|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm not complaining so much about the fact that it makes them invisible, I understand its purpose. But more about the fact that the combo is incredibly easy, very low level, and pigeonholes the GM. That's actually kind of the point of all of the things that I'm bringing up. Balancing.
You do know the see invis, glitterdust, and faerie fire also availible at this level.
The player may forget to look for the trap, and by defeating the trap the party knows they choices paid off. As an example if I take energy resistance, and get attacked by a fire spell, and it allows me to walk away without being harmed then I know it is useful.
As for what is supposed to happen another hallmark of a good GM is trying to set things up so there are several ways to succeed. If the party chooses not to sneak they may be able to fight or bluff/diplomacy/intimiate/disguise their way past a situation.
And this also goes back to making abilities useful. If they did not do anything there would be no reason for the ability to exist. No ability works all the time, and like I said before you have to look at the level of the party.
An as example invisibility last for 1 min per caster level. You will not search an entire castle in 3 minutes. Now you can blow all of your invis uses, but you might run into the boss and be out of spells. Resource management is also a part of the game.
It is not a perfect defense, but it is a good one. Most windows and doors are not over 20 feet wide and 20 feet high. Remember this is a 3d effect not a 2 dimensional one. Put it near the window on the top floor. Put someone with dogs near the main entrance. Dogs have scent so they should notice anyone showing up even if they can't be seen. Since you are in a magical world it is not far fetched to assume you have invisible intruders. The guards go inside and the castle is put on lockdown. Then the party has to find another way in.
D20 is rules intensive. Maybe mutants and mastermind(also D20, but less rules intensive) will work. Shadowrun might also work.
I think the disconnect here is that you want everything you put up to challenge(be somewhat difficult to) the players, but not the game is not designed like that.
Thanks for the responses. These have been ongoing issues for our group and we've been rotating GMs (myself included) so its not just one of us. Different situations are popping up in every situation, and without an encyclopedic knowledge of the game its impossible to plan for these contingencies.
From what I got out of your post you seem new to the game. Until you get more experience this will happen, and as a GM you are one person. The players tend to have 4 or more minds to think of solutions. After a while it gets a lot easier. My first party did worse things to me since they were experienced players and GM's. I basically took mental notes, and it helped me when similar situations came up in other groups.
From the point of the characters any unneeded risk might kill them. As an example, if I am an real life assassin it is safer for me sneak up to the enemy leader and slit his throat than fight might way through all of his minions, even if the fight scene would be cinematic.
750 gp is not cheap at level 3. Even crafting it cost 375. I tend to not buy expendables to much so I can get permanent magic items because it is more efficient. So assuming your players are not getting too much wealth, once they figure that out you will have another problem to deal with.
I know what the invisilibility rules are. I know it is +20, but that is to find out what square they are in. However you only need a flat 20 to know they are within 20 feet.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
Noticing and pinpointing are different.
You don't have to track every second. Just track hours, and I would not put every mission on a hard timer. That gets annoying also.
The game rewards specialization. In most parties certain people will be sure to cover key(diplomacy, spellcraft knowledge etc) skills to try to be sure the party can succeed. Some skills such as perception will likely be taken by everyone, but one person will normally focus on it.There will be times when you have a low chance at passing a skill, but there are normally ways around it. As an example the DC on a climb check can be lowered with rope. It gets even lower if you have a wall to brace against.
Swimming might require someone in heavy armor to take off their armor, but the game is made that way. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions.
Many of us have been playing for a while and we don't see your "problems" as problems. For things that might be problems we have learned how to anticipate them, and try to avoid them.
As an example. For the situation of the 1vs1 fight it should have been noted in game that it was to be a 1vs1 fight. That way the other character knows it is a personal vendetta and not to interfere. Now he could have still done so, but many games have an unwritten social contract so the player would have probably metagamed to stayed out of it.
As for the assassin ability, it is what the player designed it to do, so we would allow it.
Going back to the craft potion idea, wait until they start taking craft wondrous item and craft arms and armor. Then they will get more powerful, more quickly.
There are addressing two completely different things.
