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

27,712 posts. Alias of concerro.


RSS

1 to 50 of 27,712 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pclark I will reply when I get homw in a few hours.


pclark4422 wrote:
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.

Quote:


I get that a character is an ace, but if something is trivial, why include it in the first place. Why put in a trap if there is 0% chance that it will actually hit the party? Why have a creature stalk the party if there is 0% chance that it will be undetected. Reverse that and say why would you include a scenario where the party can/should/have to sneak through an area when there is 0% chance that everyone in the party could actually succeed (but this is where Invisibility is SUPPOSED to come into play)

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.

Quote:


Alarm is not an adequate defense as it only protects a 20ft radius. Sure you could protect the one point where the target is located, but they can still fly over the city walls, past all the guards, up to the top of the castle negating everything between the edge of the city and the target.

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.

Quote:


Perhaps you're right and maybe I've outgrown the D20 system and desire something a bit more nuanced. I came to the forums to see if maybe there were ways beyond GM hand waving that I just wasn't seeing before coming to that conclusion. I am certainly open to suggestions if you have any particular systems in mind.

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.


There are no plans for epic. That is why we were given mythic rules. I would not mind seeing it as optional rules, but I dont expect for it to be a major project.


Nice. :)


+1 Amulet of mighty fist.


pclark4422 wrote:
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.

Quote:


As far as our attitude goes, group doesn't really play as if its Vs game. The GM typically wants the players to succeed just as much if not more than the players themselves. The players just tend to do things that, given their knowledge and abilities, they would logically do. No one is specifically trying to break a quest, it just seems really easy to do. With dramatic effect as a goal, if I've put in a good deal of thought and work trying to make an interesting experience it takes the wind out of my sails when its circumvented with such ease. The game seems to lend itself, at least by raw, to eliminating dramatic effect.

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.

Quote:

The invisibility/fly combo was happening as low as level 3 since the potions only cost 750 a pop its very doable. By level 4 the sorcerer was able to make his own. That means that from now on all quests have to be underground to prevent the fly in fly out tactic. Or they have to have some sort of magic field that negates either effect.

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.

Quote:


As far as the invisibility bonus itself, its not just 20 its +20. Meaning that a character with 0 Stealth taking 10 (I wouldn't let him, but thats the halfway point) gets a roll of 30. In order for a wall guard to to have a 50% chance of spotting them they have to have a perception score of 20. The pre-generated NPCs at level 6 and 7 have Perceptions of +10 meaning only a 5% chance to spot, and thats assuming the player flies close by and its broad daylight.

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.

prd wrote:
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.

Quote:


Detect Magic and Taking 10 do take "extra time", but not from the players perspective. Thats what makes them damaging in my opinion at least having to declare or roll a die gets annoying and they stop doing it leaving them vulnerable. Sure you can have time sensitivity in game but how meticulous and draining would that be. I like and use the idea of you have X number of days to complete the quest or the princess dies or if you sleep in the dungeon the bad stuff happens. But for these abilities you would literally have to keep track of the seconds of the day. Or arbitrarily declare that too much time is being taken.

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.

Quote:

The problem with skill bloat is its polarizing nature. You end up with only two possibilities. Either a) The unmaxed characters will have chance at succeeding and the maxed character will succeed 100% of the time, or or b) the Maxed character has a chance of failure and the unmaxed characters have no chance of success. I find it hard to have a middle ground in there where the Maxed character will have say an 80% chance of success and the unmaxed may only have a 25-30%. That is to say theyre better, but not perfect. This isn't as terribly important in skills that are used individually, such as ride, swim, craft, but skills that are used as a party where only one has to succeed, perception, spellcraft, survival, sense motive, diplomacy, bluff etc, it creates problems. Stealth and perception, to me, tend to be the two biggest culprits of the all or nothing scenario.

I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that sees these kinds of problems but so far the responses suggest otherwise.

I would really like to sit down at some of your tables to see how you deal with all of these things.

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.


Kazaan wrote:

The Fighter Bonus Feats FAQ is contradictory with the Magus, Myrmidarch FAQ. Which one is correct? Alternatively, what specific situations does the Magus FAQ break the assumption set by the Fighter FAQ?

FAQ wrote:

Magus, Myrmidarch: Do my weapon training and armor training abilities stack if I multiclass into fighter?

