-melee casters.

edit: To avoid any moving goalpost what counts as "not poorly optimized" in melee combat.

If you would benefit from using power attack.

Now your argument is more reasonable but if it is possible to do comparable damage to someone who is power attacking without taking power attack it would still be inaccurate. This assumes similar type builds such as 2 handed weapons. No I cant think of a way to do so right now but taking or not taking power attack is poor metric by itself.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I want to know, specifically, if this effects Spiked Shields.

Especially, Bashing Spiked Shields.

I feel I should repeat:

I really want this to be specifically addressed.

I brought this up in my post also alone with 2 other questions.


I always thought INA increased base damage.


Rhedyn wrote:

5) Rogues are worthless. They suck in a vacuum. They were dead in the CRB. They have been thematically killed with other additions. This has only been verified by myself extensively playing a rogue in Rise of the Rune Lords and all other campaigns in which I have witness rogues present.

4) I agree. A wizard is a wizard. You don't NEED that extra slot to be effective.

3) No you really do need power attack. If you wouldn't benefit from using it, then your character is poorly optimized.

2) I agree. If anything PF rewards versatility and penalizes specialization. One character can be good at everything or the best at one maybe two things.

1) I agree. Healing is useful. Not every combat goes as planned. Hyperspecilization into healing is a mistake like we talked about in #2.

I will respond to point 3 later because even as a power attack advocate I know it is not true, and I am only referring to characters that attack in melee not archers or non-melee casters.

edit: To avoid any moving goalpost what counts as "not poorly optimized" in melee combat.


A few questions to get more clarification.

Does improved natural attack provide a "virtual" size change, or does it change the actual base damage allowing it to stack with strong jaw?

Is a spiked shield its own weapon, or do the spikes provide a "virtual" size change meaning it will not stack with lead blades?

Would a heavy spiked shield with the bashing enhancement do 1d6 or 1d8 damage?

I think that is enough to set a precedent for any other question.


BretI wrote:

Sorry, was a cut and paste for the training DCs. I didn't mean to suggest that was the DC to perform the trick.

I agree that pushing would be a DC 20 trick, 22 if the critter is injured.

For the Summon Monster spells, treating the Celestial Dog as a regular dog would actually be beneficial if we are to require any pushing. If we do treat it as a Magical Beast, the DCs become 25 and 27 respectively. This is a bit high, especially since all of the starting summons only include animals.

In Pathfinder they do not become magical beast anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:
Quote:
Now if you come up with something that actually compares to a gaming situation, and not being a jerk then I would tell you how I respond to game related situations.

But that's just my point, wraith - those situations I was talking about involve the DM being a jerk. Thus, it's completely irrelevant whether some Rule Zero line in the rulebook gives him whatever power he chooses.

From what I understood the GM did not know he was wrong. That is why we were saying you were wrong to hold the game up, if that was a real life situation.

Even if he is being stubborn about a game it is not on the same level as breaking personal property.

And this is not even about rule 0 to me. That is different from the GM having the final say. That is just how the game works. Once the GM has made up his mind there is no point in arguing anymore. If this was the only time the GM ever did this I would just talk to him after the game, and try to find a solution. If this is a constant thing with him never admitting a mistake I find a new group.


VampByDay wrote:
5)No, I'm not saying rogues are good. I am saying that they are playable. Hard mode? Maybe. Are there better ways to go about them? Most likely. But hardly unplayable.

I think we can agree they are playeable at most tables.

Quote:


I am saying I've had a GM who killed off a friend's rogue character specifically, just to 'prove' to her that rogues are bad (and yet this was before ACG and he set us up with save-or-die traps, so no fun there.) I have seen people tell PFS noobs that they "can't" play rogues in PFS, and basically talk them out of fun character concepts. I'm saying I've seen these people around who will viciously lay into anyone who even brings up that they are thinking about playing a rogue in a campaign. That's not right, and that's not fun.

This does not prove any class is bad. It proves the GM is who basically God in fantasyland can kill a character. It seems jerkish to me.