The 2nd one is saying that you can't use the fighter ability to trade out bonus feats on feats gained by your normal progression as a character.
The first FAQ you listed is saying that if you have two characters with the same class ability they stack. The 2nd FAQ you listed one is not impeding the first one at all. Those feats you are gain as a character have nothing to do with the bonus feats you gain as a class feature.
Stop it.You KNOW that is not the intent. If you want to make a houserule fine, but don't pretend like you don't know that is not the intent. Combat is not in play until dice are rolled, so they are not distracted or in imminent danger. This is you trying to weasel your way into making stuff up. As the GM if you want something to work a certain way just do it. Now if you really think that is the intent there are dev quotes that disagree with you.
In games I play/run the BBEG is not always at the top. They may be in a basement, or in a room in the middle, and that includes published adventures. Invis also only allows for one attack before becoming visible. In addition you only need a flat DC 20 perception check to know an invisible creature is within 20 feet of you. It might not pinpoint the square, but you will know you are not alone. Making a 20 is not that hard.
It only tells you an aura is around, and you can identify the school. You still do not know what the spell is. Also if a creature cast a spell and walks away the aura will still be there. There is no way to be sure it is a trap, or an spell on the area.
As an example if cast invis and walk away there could be an illusion based trap, an illusion in place, or an invisible person still there among other things.
There are also spells such as magic aura and nondetection, but I would not suggest over using them. It gets annoying.
That is just a smart use of abilities. As players get higher in level they circumvent more ideas a GM will have in place if he is not used to running higher level games.
Example: You as the GM just planned an overland trek, where the party will run into NPC Y, but you forgot, or did not notice, that the party wizard/sorcerer had teleport. So your 3 day hiking idea is bypassed in 6 seconds.
There is nothing wrong with taking 10. It is for situations where you can take your time and you are so good at your skill that you are sure you can do it. As an example as a computer tech in the military, I was never worried about something as simple as defragging a hard drive or taking my weapon apart. Now doing that while someone is trying to shoot me might be more stressful. That is what forced rolls are for. And as a player you want to be good at things to avoid failing. It is not heroic to fail something that should be mundane to you. As an example taking a casual swim across a calm lake should easy. Taking a swim in a river might require you to put in actual effort/roll. That does not mean you can not try to take 10, but it could be a bad idea.
When designing BBEG's a GM has to be mindful of such things, and even so sometimes the BBEG will get one-shot. It happens. What I have noticed a long time ago is that one fight BBEG's dont work as well in Pathfinder as they do in video games due to action economy. If I run an AP I will actually tone the BBEG down at times, and use the leftover XP to give him some minions. That is actually a tougher fight then one NPC.
If you know you have super stealth guy then have an NPC with high perception, and I would have been upset also. Just saying no pretty much invalidates the work you put into your character. If I can't use something then it defeats the point of me having it. As a fellow GM I know it sucks sometimes to spend a lot of time on something to have it insta-killed, but that is something we GM's have to realize will happen.
A good GM learns the rules as best he can and tries to avoid them, but also realizes that sh*t happens. Arbitrarily saying no will not make players happy.
A good GM also has an alternate plan or just changes story elements the players does not know about. As an example with my teleport comment, I would just have moved NPC Y to another destination the players were headed to.
I have had players skip a large number of enemies before. I wont deny them the XP. I give it to them. Otherwise I would be punishing them for being smart.
Compared to full casters or the other front linters?
Petty Alchemy wrote:
The point was not really the race used, but he made it seem like it was automatic. If someone is going to be the party radar they will tend to go for a high perception
That is how I read it also, but I want it to be simplified if I am right.
Kaleb the Opportunist wrote:
GM: "As you stick your toe out to reach the edge of the pit trap, the bugbear charges out of hiding and attacks the fighter with a greataxe as he clings to the wall. Meanwhile, the goblins behind you have had time to light their Molotov cocktails. Roll initiative.
How was that bugbear not seen, or do you mean if the bugbear rolls high enough on his stealth check he is not seen?
Degoon Squad wrote:
Not really. We just use bards, inquisitors, and rangers to do those things.
Who made that argument?
