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

wraithstrike's page

32,796 posts. Alias of concerro.


RSS

1 to 50 of 32,796 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Burrowing would make more sense because the "passenger" is not actually passing through anything. It moves material out of the way so it isn't impeded.
Do you see the difference?


Not the same thing. Walking through stone is not the same as moving through air which you can do just by walking.
It requires a special ability which is not passed on to someone just because you touch them.


Nefreet wrote:

Good news: the new suggestions for Perception are not being implemented in PFS.

[/thread]

Where did you get that information from?


Neo2151 wrote:

See, this is why I'm asking! lol

If we go with the assumption that you can't take a person with you, for logical reasons, then logic also holds that you can't take your stuff with you either, for identical logical reasons.
And in such a reading, things like Gray Disciple or the Oread Earth Glider feat become practically useless and trap options.

If we go with the assumption that you can take a person and/or stuff with you, then suddenly people will cry foul because of the potential "abuse."

That logic does not hold because your items are not another person, and the game assumes you can bring them with you. The game does not assume you can bring other creatures along unless it is stated.

As an example the cleric has a supernatural ability allowing him to teleport. It does not allow him to bring anyone else with him.

Also-->Even when grappling you and other person are not in the same square so you can't even assume they are using any holes you think you made in the ground/wall. Since you do not grant them the ability to travel you can't assume they are making their own holes or can travel through stone.


In addition to that.

PRD wrote:
Damage reduces a target's current hit points.
prd wrote:

Healing

After taking damage, you can recover hit points through natural healing or through magical healing. In any case, you can't regain hit points past your full normal hit point total.


Ravingdork wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
You can't really avoid errata in PFS.
I know. That is part of the reason why I have yet to GM or play PFS. I am not saying it will never happen, but the odds are not high.
Most of the PFS GMs I've played under (about 7 or so at various Cons) very rarely seemed to have a good grasp of the game's basic rules. PFS abiding by the letter of the law is a farce.

I have never played so I don't know, but I also think intent is the rule, not the letter. RAW does not work by itself.

With that aside it would annoy me to no end if a I had a GM who did not know the rules well, and I would not ignore rules.


RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The way it works is you are implicitly not looking like you, and in addition you may look like someone else.
And part of looking Like you is your personal magnetism.

I was stating that to clear up how disguise actually works.

With regard to the idea of charisma drawing attention you only said charisma determines that. I am sure the game does not change your charisma when you put a disguise on.

Basically you came up with a non-rule, and it has been pointed out that it does not really work well in a game. If you are a spy it would get you noticed, and if you use disguise your charisma is still on so whether you are disguised or not it would get you attention you did not ask for, if your "auto-attention" was a real rule, but it isn't.

Now some GM's may use it to see who gets noticed first, and that is not a problem, but that does not mean people with low charismas get ignored or those with high charisma bring attention without trying.

No. I explicitly said 'all other things being equal'

Maybe if they have a reason to interact with them yes, but my post that was replied had nothing to do with that which is likely why I overlooked it.

I was speaking about a situation where someone is already engaged, and not treated well because people want to add houserules.


The NPC's should get built like PC's.


cannen144 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

What specific conflicts are being solved, and as for going over budget that is a simple fix. Just tell him to drop ____ worth of loot.

If he has any other errors have him fix those also.

What is the rest of the party playing? I don't really see an alchemist as the class to take everyone's roles.

The rest of the group is a warpriest, a swashbuckler, a slayer (sniper archetype), an inquisitor, and a witch. And it's less that he's actively replacing so much as he's trying to.

As for the specific conflicts, it's that he's taken an already adversarial attitude towards the rest of the group.

This guy is going to fail miserably. Other than trying to hide items how is he being adversarial? I had a player trying to claim everything in a recent game, and he used no strategy so I(fellow player) became content to let him get himself killed.


RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The way it works is you are implicitly not looking like you, and in addition you may look like someone else.
And part of looking Like you is your personal magnetism.