Yes.
Armor training requires more explanation as to how they stack:
Fighter armor training 1 (gained at 3rd level) also gives a fighter the ability to move at normal speed in medium armor. A myrmidarch gains armor training 1 at 8th level, and also gains this ability to overcome the speed reduction of medium armor.
Fighter armor training 2 (gained at 7th level) also gives a fighter the ability to move at normal speed in heavy armor. A myrmidarch gains armor training 2 at 14th level, and also gains this ability to overcome the speed reduction of heavy armor.
A multiclassed character with armor training 1 from fighter (3rd level) and armor training 1 from myrmidarch (8th level) gains the ability to overcome the speed reduction of heavy armor (as it is the equivalent of armor training 2, which grants that ability).

Source, May 2013

FAQ wrote:

Fighter: What feats can I retrain at level 4, 8, and so on?

Class entries in the Core Rulebook are written assuming that your character is single-classed (not multiclassed). The fighter's ability to retrain feats allows you to retrain one of your fighter bonus feats (gained at 1st level, 2nd level, 4th level, and so on). You can't use it to retrain feats (combat feats or otherwise) from any other source, such as your feats at level 1, 3, etc., your 1st-level human bonus feat, or bonus feats from other classes.

You may want to asterisk your fighter bonus feats on your character sheet so you can easily determine which you can retrain later.

Source, June 2013

These two FAQ responses seem...

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.


Noctani wrote:


Taking ten is fine. But it also makes sense that taking ten takes more time. If you're rolling you are going as quickly as possible and may make mistakes. If you are taking ten you may double the time required to complete the task. (that's my rule anyway) There is nothing wrong with taking a ten, but again it's going to cost you time. Keep in the rules say you can take ten on routine tasks. You can't take ten when distracted, in combat, or in imminent danger. While it's not RAW. I would say you can't take ten exploring a dungeon. The players aren't in a comfortable or safe place. If your weapons are out and you can react to any combat situation and are watching your step there is no taking ten. If your character is always aloof and doesn't notice combat until a turn after it's started then I might allow it or if all the other PCs are on guard defending you while you try to figure out the magic device, but per RAW it doesn't state the particulars, that is DM interpretation.

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.


pclark4422 wrote:

Before I get stoned to death I want to be clear that my intent is not to discuss balancing between classes. Looking through the forums, that topic seems like its been beaten to death, resurrected, and beaten again until its Con stat is 0. Instead, I'm more concerned with balancing problems from the GM perspective and how to deal with them.

Instant Win - This is primarily a problem with magic and casting classes. While Save or Die spells are particularly problematic, I'm more concerned about the situations outside of combat.

Situation 1 - Party with a caster that has Invisibility, Fly and Brew Potion. These three, rather low level (below 10) abilities allow the party to completely negate the defense of any bandit camp, perimeter wall, or towering spire that isn't deliberately tailored to combat these abilities. Why fight your way through the castle when you can just fly up to the tower where the princess is imprisoned, grab her, and fly away?

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.

Quote:


Situation 2 - Detect Magic. As it says, detects magic. Consistently, quickly, for free and without fail. A player that says he's always detecting magic effectively neuters any magical traps, effects, and auras and finds any and all magic items. Making the player constantly say hes detecting magic quickly becomes cumbersome. When I GMed I ruled that the players still had to roll perception to find things, but this did not go well with the players.

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.

Quote:

Situation 3 (happened last session) - Introduced a 10th level druid to the party before entering a typical cavernous dungeon. Druid uses wild shape to turn into an earth elemental with Earth Glide for 10 hours. Theoretically we could have had him scout the entire dungeon and map the most direct path to the big bad with a hand wave. Realizing this was cheap we instead just decided to have him scout what was on the other side of a door before we bothered to disarm traps and go in (still cheap). This still resulted in great frustration for the GM and a cancellation of the session so the dungeon could be reworked.

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.

Quote:

Before I get stoned to death I want to be clear that my intent is not to discuss balancing between classes. Looking through the forums, that topic seems like its been beaten to death, resurrected, and beaten again until its Con stat is 0. Instead, I'm more concerned with balancing problems from the GM perspective and how to deal with them.

Instant Win - This is primarily a problem with magic and casting classes. While Save or Die spells are particularly problematic, I'm more concerned about the situations outside of combat.