This came up in my game tonight. I just let it go to move things along, and by the time it was noticed the fight was over anyway, but I think it is poorly written and deserves an FAQ.
The spell has a duration of 3 rounds and it list what happens each round with no verbage saying that a made save ends the spell.
It also specifically says that each "failed save" gives a greater affect.
So if I get to round 3, but I make the first two saves do I have to save against the affects of round 1 or the affects round 3?
Yes I GM, and the point being made still stands. I am not saying you can't help the rogue out, but I am saying if the class needs the help then it is not up to par. What I would do has no affect on the validity of a class. I can help an expert or aristocrat NPC class find something to do. That does not make either of them valid PC classes.
PS: I am not talking about corner cases
The point being made is that you HAVE to something for the rogue. The average adventure already has something that someone else can do without special attention.
ok.. I thought you were saying empower was ignoring the cap.
I think we all agree them.
That cap is not variable, and your quote about cure moderate says nothing about bypassing a cap.
What is variable is the dice when you roll them. However you are still limited by the cap of 8 or 12 depending on which version of the spell you are using.
As an example if you empower mirror image to get 10 somehow, but the cap is 8, then you can't get above 8.
Trying to support more than one setting is difficult. The gameworld is not made just for PFS so otherwise the idea to remove it is there.
If I were only playing with the core book, I'd still rather be a bard who happened to put max ranks into Disable Device than a Rogue. I would be able to deal with mechanical traps via DD and magical ones via Dispel Magic. Meanwhile, I'd be a better party face (via versatile performance), a better knowledge monkey, and have something to do in combat.
Another good idea.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
You don't need the rogue to disable, just toss a rock down on it a second time as a general practice for traps. If it goes off again its a resetting trap. If not, it should be safe. Afix two ladders together and lay them down across it. Have your fighter climb across the walls with a rope tied to his waist and the rest of the party holding it. When he gets across he holds his end and the rest of the party holds the other as one person crosses. Then another. Then the last one ties the rope to his waist and he jumps as far as he can. When the floor gives out the rope catches him and they pull him up.
Or you could summon a monster on the other side and throw a grappling hook to them, or use featherfall and then climb back out, etc etc.
You don't need the rogue to disable, just toss a rock down on it a second time as a general practice for traps. If it goes off again its a resetting trap. If not, it should be safe. Afix two ladders together and lay them down across it. Have your fighter climb across the walls with a rope tied to his waist and the rest of the party holding it. When he gets across he...
See what I mean about being creative, Eldmar. :)
The other post said it was changing the game, not me. You got us confused. I am saying that changing the trap rules is forcing the rogue to be useful. If the class was good "as is" then you would not need to cater to it.
1. Just because nobody can use disable device that does not mean they can't detect the trap. If it is a pit trap they go around it. If it is not a pit trap you set it off, and then go past it. Most traps that reset have a reset time. If it is magical you set it off or dispel it.
2. As for resting in dungeons that is not really a problem. If the dungeon is also enemy HQ there won't likely be a lot of traps since you don't want to kill your minions. Of course you might not care about the minions, but most people are not fanatically loyal. With that aside most dungeons are not filled with traps. Some players also set them off on purpose knowing they have a good chance at making the save.
3. What traps are you or your GM using? Are the CR appropriate. You do know traps have rules. If you do not follow those rules then you are using GM Fiat to help the rogue.
PS: I normally run AP's and those traps are not normally too difficult to deal with, and in home games I don't even bother with them too often, but when I do they are magical. Most players are smart enough to come up with nonconventional ways to circumvent them however.
Rogues don't need full BAB, just bonuses to hit. They would likely be better off with less sneak attack nice, and a mechanic that boosted their damage instead. That way it would be less swingy, and they could get a bonus to hit.
Jericho Graves wrote:
The CRB is not exactly balanced. Some of the most powerful options in the game are in the CRB, and even before the APG came out the rogue was being given a difficult time. Even in some AP's, which are not optimized, a rogue will struggle with some players.