I don't play PFS, but certain areas have been said to have certain attitudes. I don't know how true it is. As for being "vicious" I won't make any comments because I would have to see the quotes to decide if they were saying "Stay away from non-optimal choice X" or "You have lost your mind".

Quote:


3) Power attack is a good feat. I do not deny this. Power attack should probably be your first or second feat if you have a two-handed melee build. I also do not deny this. In fact, I have a sword-saint samurai with both power attack and furious focus, and a lot of her damage comes from power attack. I deny none of this. Power attack is a great feat.

I was just saying, it wasn't the only feat. If you have sneak attack, it becomes less important. If you are two-weapon fighting, it becomes less appealing. If your entire build is based around dealing damage some other way, and you can't manage that thirteen strength or that extra feat into your build, it isn't the end of the world. I'm saying, if you are building a melee fighter, take a good long look at power attack, but do not twist your character into pretzels in order to take it happen.

Let me put this another way. I have a cavalry summoner (full summoner who uses mounted combat feats on her eidalon). Not optimal, I know. She's a Wayang with 16 Str, heirloom weapon (lance) and she charges from the back of her (mount-evolution) Eidalon.

Level 1 mounted combat
Lvl 3 Ride-by attack
lvl 5 spirited charge
lvl 7 wheeling charge
lvl 9 Indomitable mount.

Notice that power attack would be great for her (+3 damage for her lance, +6 at level 6), but at a 3/4 bab, and the fact that she already deals triple damage on a charge, I think it's better to get the requisite cavalry feats than add some damage. Sure, power attack would be great, and I'm sure you could make any number of arguments for delaying one of the other feats in favor of it, but I could come back with other reasons why I chose this.

This is fine and it is a lot different than your previous post especially saying it is common to suggest TWF'ing and use PA while doing so.

Quote:


2) The hyperspecializtion thing is the one I've seen the least DIRECT evidence for on the boards, and more of an inferred thing. I should have renamed it however. Basically, a lot of times on the boards I've seen people make builds that require on a very unique set of circumstances, and if they are ever not fighting human fighters the build falls apart. I've seen sword-touch maguses that are just, insane, until they fight a creature with electricity immunity. I've seen basically unbeatable combos of stuff, but if that character doesn't have three rounds to buff, they are useless...

The main idea is to be really good at one thing and still branch out to other things, but I guess you know that.

Quote:


1) I've seem to have gotten the least amount of guff for this one. To answer your question, yes, I have seen people who think healers are useless, that there is no way you can have fun with them, and that there as absolutely no call for healing in combat (There's a wizard guide out there that makes this claim, I know, only quasi-facetiously). I have seen people refuse to heal downed and dying characters because 'healing isn't for combat.' I've seen situations where an entire party gets hit by a high-level chain lightning, no one makes their save, and Channel energy is the best option to make sure EVERYONE doesn't die on the next round.

I am not saying healing is the best thing to do in combat. I'm not saying there usually aren't better things to do in combat. I'm saying it shouldn't be immediately off the table.

This is the misconception that annoys me the most because what happens is many of us will say that you should focus on ending combat instead focus on building around healing for several reasons. Then one or two people will say it is better to let someone die, and the statement of those 1 or 2 people will be applied to everyone.

Quote:
What do all these things have in common? I guess it's the idea that a character doesn't have to be the most broken, overpowered, optimized thing on the planet in order to work. In fact, I dare say that it shouldn't be. Have fun with characterization. Have a rogue with trap-spotter (it might just save your life!)

I don't think that most people that give advice actually play the best possible character all of the time, but if I am giving advice I will tell you how to do ____. What you take and what you(not you specifically) is up to you. If I come here asking for advice I want the best advice also. I may not use all of it, if it does not fit the concept however. I think you see the advice as "You must do this". Others see it as "This is a really good idea".

Quote:


I've played in games before where the GM expected everyone to have his insane level of system mastery and build completely broken over-the-top characters, and it was the only TPK I've ever had, because we made FUN characters and apparently that was WRONG.