Situation 1 - Party with a caster that has Invisibility, Fly and Brew Potion. These three, rather low level (below 10) abilities allow the party to completely negate the defense of any bandit camp, perimeter wall, or towering spire that isn't deliberately tailored to combat these abilities. Why fight your way through the castle when you can just fly up to the tower where the princess is imprisoned, grab her, and fly away?

Situation 2 - Detect Magic. As it says, detects magic. Consistently, quickly, for free and without fail. A player that says he's always detecting magic effectively neuters any magical traps, effects, and auras and finds any and all magic items. Making the player constantly say hes detecting magic quickly becomes cumbersome. When I GMed I ruled that the players still had to roll perception to find things, but this did not go well with the players.

Situation 3 (happened last session) - Introduced a 10th level druid to the party before entering a typical cavernous dungeon. Druid uses wild shape to turn into an earth elemental with Earth Glide for 10 hours. Theoretically we could have had him scout the entire dungeon and map the most direct path to the big bad with a hand wave. Realizing this was cheap we instead just decided to have him scout what was on the other side of a door before we bothered to disarm traps and go in (still cheap). This still resulted in great frustration for the GM and a cancellation of the session so the dungeon could be reworked.

Take 10 - This rule creates success rates of <=45% or 100%. Because of its stifling maximize or die nature I don't use it as a player and when I GMed I ruled they couldn't either. Another unpopular house rule on my part.

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.

Quote:

Protecting the Big Bad - This problem has come up a couple times where the big bad, built as a PC class using the game rules, is incredibly vulnerable to Save or Die, or just damage in general.

Situation 1 - I was playing a a Sea Singer Bard/Duelist whose back story was based on the song The Mariner's Revenge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0CR1IJKMPo). It comes time for me to face my nemesis and my party members have inadvertently bypassed all of the mooks that were supposed to keep them busy while I had my duel. Right out of the gate the cleric casts Hold Person and succeeds reducing what was supposed to be the dramatic climax of my character's storyline to a one hit kill. Even if the GM had fudged the roll, the Barbarian would have hacked him to death in 2 rounds. The GM could have denied them access to the fight entirely, through one way or another but..

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.

Quote:


Situation 2 - Similar scenario where another player is about to face their nemesis. My character is Feared and therefore out of the fight, but the invisible Ninja/Assassin was outside of the cone. He takes his 3 turns to study the target and attempts his Death Attack. The attack would have succeeded but GM said "no". The GM says no to any of his other abilities that would have essentially just stopped the fight or made it less dramatic as well (though he can still attack and do backstab damage). The fight turns out epic with the two of them fighting in a ring of fire completely by accident, but the Assassin is so upset by the fact he couldn't use his abilities he ditches the character entirely to become the aforementioned druid.

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.

Quote:

So I guess the question is, how does a 'good' GM deal with these kinds of issues without resorting to a lot of house rules, arbitrarily saying "no", or deliberately tailoring every instance in the game to counter these kinds of abilities? While the third option is just cheap in my opinion the first two are particularly troublesome. Since the player aren't actually abusing the rules telling them they can't use one of their abilities seems to be upsetting to players, even when it is agreed upon that story trumps rules.

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.


Fair enough. That makes sense.


Gingerbreadman wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Pappy wrote:


I agree with your post. In your view would making a rogue full BAB be too powerful? Just curious.

It probably would not make too powerful, but it is a change in the wrong direction, IMHO.

It has been shown in another thread some time ago that even a gestalt rogue/fighter would not be too powerful when compared to a lot of other classes.

That means: Full BAB, Combat feats, talents, two good saves, 8 skillpoints, weapon training, armor training, sneak attack, trapfinding, evasion. Oh, I nearly forgot bravery.

Compared to full casters or the other front linters?


Petty Alchemy wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
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?
Bugbears are basically bogeymen. 7ft and 400lb with +10 Stealth.

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


kinevon wrote:

Spell cast on target.

Round 1, target makes first save:
Failed: 5d6 sonic damage plus staggered, see A2 below
Succeeded: 5d6 sonic damage halved, not staggered, see B2 below.

Round 2, target makes second save:
A2, failed: 5d6 sonic damage, stunned for 1 round, see A3 below.
A2, succeeded: 5d6 sonic damage halved, no stun, see B3 below.
B2, failed: 5d6 sonic damage plus staggered, see C3 below.
B2, succeeded: 5d6 sonic damage halved, not staggered, see D3 below.