Tom S 820 wrote:
3/4 is 3/4 but...3/4 + modifiers > 3/4
Play a game with the base book only, no trapper rangers, or bard archaeologists or alchemists. Play with an old school group with an old school GM that always ratchets up the traps to the point where in the first few levels a trap can 1 shot you. Then stop whining about how sub-par rogues are. They are only sub-par because paizo trivialises traps and the value of trap finding so that any tom dick or harry can get it with a trait. You can't get animal companions or rage or spells with a trait, shouldn't be able to get trap finding either.
So basically you have to change the rules to force the rogue to be useful. That is not evidence in your favor or the rogue's.
With that aside even in core you don't need a rogue. Summon an animal to set the trap off, or just use dispel magic unless the GM is trying to force you to have a rogue in the party. Traps are normally set up in their location so you just make sure you are not in the room when it goes off.
I had tried to bring out a hidden weapon to sneak with while grappled. Not sure why my Archtype would have such a loaded skill to allow this and not be able to sneak with it, but that is what my GM said at the table. I do need quick draw to do it in the same turn, but otherwise I am confused as to why this wouldn't work.
You may have been out of actions. That is the only reason I can think of.
How did your turn go from beginning to end?
Was the opponent grappled before you started that turn?
The tumbling use of acrobatics does not make someone lose dex to AC. The use of the skill to balance yourself does.
I had one of those players also. I rolled his stats for him once. I knew it would not end well, and he also tends to roll poorly in the game.
I remember that topic. I think there were large communication issues, and there were possible alternatives that never got mentioned. It was not as simple as it is presented here.
People here dont always agree. Some wanted the GM to cater 100% to the party. I think he tried to bend some, but the party would not bend at all, so either way someone was going to disagree.
That bolded sentence is something I will never understand. Rather than having me waste my time rolling, not that I roll poorly I would rather just get a stat array.
In the next game I run I will be using rolling, but everyone will get to use the rolls of whoever rolled the best. That way it will be fair.
PS: To those of you who know me for not liking rolls, I am just doing it because the campaign called for it so I figured I would do it. Then I am going back to point buy.
Monks too, but that is mostly because they are hard to build well unless you choose one of the 2 or 3 good archetypes.
I do understand not having internet/computer, and having a poor connection. That is limiting.The point of playing is to have fun so at the end of the day you have to look at the pluses and minuses and decide if it is worth it. If I am not happy I would just not play. Some people may think it is worth it.
As for scheduling if you can get online you can likely find a game. Now I understand some prefer to play only in person but that goes back to my first paragraph where you have to decide if it is worth it.
No. It does not make anyone a jerk if that is all they have to say. If they start to make personal insults that is being a jerk, but calling someone a bad GM is not a personal insult. I used to be a TERRIBLE GM, and that is a fact.
I think people should at least answer the questions you asked, but not doing so does not make them jerks. It just makes them bad at explaining themselves. They should say, "____ is not the right thing to do", and give an alternative solution so they can contribute to the discussion.
The game already has built in penalties, and not all stats are equal. That is just the way it is. I would rather use a stat array than deal with arbitrary rules.
1. I don't.
2. I would not play if he was a jerk about it. If a GM does not want me to do ____, then he should make it into a rule or talk to me about not using it too much.
The GM appears to be immature in my opinion.<-----me being nice about it.
The rules don't say you can only attack from within 30 feet. They say ranged attacks have a limit of 30 feet. It is not a ranged attack the limit does not apply.
Yes there is a difference.
Lets say you have some gargantuan creature with sneak attack,and it has a reach weapon. It will be more than 30 feet away so it could not sneak attack if the limit was 30 feet.
A ranged attack is very specific in pathfinder, and unless the spell in question is actually a ranged attack the limit does not apply. I am not saying it makes sense, but that is the rule.
It is not a guessing game, but since you have not explained away surprise spell I guess you have nothing to add.
It is not a severe gimp, but it is noticable. As for being better I think wizards are better, having played both, but sorcerers are good enough to for me if I don't feel like doing the book keeping.
You mean having a team mate knock you out? For now I would allow it since it seems suboptimal.
If you mean withdraw from your ally to get past the requirement of withdrawing from melee I would not allow it since that is too big of a loophole for me.