That is crappy GM'ing. At some point when the party is struggling the GM should realize the party is not up to his current encounters and scale back. Now I am not saying the GM is a crappy person. He may not have realized that the entire gaming world does not play the same way yet.

Quote:

I've GMed games where half the people were insanely optimized, and the other half worn't, and I had to quit it because there was no way to challenge the overpowered characters without immediately killing off the non-overpowered characters. And there was only one guy who had fun with it, the aforementioned gunslinger who could one-shot the final boss before anyone else got to act, but could be completely shut down by one of five things (and complained VERY LOUDLY when it happened.)

I have had this also, and it is hard to deal with. It is easier for me if everyone is highly optimized.

---------------------------------

Now this is what I was going to write before you made this post.

Putting something before or after what you write does not remove you from the responsibility of what you write.

As an example: "I am sorry, but Wraithstrike you are a horrible person who should not exist"

or

"Wraithstrike you are a horrible person who should not exist, but I am just saying how I feel".

Both of these have insults, and neither the preceding or following statements make them ok.

Now I understand that sometimes we have to get things off of our chest. Rants allow us to do that. I have read and seen rants where the anger was visibly there, but they were also factual in nature. People knew where the person was coming from. You could have ranted to your hearts content, and it would have come out a lot better if you had posted the actual things that happened that pushed you to this point, than the exaggerated points you used.

Online people can't read tone of voice as well. <----Something people don't always remember.

Now I know someone will misread this. I mean after all we are on the internet so just to be clear: This post is not about telling Mr.Vamp what to do, but more about explaining why it is a bad idea to go about it the way he did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Jason gave the RAI of the spell. If you fail the check you have to follow what is wanted. My problem with the spell is that if you are "convinced" to do something then you would do that, and not kill yourself instead, so the cha check should be to "convince them to do things they really do not want to do subject to GM discretion". Of course now you have to depend on your GM to be fair, but that is another topic altogether, but with dominate person they just do what they are told. Well they might get another save, but that is also another topic.


kevin_video wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I think the description is the reason why for that book. I know I am getting different encounters, but that is not saying much, and the description/presentation of an item is a large part of how it sells.

Hopefully you make it through the open call, and actually get some exposure.

I didn't make the description. I only write the pages within. After that, it's all the other people. I think that because it's the third, you're almost expected to know what the format is by now. Truth be told, the 1st book looks to have a better description. Mine's got 15 side-trek scenarios instead of 17 though. It's got thugs, a minotaur, undead, constructs, a succubus, doppelgangers, fey, a dragon, etc, but not all at once.

I allowed it to be used for a Mini-Mikazemas in March so hopefully someone will eventually ask for it (it's a free gift), and do a review on it. Given that other people have actually bought it, I was hoping that someone somewhere would've done a review.

I was not saying you made the description. I was just saying why I think it is not selling, and to not blame your writing. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally hate RP'ing shopping. I don't want to haggle. I don't want to have a conversation with shop keeper 9F. Unless he is plot relevant I won't even try to remember his name. Actually I won't even ask. I want to mark X amount of gold off my character sheet, write down item Y, and get back to adventuring.

Now I am aware that everyone does not have that stance, but a factor in how well this goes over depends on how your players feel about shopping, and other game interactions. Even if everyone here said it was a great idea the players may not enjoy it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Do you memorize everything you read, and understand the often contradictory and bizarrely placed and cross referenced rules and how they interact with each other? Something as straitforward as the druid requires having the druid page , the monster they're turning into, and the beast shape spell, as well as the polymorph section of the magic chapter all pinging off of each other.

If it's something I'm playing, then yes, I do repeatedly reread the section on that class. I also print out the pages on anything I'm using and take it with me to the game. If the GM can do enough homework to put an entire game together, I can be bothered to learn how to play a character.