Round 3, target makes third save:
A3, failed: 10d6 sonic damage, stunned 1d4+1 rounds
A3, succeeded: 10d6 sonic damage halved, no stun.
B3, failed: 5d6 sonic damage, stunned for 1 round.
B3, succeeded: 5d6 sonic damage halved, no stun.
C3, failed: 5d6 sonic damage, stunned for 1 round.
C3, succeeded: 5d6 sonic damage halved, no stun.
D3, failed: 5d6 sonic damage plus staggered.
D3, succeeded: 5d6 sonic damage halved, not staggered.

Spell needs a flow chart, it does.

Acts like it is a Witch hex, with Cackle around. Blech.

So, best case scenario: 15d6 sonic damage, saved for half damage. Since it is Fortitude, not Reflex, Evasion/Improved Evasion need not apply for for the job. Mettle (from 3.5) or equivalent ability would come into play.

Worst case, failing all three saves: 20d6 sonic damage, staggered the first round, stunned for the next 1d4+2 rounds. Ugly.

Of course, that assumes the target is not immune to sonic damage, and, as all rider affects, that at least some sonic damage gets through any energy resistance or hardness it may have.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Degoon Squad wrote:

Rogues are subpar because the way most games are played. Many games dont use skills that much, dont use traps, dont use locked doors that need to be open and dont run adventures where people need to sneek around.

And as for using Magic to do what a rogue does you can but just remember detect Magic is a ZERO level spell everyone gets and every competent bad guy should have some low level Mook who only job is to cast detect magic on a regular basis.

Not really. We just use bards, inquisitors, and rangers to do those things.


Bandw2 wrote:
literally though across multiple GMs and my own GMing my comment still stands, I've never gone through a dungeon left to the ancients. It's always been a place filled with active people doing things.

I dont know how common it is for home games, but in published ones it is not rare.


JoeJ wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Just to step in and remind JoeJ and others- we're not saying the Rogue is worthless, just that he's worth less, quantitatively.

Thank you. Yes. I'm not disagreeing with that; I'm saying that the the Rogue's functions can be vital, even if some other character class performs them. I'm arguing against the attitude that if I include challenges for the party's thief to deal with, I'm somehow cheating the other players of their fun.

Who made that argument?


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Quote:


RESONATING WORD
School transmutation [sonic]; Level bard 5, sorcerer/wizard 7
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one creature
Duration 3 rounds
Saving Throw Fortitude partial; Spell Resistance yes
You speak a terrible word of power, setting up potentially lethal vibrations in the chosen target. The target must save once each round on your turn, and the effects grow stronger for each saving throw the creature fails.

On the first round, the target takes 5d6 points of sonic damage and is staggered for 1 round. A successful save halves the damage and negates the staggered effect.

On the second round, the target takes 5d6 points of damage and is stunned for 1 round. A successful save halves the damage and negates the stunning effect.

On the third round, the target takes 10d6 points of damage and is stunned for 1d4+1 rounds. A successful save halves the damage and negates the stunning effect.

The resonating word has no power after the third round, even if the spell's duration is increased.

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?

FAQ please.


JoeJ wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

But hte thing is, you are having to do all this convoluted stuff just to make ONE GUY feel special... except he is not. The ONLY thing he is there for is the disable device roll at the end... what if the smart guy is hte guy playing a fighter? Well the puzzle just got solved by someone other than the rogue.. the rogue is again reduced down to:

Roll Disable Device...
Good.

And rolling against Disable Device is somehow different from:

Roll to Hit...
Roll Damage...

Apart from that a Barbarian is no better than a Commoner, right?

This "convoluted stuff" is called creating an adventure, and it's part of the GM's job. Creating an adventure with no combat and all traps is literally no harder than creating one with all combat and no traps. Easier, in fact, because traps have fewer stats. You want an encounter where magic doesn't work? I can do that. One that requires a particular spell? No problem. Diplomacy rather than combat? Easy. Giving one PC a chance to be a star is absolutely no harder than giving any other PC that chance, no matter what class/race/skills/feats/spells/etc. they have.

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.

Do you ever GM? If so, what do you do if somebody want to play a character like Gord the Rogue or Shadowspawn from Thieves' World? Personally, I would allow it unless there was some specific reason to say no (if the focus of the campaign is noble knights, for example). And if I allow a character in my game, I am absolutely going to give that character interesting things to do.

