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

31,525 posts. Alias of concerro.


1 to 50 of 31,525 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

DHAnubis wrote:
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.

DHAnubis wrote:

As far as I've seen, there isn't anything on the pfsrd about this sort of thing. Let's assume that I have a four armed creature. Said creature wants to wield a greatsword in two arms, and a longspear in the other. Now, attacks made two handed deal 1 1/2 strength mod. Weapons wielded in off hands deal 1/2 strength mod. You can only have 1 "main" hand, the rest are considered off hands. Obviously, the great sword deals the 1 1/2 times strength mod, but what does the long spear wielded in the two off hands deal?

My ideas are that it would either be:

-1 1/2 times strength mod, as it is in two hands.
-1 times strength mod, with the 1 and a half and the 1 half canceling out.
-1/2 strength mod as it is being wielded in two off hands.

Im sure there is probably a monster somewhere in the bestiary that wields weapons in this fashion that would give me the answer, but I have no idea where to even start looking for something like that.

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:
wraithstrike wrote:
doc the grey wrote:

Can you take improved natural attack for a specific natural attack gained through a class ability?

For example if I have a bloodrager with the dragon bloodline can he take improved natural attack for the claws he gains from his bloodrage?

Yes you can take it.

Is that an official ruling that is listed out somewhere or is it something meant to be open to interpretation like Wagner said?

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.

doc the grey wrote:

Can you take improved natural attack for a specific natural attack gained through a class ability?

For example if I have a bloodrager with the dragon bloodline can he take improved natural attack for the claws he gains from his bloodrage?

Yes you can take it.

Also in case anyone is misinformed a switch-hitter is someone who can fight at range and in melee decently well. It does not require for you to split your feats between melee and ranged combat.

Grangerer wrote:

If you want to be a true switch hitter, take the full archery chain and power attack.

Two handed melee requires no investment to be decent at.

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.

Rambear wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I almost forgot, but there is a feat that allows you to use your bow in melee without provoking. Unless the switch-hitting is based on concept instead of need I would just go that route.

Point Blank Master, Ranger/Slayer can get it at level 6.

Still, I fail to see how "build an archer" is advice when somebody wants to play a switch hitter. Yes, archery is powerful, but in most games optimizing an archer is hardly needed, you can keep some weaknesses and rely on melee at times and still be a very decent martial.

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.

I almost forgot, but there is a feat that allows you to use your bow in melee without provoking. Unless the switch-hitting is based on concept instead of need I would just go that route.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"move action" vs "moving" vs "5-foot step"

leveling up and loot<--the only methods I know of

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Fergie wrote:
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.
But AC IS a miss chance. Why does everyone forget this?

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

There is no such thing a non-combat class in this game. Every character is expected to contribute meaningfully in combat. Combat is a huge part of Pathfinder. In fact, it's the part that takes up most rules.

And if the Rogue, of all things, is not a combat class, then neither is the Bard, Wizard, Oracle, Investigator, Witch, Sorcerer, etc... And we don't see anyone saying they shouldn't be expected to perform in combat.

In fact... Let's check some of the Rogue's class features...

- Sneak Attack
- Evasion
- Uncanny Dodge
- A Bunch of Sneak Attack-related talents.
- Master Strike (aka: THEIR FREAKING CAPSTONE!)


Truly the class has nothing to do with combat!

You know... Just because Rogues are so weak and poorly designed that literally every other class is better in combat, doesn't mean Rogues are a "non-combat class".

Rogues are no more of a "non-combat" class than any other non-full BAB class in the game... They are just really bad at fighting.

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.

Fergie wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

The math of PF (well, 3.0) was formulated so that at higher levels, offensive capabilities outpace defensive capabilities. Or another way to say it is that the rate of increases for attack bonuses will outpace the rate of increase for AC, so you are more likely to hit at higher levels. The reason for this is to speed up combat some, and not create stalemates at high level where you are constantly missing.

If I recall correctly, this starts happening around level 11 or 13.

So yes, PF favors offense or defense.

But at those levels there are so many ways to avoid full attacks and regain HP does it really matter? Can you really say the system favors X because of those numbers?

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.

Fergie wrote:
Lamontius wrote:

enemies with 1 hp left are just as combat effective as enemies with full health

so yes

By that same logic, is a PC just as combat effective at 1hp?

wraithstrike wrote:
Actually the game rewards offense over defense. So if you want to be rewarded then you optimize more. more..."
If it is optimized PCs fighting unoptimized monsters, I would agree. However, if the GM also optimizes, and uses the same philosophy, does that push the game into something people would want to play?

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.

Fergie wrote:
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.

Mavael wrote:

Than why don't they do the same thing, if they are the same?

Paralysis: but can take purely mental actions.