And if a druid is too hard, don't play a druid. I don't care if your entire character concept hinges on being a druid - man/woman up and do some studying, or change your concept. The rest of the table shouldn't have to wait while you fumble through the books to double check an ability that is a cornerstone of your class, nor should we have to take time to interject what you're doing wrong and ourselves look up and reference the GM to correct your lack of knowledge caused by laziness.

Again, newbies get a pass, but about a year in you should have no excuses.

I don't let people play druids unless they are willing to do their homework and work out their favorite shapes, pre-adjusted with all templates, attributes, etc. Same thing for summon spells, martial versatility, or any other complex ability.

If you can't handle it, don't play it.

Yeah I am with you on the summoned animals things. I understand if you hardly ever summon anything, but if you always summon things then have the stats ready. At least tell me in advance. I will just set up the monster for you while I am prepping the game. No, I am not prepping every possible monster, but I will do a select few.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

If every player bothered to actually try and learn the rules for what they're playing and the general chapter on combat, there wouldn't be such a thing as "rules lawyers".

Newbies get a pass - there's a lot to take in at once. But if you've been gaming for over a year and haven't bothered to sit down and try to learn how it works, well, you're lazy. I thought about finding a nicer way to say that, I really did, but a year is a long frickin time. Lazy.

The CRB has 575 pages. 4 pages are table of contents and credits and that kind of stuff, 4 are indexes, 2 are lists of inspired reading appendices, 14 are gamemastering, 10 are creating NPCs...All of which the player never needs to know.

That's 541 pages absolute maximum to read. That's less than two pages a day to get it done in a year. For everything. But if you're playing a certain race, class, and using only certain items, that can cut it down by About 75%. Heck, the magic items chapter alone is 96 pages, most of which you can ignore. Spells are about 150, which if you're a martial you can skip entirely, and a caster need only know what he or she casts. That boils down to a page every other day.

Reading four pages a week is not a lot of work. It's not. I'm pretty sure it's less than five minutes work per page to really soak it in. Most people spend hours at a time on their hobbies, and not even on the fun parts, but tabletop gamers can't be expected to spend just under a half an hour a week learning theirs? And maybe I'm generalizing, but just about everyone I've played with has called themselves a reader, or at least casually enjoyed reading.

It just annoys me that considering all the work a GM goes through how lazy so many players can be.

Some people are just a lot better at learning the rules than others are. Now I do expect for them to know which dice to roll, and other basic things. I also like for them to know their character. I get more annoyed by people who don't level up between sessions. Unless someone is a caster and they have to choose spells, it should not take long.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:

Humour me with a question, wraithstrike.

I am your GM. I come to your house to play. Mid-session, I stand up, walk over to your cupboard, and smash three of your glasses.

You then make a scene about what the hells I am doing, while I kindly ask you to continue the game.

Who of us is to blame for holding up the game?

Sorry I am just seeing this.

I would not make a scene I would just kick you out of the house.

Now if you come up with something that actually compares to a gaming situation, and not being a jerk then I would tell you how I respond to game related situations.

As an example if I as the GM yell at you, for you correcting me on a rule then that is a more of a me being a jerk than a gaming issue because I should not be yelling at another person. So if you respond by walking out of the game because you feel disrespected that is fine.

My example of you ending the game as a player is more comparable to you breaking my personal property because we both have issues with the way the other behaved that was not good, and not entirely game related.

At no point should a person be disrespected, and accidentally killing your character is not being disrespectful.

PS: Just to be clear I am not calling you a jerk. I was saying the breaking of personal property is jerkish behavior.


kevin_video wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
KV why aren't you writing an AP if your own?
Lack of buyers who'd likely want it. The closest I got was doing this, but no one's been buying it so I haven't done anything remotely like that up again. I wish I could say I was a popular writer. Purple Duck Games currently has an open call for their Giants supplement that I'm a part of. There's still an unfortunate stigma when it comes to 3PP stuff and people willing to accept its existence/trust it.

I think the description is the reason why for that book. I know I am getting different encounters, but that is not saying much, and the description/presentation of an item is a large part of how it sells.