My "average adventure" starts out as blank piece of paper. It doesn't have anything for anybody unless I put it in there. Even a published module is just a list of suggestions.

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


JoeJ wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

But hte thing is, you are having to do all this convoluted stuff just to make ONE GUY feel special... except he is not. The ONLY thing he is there for is the disable device roll at the end... what if the smart guy is hte guy playing a fighter? Well the puzzle just got solved by someone other than the rogue.. the rogue is again reduced down to:

Roll Disable Device...
Good.

And rolling against Disable Device is somehow different from:

Roll to Hit...
Roll Damage...

Apart from that a Barbarian is no better than a Commoner, right?

This "convoluted stuff" is called creating an adventure, and it's part of the GM's job. Creating an adventure with no combat and all traps is literally no harder than creating one with all combat and no traps. Easier, in fact, because traps have fewer stats. You want an encounter where magic doesn't work? I can do that. One that requires a particular spell? No problem. Diplomacy rather than combat? Easy. Giving one PC a chance to be a star is absolutely no harder than giving any other PC that chance, no matter what class/race/skills/feats/spells/etc. they have.

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.


Lifat wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

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.

Which is what I was actually saying.

All I wanted to point to was what the FAQ said about the feat. What it shows is that if you are CL 12 and then cast Mirror Image then you would get 1d4+4 Images with a max of 8 (hard cap for the spell). If you empower the spell then you get (1d4+4)*1.5 (as per the faq, even the static bonus gets multiplied) but again the maximum amount of images you can get is at 8. The same naturally goes for the mythic version, only the cap is 12 instead of 8.

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.


Lucio wrote:
Odraude wrote:


... That's pretty much my point for people who complain that "we need more traditional APs" or "Pathfinder is becoming too genre inclusive". This AP isn't the end of traditional modules. Rather, this AP is a bone thrown to those of us that want something more. Something different and exciting that sparks the imagination and isn't tied down to the fantasy tropes we see in every video game, book, and movie. ...

I think that one of my points wasn't communicated very well, it's not that I'm arguing directly against a sci-fantasy setting or adventure, it's that I'm not convinced it needs to exist in the exact same world as the rest of the variant fantasy settings.

As for arguing well we can avoid this if we don't like it, well no, we can't if you play in the PFS. Eventually giant robots, or laser swords or death rays will make an appearance at a PFS table and for me, personally that is an issue for stretching my disbelief. Yes mechanically it's likely to be no different to magical or alchemical items but the trappings and appearance of it will just not feel right sitting alongside a traditional fantasy warrior or wizard.

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.


Rynjin wrote:

I think what's dumber is that a Human Rogue can't stab people in the dark.

"Man, I wouldn't want to meet THAT guy in a dark alley!"

^Is what people SHOULD say about a Rogue, but sadly, not the case.

LOL.. I never even thought about that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems to work like constrict to me. It says upon a successful grapple check which is what grab allows.

I don't like the idea of releasing someone and grabbing them again, but I also understand that if a monster is fighting alone from an OoC perspective it is efficient to do so.


The ranger's animal companion is not that bad when favored enemy is in play because it also benefits from favored enemy just like the ranger does. It can provide a good boost the ranger's DPR.


L33Fish wrote:
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. :)


Eldmar wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


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.

How is playing with the core book / rules changing the rules or as someone else said earlier playing a different game? All the other books are optional extras, just because they have been published doesn't mean that they 'must' be used.

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.

Quote:


As far as the summon animal suggestion - well that is great as long as you have enough of them to cover the entire adventure, because in most dungeons you shouldn't get chance to rest and recover. Also doesn't help if traps are not one time only. For example when there is an area of a 'revolving floor' trap that revolves with anyone stepping on it, dropping them into a pit and is too far to jump. Now sending your summoned critter across sets off the trap and drops to it's doom, then seconds later the lead pc walks across the trap because it is safe now right and, oh crap I am falling into a deep spike filled pit.... A rogue on the other hand could have used disable device to jam the mechanism and everyone could then walk safely across. It sounds like your gm's have no idea how to construct traps.

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.


Pappy wrote:
voska66 wrote:
Dannorn wrote:
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?

Rogue have a bad to hit because they 3/4 BAB with no in class method of increasing their to hit bonus. Simple as that. Every other 3/4 BAB class can increase attack bonus via class feature or buff spells.