Hold Person:It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions

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.

memorax wrote:

Exactly it's not a Paizo problem. They are a business. Which is to sell new product to make more money to pay their bills. So why blame them. I can see it being the fault of a player who when told by a DM "core and only core". Keeps buying new material and tries to get a dM to use it. I like buying rpg sourcebooks. I try not to force any DM to use the new material. I may ask but never demand the material be used.

Please let's be honest a DM having to refuse a player requests for allowing new material while annoying. Is simply not that big of a thing. I'm a DM I barely break a sweat whenever a player asks to include a new class from a book. I can refuse or allow it.

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.

Being magical is not the issue. Calcific Touch if is SU will not be canceled by Wild Shape. <---The rules.

Yeah I understand some GM may not know what the rule is.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

A weapon with a metal blade such as a sword is going to need mithral.

Barachiel Shina wrote:

I have heard the whines about people game-breaking the Evolution system and the "bogging down battles with too many summons" and whatnot (and, seriously, two rounds of playtest and people still complain...? What was the playtest for folks?!)

What I also keep hearing about, and not quite understanding at all, is their spell list being overpowered. How so? Me and my friends do not see it, it's mostly utility and buff spells, isn't that the point? If anything the Summoner is a dead character if his eidolon gets taken out the picture, most of those spells won't save a lone Summoner.

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).

Melkiador wrote:

I wonder if the next Pathfinder will be less "rocket tag". It'd be easy to fix the game to reduce the offence advantage. The most obvious is to double or triple the hit points of everything. When you can't end a combat in few turns, then defensive options become more meaningful.

But I also think this is something that most players don't won't. 4th Edition DnD had much larger hitpoint tables and people didn't like how long the combats could take. I'm afraid the playerbase wants rocket tag, whether they know that they do or not.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

DungeonmasterCal wrote:
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 respectfully disagree. Every gm I've ever experienced showing these traits has always had an underlying purpose to their technique. I'd posit that your perception is the exception and not the rule based purely on personal experience.. YMMV

Perhaps I've simply been lucky that all of my gms are purposeful and well meaning. I don't think its in the best interest of the hobby to posit that the largesse of them are intentionally miscreants. If the gm's purpose for his technique is 'screw you hippie'... then 'talk to them about it' is going to be the same conversation every time... Uh gm.. can you try not to screw us over so much for your own amusement?

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.

rorek55 wrote:

Let's take a level 20 fighter. Give em all the bells and whistles

30str, 20 dex (all we need ATM)

Said fighter has +5 sword (or great sword)

SnB fighter is doing 10(str)+12(PA) (spec/magic weapon/ect are a wash)

Same fighter with two handed is doing 15(str) + 18(PA) for a mere 11 damage more, and the SnB fighter has potential to use TWF.

The SnB fighter can get up to +8 AC over the Twohander (+5 heavy shield, +shield focus)

Sure it takes away gold spent on other items, but only 100k (heh, only,)

I see the point if you use the two handed fighter archetype, but then you are giving up even more defense.(for IMO ridiculous damage the archetype IMHO should be nerfed the damage is stupid good.)

You do not need the two-handed archetype. Just using a weapon in two-hands is all it takes to be more effective.

BBT is correct.

Vincent Takeda wrote:

I was thinking something a little more along the lines of

The counter gm. This gm is attempting to challenge the players by presenting them with an obstacle their go-to solutions will not solve in an attempt to get them to employ different tactics. Your tactic works very well in a lot of situations... When it doesn't work... What's your backup plan? We must go deeper.

The montyhaul gm: this gm is attempting to quickly get the characters past the murders and aquisitions stage of the game and get down to the nitty gritty of 'what are your characters about that isn't about killin and lootin'? He's trying to get players to explore character concepts beyond the slay for pay model. If your characters primary motivation is get rich, what does he do after he's gotten rich? We must go deeper.

The director: this gm is attempting to bring the characters through a very specific narrative. He's challenging his players to be able to voluntarily closely follow and pursue that narrative... Star wars wouldnt be the same if luke skywalker murdered ben kenobi in his sleep and sold all his belongings on the black market. We must go deeper.

The restarter: this gm has a hard time staying interested in any one particular world or theme for long... He's challenging his players to rapidly adapt to wide sweeping changes to narrative and environment at a moments notice and frequently in order to test their versatility... We must go deeeper.

The gold depriver: this gm is interested in running a campaign opposite of the montyhaul gm... He wants the party to define their heroics by their actions, without being able to buy their way out of challenges. If you don't have the necessary tools to get the job done, but still need to get the job done... how would you do it instead? We must go deeper.

Even the unprepared gm can give you a goal... This gm admits its very difficult to know every mechanic and every rule. He challenges his players to be familiar with the rules their characters plan to use, and have handy the...

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.


Rikkan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The shadow does not get much better.

It's BAB, and base saves go up to match the shadow dancer, and it has half of the shadow dancer's hit points.

Does it gain iterative attacks with its touch attack?

Nope. It is not a manufactured weapon.