Hopefully you make it through the open call, and actually get some exposure.


mechaPoet wrote:
Okay, so it would be reversed from what I had it as: in my example, Grave Touch would be a 1st level spell cast at CL 4. Right?

Yes


wraithstrike wrote:
Fergie wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


So you are saying the majority opinion is to not EVER heal in battle no matter what?
This only requires a simple yes or no.

Sort of.

I think you are missing the hyperbole used in the original post.

wraithstrike wrote:

If you say yes I can show that you are wrong. I actually made a thread on the of people taking the idea way out of context and only a few posters said "let the person die".

He used specific examples for some points such as the power attack with TWF. That is not hyperbole. It is very bad comprehension or a blatant lie. I see the points in a similar light.

Admittedly this may not be clear. If it is unclear I will clarify once I am home


VampByDay wrote:

My OP wasn't because I was saying you were being mean. I'm sure you're a nice guy. I'm sure 75% of the people on the boards were nice guys. My OP, really, was to vent (as I explained in the first post BTW. Does it count as trolling if you openly say that you are ranting?) Anyway, my OP was for those that had seen the 25% of posts that were super jerk-like in nature and had maybe gotten the wrong ideas.

It was a place for me to vent to those 25% of people who DO say those things.
-

It is trolling if you intentionally misrepresent points(power attack) and it looks like trolling when you are inaccurate(wizard) . It also helps to have accurate thread titles. When you claim "the boards did ______" it looks like you are talking about most of us.

You could hav said "certain people _____" and still gotten your point across. You can rant and still be precise while doing so. The two are not polar opposites.


Fergie wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


So you are saying the majority opinion is to not EVER heal in battle no matter what?
This only requires a simple yes or no.

Sort of.

I think you are missing the hyperbole used in the original post.

wraithstrike wrote:

If you say yes I can show that you are wrong. I actually made a thread on the of people taking the idea way out of context and only a few posters said "let the person die".

He used specific examples for some points such as the power attack with TWF. That is not hyperbole. It is very bad comprehension or a blatant lie. I see the points in a similar light.


He comes back right when I have to go to work. I am sure you other folks can handle this though. I will be watching when I get a chance. :)


No. The level of the SLA stays the same. It will always count as a first level spell.

However the caster level will change as you level up to whatever your current sorcerer level is.

edit: To clarify the highest level spell you can cast when you gain an SLA is the spell level it will count as. So if you gain it at level 1 then it would be a level 1 SLA and never change.

If you gain another SLA at level 8 then the new SLA will count as a level 4 spell since sorcerers can cast level 4 spells.


Duboris wrote:


I agree with Skill Focus Stealth not being as handy, or useful, as I'd expected. As a result it's been replaced with Furious Focus, to use with it's bite attack for a total of +16 damage, which falls into proper damage for a Cr 7

Furious Focus is not legal, but I do understand that sometimes it is good to break the rules.

Quote:
Ready actions work, unless that person has been afflicted with the blink poison, which activates immediately, at which point the still-ethereal spiders can dog-pile them without shifting onto the material plane, which is the main fear of fighting them.

I was talking about the rest of the party, that is not blinking. :)


Also make sure to actually play the game sometimes. When you sit on one side of the screen to long you can forget what it is like to be a player.


Zhangar wrote:

Eh, it does seem to me that there's a presumption on the boards that in player v. GM dispute, the GM is always at fault, and that a GM who ever tells his player's "no, I'm not allowing that" (or a GM who actually enforces restrictions) is horrible.

The boards have a number of extremely vocal minorities with axes to grind. =P

@ Jaunt: Eh, I can see a GM who's trying to run a campaign balking at what's probably going to be a joke or otherwise disruptive character. (Seriously, I don't have high hopes for a character whose concept starts at "I'm a werezebra!" =P) And I can see that GM being lambasted on the boards from trying to keep a disruptive character concept out of his game because he's daring to impose restrictions on a player.