Then to make it worse most rogue builds go Two Weapon Fighting which makes sense since you have the DEX to do it and it works really well at the lower levels. At the higher levels the -2 to hit impacts you more because monster AC is much higher. Also add the fact that monster AC at the higher CRs is typically higher than they were in 3.5 and the rogue didn't get anything boost their to hit.

I agree with your post. In your view would making a rogue full BAB be too powerful? Just curious.

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.


Generally speaking I do both. Sometimes I get a "character" idea, and sometimes I get a "build" idea. Either way I try to give both an actual personality, and I try to make sure they are useful to the party.


Jericho Graves wrote:

I think that the rogue was invalidated mostly with the advent of Pathfinder Society games and Paizo's need to keep that machine of a market turning. I always saw traits and archetypes as optional things and in my home games I highly suggest against them. In fact, you have to give me a pretty compelling back-story and in-character reason to have an archetype. I also disallow traits wholesale. They feel like the flaw system from 3.5 only with no negative consequences at all.

With this kind of system, is the rogue the best choice? No, probably not as the ninja still does exist. The rogue however is a viable choice. Especially since I own about 15 different source-books on traps. (Traps and Treachery series, Grimtooth's Traps, a third party book on kobolds here and there, The World's Largest Dungeon, etc). In this kind of home-game environment the rogue keeps its staying power. But not in the world of the over-optimized realm of archetypes, traits, and so many class options as to make ANY class obsolete given enough material and enough time.

I believe very strongly that in Pathfinder Society, the Rogue is mostly there for beginning players who don't understand optimization yet. In a home game though, a rogue can be alot more. It all depends on your philosophy, your GM, and your play-style.

Oh, and before anyone says something like "I'd never play in your game, you don't allow enough options." That's fine. I never asked you too, and its my world were some things just don't make sense or work. I don't play in Golarion, I don't use Golarion's deities. I believe in GM fiat when it comes to campaign building, and all of my allowances and house-rules are given to players in a document, and at session 0 (which is character creation, pizza, and a movie afterwards. I'm a nice host after all.)

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:
Dannorn wrote:
Ok can someone explain why they're saying Rogues have bad to-hit? I'm just not getting it, aside from not being full BAB how is a Rogues ability to hit, or to improve their to-hit, any worse than any other 3/4 BAB class?
I agree 3/4 is 3/4. Also it is not poor that would be 1/2 or full arcance caster BaB.

3/4 is 3/4 but...

3/4 + modifiers > 3/4


Eldmar wrote:
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.


thaX wrote:
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?


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Treppa wrote:
PRD, definition of AC bonus wrote:
If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC.

Paizo specifies in condition definitions that Dex bonus is denied vs a modified Dex bonus. Even if your Dex is -4 due to entanglement, you can still move and thus react to a blow. Fatigued is similar. Give the benefit of the doubt to the person who would be on the receiving end of the sneak attack, because SA can be devastating.

As you noted, running, greased+moving, and tumbling characters are perfectly elegible for sneak damage.

Also, climbing: "While climbing, you can't move to avoid a blow, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)." But not flying: "You are not considered flat-footed while flying."

You know, I've read that sneak attack description a thousand times and never noticed the wording or that it might be confusing. What fun! Since I'm building a rogue PC for the first time since Pathfinder came out!, it's very handy to have this little reference. I hope other people find more such conditions. LOTS more!

EDIT: If you really want to have some fun, figure out who is denied Reflex saves.

I agree that I was incorrect and your explanation of why is excellent.

Why when tumbling? In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics. When moving in this way, you move at half speed. You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10. You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor. If an ability allows you to move at full speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to move past foes. You can use Acrobatics in this way while prone, but doing so requires a full-round action to move 5 feet, and the DC is increased by 5. If you attempt to move though an...

The tumbling use of acrobatics does not make someone lose dex to AC. The use of the skill to balance yourself does.


Suichimo wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Suichimo wrote:


As for the bolded, I would check that man's dice...

I tend to roll well for stats also, and I had a played who often rolled 20's during game play using anyone's dice.

I'd still check the dice.

I've got a friend that can do similarly, though. Except it is on the opposite end of the scale. You can always trust him to roll terribly, very nice for us when he is the DM but bad when he is on our side.

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.


John-Andre wrote:
DeciusNero wrote:

It's quite possible to achieve being a munchkin via game mastery and other things. You can't drop a label on someone's playstyle if it's slightly different from what you expect.