Anzyr wrote:

The Low Magic Historian

The GM believes that every magic item is worth having it's own story and that the players should be impressed with +1 magic item, because that's the extent of the magic items they will find in the campaign. This kind of GM bills their campaign as "low magic" without making any changes in encounters run or restricting what classes can be played or any other houserules (or choosing a more appropriate game system), leading to routine challenges becoming difficult and unfun for martials, while casters enjoy their enemies lack of magical defenses deepening an already massive divide in power between the two class types.

Suggestions: Point out that the rules assume the players will have certain items as they level. Explain that challenges will need to be reworked. Show them other available systems that would fit their game better. Remind the GM that is a fantasy game. Continue to explain the gap in power between martials and casters even the horse has been dead for over decade at this point. GM yourself to show the GM how to do things properly.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meager Rolmug wrote:

People are posting that other casters are just as powerful or even more so...REALLY?? I don't see how. All of the classes they say this about have to prepare their spells, this is a MAJOR drawback unless your GM is allowing his players to prep perfect spells for most battles AND allowing them to rest whenever they complain they need to. Not only does the summoner save up his spells for major battles by contributing to the little ones mostly with his edilon(which if built well is better than most other melee classes), he also gets many spells at a lower spell level slot. These early spells are almost exclusively buffs and conjurations where the save DC doesn't matter!!

The wizard is said to be more powerful, the most often...HOGWASH! most people spend more time playing low level PC's than very high level(where it MIGHT be true). The summoner's edilon could EASILY kill a wizard of the same level unless that wizard gets VERY lucky up until about mid levels. Yes, a well built wizard can be tremendous at high levels. But he can also be worthless at times when his available spells aren't useful, this pretty much NEVER happens to a well built summoner of ANY level. He can most always summon at least something moderately useful and buff the heck out of that AND the rest of the party.
I've played on many tables with pretty much all the prepared casters AND with summoners. They are indeed quite overpowered, as are quite a few of the newer classes compared to the standard ones. Although excellent GMing can help ease the pain felt by the other players at the table, it will be as say trying to keep your 11 year old son feeling like he's not left out when playing with adults in a pickup basketball game. It is one of PF biggest problems, and was completely avoidable IMO. It seems obvious they did this to get people to buy more books containing ever more powerful options. While a decent short term marketing strategy, it may well be the main reason people will move on to other more balanced RPG's.

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 ____.

DM_Blake wrote:

That's not quite how I read it.

I read it as two categories:

1. Creatures that are not undead are blinded and take 4d6 or 8d6 if they are vulnerable to sunlight, half damage and not blind if they save.
2. Creatures that are undead or slimes (etc.) have two of their own sub-categories:
2a. Not vulnerable to sunlight: 1d6/level, half if they save.
2b. Vulnerable to sunlight: destroyed if they fail the save, half of 1d6/level if they make the save.

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.

Failure = destroyed.

This also to trump improved evasion despite this being a reflex based spell so being a vampire rogue/monk won't help if you fail.

It also seems that vampires are subject to the 1d6/level clause and the double damage clause.

I think that magic is not just about intelligence, but aptitude. If intelligence was the only factor, then there would be more wizards around.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Enchantments are not limitations, so that logic does not apply.

No enhancements are not limitations themselves, but they can contain limitations. Since this limitation is calling out light armor.....

Yeah you did the right thing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:

Because people are mentally adding "..and in addition to proficiency certain other things still count armor as the original type such as...", despite it not being written that way.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:

Bracer of armor are armor, and are light. A bracer is a synonym for vambrace, which is piecemeal armor for the arms. I know there is no rules connection between bracers and light armor, but Bracers are able to accept armor enhancements, and are the lightest of light armors because they are not encumbering at all. I know this is not RAW. This is personal opinion, nothing more.

That said, Mithral armor is still Medium for proficiency. It doesn't make sense that an enchantment that only works on light armor would work on armor that is only light for the purposes of penalties, but still requires medium proficiency.

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:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Avatar-1 wrote:

Do these images look right for the 10-foot and 5-foot radius effects?

Does that mean Emergency Force Sphere hits 9 squares instead of 4 now?

There are a pair of posts from Mark Seifter that says this FAQ is only supposed to apply to Large and larger creatures, and that the wording will be corrected to better reflect this.

See here and here.

I sent those fixes up early last week, but I've stated that it is not a huge priority. Some day the PDT will be able to edit FAQs so we don't have to bother them every time.

Let me make sure I've got this right. The FAQ only applies to large and larger creatures? So medium creatures still have the old, off center bursts? Being large or larger is already soooo advantageous (reach, increased weapon damage, str/con boosts). I'd say the FAQ should boost the size of all burst emanations.

If you would, check out this image I've made showing 30 and 35 foot bursts, are my bursts correct or incorrect?

10 foot bursts

Yeah, those are correct. Thanks for the images.

1 to 50 of 31,525 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.