@ Jiggy: It's more that if someone asks for advice on a rogue, they get an avalanche of responses telling them that they (along with everyone else who has ever played a rogue) are playing the game wrong. The posts are usually incredibly condescending at best. (Disclaimer: I don't dispute at all that rogues are underpowered. I merely dispute the various posters who claim rogues are unplayable. And yes, they exist, and there's always at least one or two in each rogue thread.)

I don't see this, and I GM a lot.

Most of the time when I see people complain about GM's treated unfairly it is the same people who have directly or indirectly said "players should just shutup and play and not question the GM". Some of them will also quote Gygax or go to "players are too entitled now..back in my day..".
Now of course they can run their games however they want as long as their players accept it, but that attitude is not really popular here.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.

This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.

Uh-huh...

I'm trying to assume the best here, but I'm having trouble getting what you're saying. Please bear with me:

So the "Uh-huh..." implies you think the immediately-preceding assertion is false.

The assertion you seem to be saying you think is false is "The rogue is weak, but we wouldn't call you stupid."

So if you think that distinction is false, then that seems to imply that you think anyone calling the rogue weak is (effectively) calling someone stupid. That is, it seems to be your stance that calling the rogue weak and calling a person stupid are basically equivalent.

Does that mean you think someone truly can't say that two classes are unequal in power without essentially calling someone stupid? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

You seem to be a very literal person.

What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.

Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.

Disagreements do not mean that you(general statement) think someone is dumb, so I still disagree.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:

Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.

This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.

Uh-huh...

There is a BIG difference between this not is a good idea, and saying someone is stupid if they do so anyway.

By that logic just disagreeing with someone makes them stupid in the other person's eyes on any topic.

If he really did any research he would know that being clear when you write here is important because people can only read what you write, and considering how far the took the power attack example out of context I really can't give him the benefit of the doubt.


Fergie wrote:
bookrat wrote:
This is why I said earlier that based on Vamp's posting history, he's unlikely to apologize to anyone for "misunderstanding" what's been said on the forums.

Given that there are several comments about healing on this very thread that are wrong, and many of them favorited several times, I think he is dead on about the general attitude towards healing.

I addressed it here:
Healing myth busted
and here:
Whole thread about healing in combat
(with posts by James Jacobs and Evil Lincoln)
and here:
And you barely break a sweat healing
** spoiler omitted **

So you are saying the majority opinion is to not EVER heal in battle no matter what?

This only requires a simple yes or no.

If you say yes I can show that you are wrong. I actually made a thread on the of people taking the idea way out of context and only a few posters said "let the person die".

If you say no then his general point is wrong because his general stance was that most of are promoting never ever heal. If he general stance was more in the middle which it is not then it would be correct.

If you somehow think he is in the middle then you need to reread his opening statement.


kestral287 wrote:

The trait is a campaign trait from Mummy's Mask so that one's not too hard to keep out.

Trapfinding is available to the Archeologist Bard, any Slayer (though they don't get the full effect until 6th or so)....

Actually they get the full affect when they take a talent that gives trapfinding and trapsense. It can be taken as early as level 2.


Decimus Drake wrote:
If a golem is destroyed do the remains still possess the magic immunity it had in "life"?

If it is destroyed then it does not count as a target for many spells, just like casting hold person on a corpse does not give the corpse a will save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marco Polaris wrote:
Oh man, that thread. The worst part is, even as you're complaining about his arguments being flanderized, there are people in that thread saying the same rules are exactly true. Clowns to the left of you, jokers to the right.

Yeah I saw some of those, and I am sure he will see those and miss the others that don't agree, thinking "See MOST of you do exactly like I said".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree that per RAW/RAI it works, but to me that is the domain of dominate person.

Charm person should only go as far as what someone might do for a best friend/family member.

In my games--> The +5 DC makes you more convinced, but it still has limits. As an example you(an NPC) might, depending on your level of loyalty let the PC's in through a secret opening into the castle and that may lead to the king being killed, but you might not directly assist in the killing because that is way beyond your event horizon.


That is right.

1 to 50 of 32,023 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.