Honestly, if you don't know, maybe you should allow 'Core Only' rule, until you feel more comfortable.

I did exactly this, and my players rebelled and formed their own game and excluded me from it.

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.


John-Andre wrote:


In another thread I posted about the GM who had an entire group sit down and create an adventuring party that consisted of nothing but mundane types. I got a lot of comments of "He's a bad GM" even though he did exactly what these people said he should have done. (Yes, he did. Go back and read my posts. Don't skim this time.)

What makes for a good GM in your eyes, then? Not all of us know the game so well we can handle munchkin characters. Not all of us know the game so well we can deal with the power creep in the 3.Paizo system. And not all of us are ferking BAD GMs.

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.


Suichimo wrote:


As for the bolded, I would check that man's dice...

I tend to roll well for stats also, and I had a player who often rolled 20's during game play using anyone's dice.


John-Andre wrote:

All right, Scythia, but what if I roll the crap character? What if, after rolling my stats, the highest attribute I rolled is an 11? Meanwhile Lucky Joe got a character with three 18s, and whose lowest stat is a 14.

If I get to reroll, then what's the point of making me roll randomly? I'll just keep rerolling until my character's stats are just ad good as Lucky Joe's character. (And before you go on about how incredibly rare three 18s are, I know a man who could roll 18s all day -- and rolled ten characters in front of our gaming party. All attributes 18, percentile strength 00 for all ten characters.)

If I don't get to reroll, and I'm forced to play Mr. Average... well, if I wanted to play Hercules, why am I wasting time in your game? It's not at all fair for me to have to play the 11-Strength Non-Wonder, when everyone else gets to play heroes.

Point-buy is fair. The only other fair system is a standard array. If you're requiring me to accept mediocrity to play in your game, I'm going to tell you where to stick your game, and I'm going to find someone else to play with. Or go play an MMO.

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.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
John-Andre wrote:
Master of the Dark Triad wrote:

Really? We haven't learned yet to stop feeding the "why are rogues bad, again?" trolls yet?

Yes, I realize that I'm posting on this thread too, but come on guys!

Then maybe people should shut up about how bad Rogues are?

The core classes -- expecially the non-casters -- all seem to be subpar in many ways. Maybe what's required is for Paizo to finally abandon the 3.5e D&D OGL SRD, and rebuild the core classes to the same level of capability and power as the classes in other books?

Rogue and Fighter are the only classes in the core that are derided as weak.

Monks too, but that is mostly because they are hard to build well unless you choose one of the 2 or 3 good archetypes.


John-Andre wrote:
Scavion wrote:
I find the "But I can't find games!" argument to put up with b@~#%#&@ GMs shaky at best.

Really? What about the "I can't find games to fit my schedule!" argument?

What about the "I don't have a computer!" argument? Lots of those people around, especially in small towns.

What about the "My internet connection is crud!" argument? Again, a lot of those in small towns too.

When your internet access is the town library, and it's only open during the times when no games in English are being played, then you're kind of pooched when it comes to finding GMs. Don't think this is common? I know twenty people in rural Nebraska that will prove you wrong.

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.


John-Andre wrote:

I won't use rolled attributes in my game. Simply put, I can't. Players around here simply won't join your game if you make them do that. There are plenty of other games that don't make you play what the dice give you. If there aren't, then there are other things to do on Friday or Saturday night.

Some people want to play the character that they want to play, and if they can't do that, they'll look elsewhere for a game. Or just give the game up entirely.

I realize that this sort of sentiment breeds min/maxers and dump stats. Well, what ya gonna do? This is kind of why I wanted to start some discussion on this topic.

Oh, and that DM? Is not me. He is a person that plays the same MMO as I do and is a member of an IRC channel I frequent. I like the rule he makes about encumbrance, as it discourages the arcane types from using Strength as a dump. I don't think I'd have penalized the entire group for having Ugly Dwarf as a member. However, increased prices for magic items?* Oh yes, a very good penalty.

*This would require an entirely different topic, but in my 3E and 4E D&D games, purchasing magic items is a personal endeavor, the money spent representing time and energy looking up the location and owner of that one person who has that very specific item you want (or who can make it). Obtaining contacts in certain areas can help reduce the price, too. But if you're so antisocial or unlikeable that you have no contacts and people don't like to deal with you... that price is only going to rise.

Low attributes are, indeed, only going to bite you in the ass, and a skilled GM knows how to create obstacles subtly but definitely to show players that they maybe shouldn't have given their character a low attribute, unless they're willing to roleplay that lowered attribute and accept penalties for it, so long as the penalties are explained beforehand ("Your lowered Intelligence will prevent you from using my rules on Advanced Fighting Styles. Are you sure?").

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 person marked this as a favorite.
John-Andre wrote:


Part of a conversation tonight involved the concept of "dump stats". One of the GMs I was talking to said, "If any of my players takes a dump stat, I will [figuratively subject the character in question to a rather painful and humiliating personal indignity]."

Examples were offered. It seems that one of this GM's players chose to play a dwarf with a dump stat Charisma. The GM decided that even though the party had a highly social leader, the antisocial dwarf was a millstone around their necks. Prices were raised to unbelievable levels. Serious social penalties were applied. Most of the time, the powers-that-be of any town or village they went to, were willing to (grudgingly) sell the party supplies -- so long as the dwarf wasn't in sight. (They'd heard about the social abomination the party insisted on dragging around with them, and the party got shunned by association.)

Another example was Strength. The GM in question scrupulously applies Encumbrance rules. And then loves to hit characters with low Strength values with Strength-draining attacks. The wizard, who had Strength as his dump stat, got nailed by a rogue who had coated his dagger with a Strength-draining poison -- and then later, in combat, hit him with a maximized Ray of Enfeeblement, which pretty much ended the wizard's usefulness to the party, as the opposition decided to start moving away from the wizard's position, and the poor wizard could only move 5 feet a round -- and that as a full-round action.

Now, this GM does allow players to rebuild characters within 3 sessions of the character joining his game, so it's not like you're stuck if you bring in your dump-statted Alchemist. (He uses a 20 point build base, so it's not like people have to rely on dump stats for points.) And he confided that he considered a 9 (adjusted by racial modifiers) to be the baseline score. So he discourages lower scores, unless the player role-plays the dump stat well, and it's not a cliched dump stat. Playing a dumb fighter, cliched. Playing a fighter with emphysema (low Constitution), not so cliched.

My questions are these:

1) If you discourage dump stats in your game, how do you do so?

2) How does the discouragement of dump stats affect your willingness to join a campaign, and your enjoyment of the game, as a player?

You may also want to comment on the above GM. Certainly it seems to me that singling out players who use dump stats as 'targets' is rather harsh, especially when such tactics affect the group as a whole, but this is not my game.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


Rikkan wrote:

Yeah, if you go by the rules you can sneak attack with any spell that does damage (as long as you follow the other sneak attack rules).

I guess it thus makes sense if you can ignore the other limitations for Surprise Spells.

Of course, since we're not the designers themselves, what they actually intended it just a guessing game.

It is not a guessing game, but since you have not explained away surprise spell I guess you have nothing to add.


Fnipernackle wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Fnipernackle wrote:

In my opinion, the bloodlines need an overhaul. I'm tired of getting claws I'm NEVER going to use with my poor BAB. Maybe set up bloodlines like Oracle mysteries where you can pick what you want.

It has been said that being a spell level behind the wizard is a detriment that makes the class almost unplayable. I don't agree. Maybe change it up to where at odd levels they get a spell known of the next level but have to use multiple spell slots that equal to the level of the spell to cast it. Or at odd levels give them spells per day of the next level (but not spells known) that allows them to use lower level spells in granting them the benefits of Heighten Spell.

Just some thoughts.

Having run a sorcerer into the high teens, it is most certainly not unplayable. Sounds like more hyperbole from the forum echochamber ;)

I think the sorcerer spells are fine. It's the bloodlines that could take a looking at.

I don't believe it is unplayable, and I believe the way they work, if built correctly, they are better than wizards. I have proven that many times over. Thus why I don't agree with many of the viewpoints on the forums. But I have seen way too many people say that being a level behind the wizard severely gimps the class.

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.


Slyph wrote:

yah ill admit for the price the ring is a great option, as I stated maybe someone at paizo has a rogue that they wanted to actually help the party with damage. (lol please dont spam me) As for price a level 5 spell (repeatedly) for 12k does seem underpriced but maybe the cost lessening is in the activation as previously stated and the fact u cannot do it out of combat. On a rules lawyer note, what do you guys think about sparring with a buddy to activate it heh.

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.

1 to 50 of 27,712 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.