I was stating that to clear up how disguise actually works.

With regard to the idea of charisma drawing attention you only said charisma determines that. I am sure the game does not change your charisma when you put a disguise on.

Basically you came up with a non-rule, and it has been pointed out that it does not really work well in a game. If you are a spy it would get you noticed, and if you use disguise your charisma is still on so whether you are disguised or not it would get you attention you did not ask for, if your "auto-attention" was a real rule, but it isn't.

Now some GM's may use it to see who gets noticed first, and that is not a problem, but that does not mean people with low charismas get ignored or those with high charisma bring attention without trying.


The way it works is you are implicitly not looking like you, and in addition you may look like someone else.


RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

@RDM42: Disguise does not default to "imitating someone else". The default is "not look like me".

edit: There is even a section for modifiers for when you go out of your way to look like a certain person.

Which implies that it's something disguise can do right?

Obviously if I am saying it can then I think it can, but that is not the same as "default use".


Also how are you bluffing and not drawing attention to yourself? By the rules it takes 1 round to bluff. A GM can allow bluff to work this way, but by the rules it does not work like you want it to.


@RDM42: Disguise does not default to "imitating someone else". The default is "not look like me".

edit: There is even a section for modifiers for when you go out of your way to look like a certain person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some people have no idea how their actions affect others. It may have to be explained to him.


GM_JD wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
GM_JD wrote:

This is all solid advice, but there is another obligation I am having trouble with. I am going to run under Society and I am not sure what to do with the Chronicle Sheet. Award him the experience for (not) taking in the adventure, or assume it under the rules of 'Dead' and not award him the experience or any of the items for the adventure completion?

Though I really do like the bar burning, since it does seem his character has self preservation habits at the moment.

Run the game for the other players. If he participates great, if not then don't worry about it. If you are worried about not having 4 people then you might want to get one more player. At some point however you need to let him know he is expected to participate.

What exactly does he do in the game?

I haven't started the game just yet, I am just getting them to create characters. He already stated his character would sit in the bar, depressed and drink and nothing else.

If that is the case he is only sitting at a table and watching the game, not actually playing. I would not award him anything.


Joe M. wrote:
As indicated in the other thread, I'm not sure I see a real need for clarification—looks to me like it'll just come down to GM discretion, which I'm fine with—, but maybe enough folks feel otherwise that this will count as a frequently asked question. Dotting for interest.

I think GM discretion was fine before the 10 by 10 rule, but now people will argue that by the rules ____ is free and ____ is not. Those in PFS probably care a lot more than I do however. :)


RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.

So what you're actually saying here, by proxy, is having a high Charisma makes your life much harder when you're trying to be a spy.

I mean, it must suck a lot to have invested into Charisma to help your spy have better Bluff and Disguise checks, only to have everyone in the hallway suddenly want to strike up conversations with you while you're disguised as a janitor. And they all show up friendly, and want to follow you around, because "oh starting attitude" and other such nonsense.

So really, if you want a good spy that can do their job, you're saying you actually need someone with as low a Charisma as possible so that everyone will ignore them for insert nonsensical reasons, while having lots and lots of ranks and training and feats invested into Bluff and Disguise. At which point you're practically invisible!

(-_-)

If you are a spy you presumably have multiple trained up social skills which you are actively using to not be noticed?
Which social skill allows you to not be noticed?
Disguise?
When I said "not be noticed" I was referring to people ignoring you per your and Ashiel's previous conversation. Disguise might make people not recognize you, but that is different than not being noticed if charisma makes you more noticeable, since it does nothing to alter your charisma.
If you are disguising yourself to imitate another person it is by default changing at least the expression of your charisma.

You never said you were imitating another person, and "changing the impression of your charisma" might just make people wonder why they never noticed you(the fake you) before. It might not actually draw any less attention. It would really depend on what the NPC thought of the person you were imitating.


What specific conflicts are being solved, and as for going over budget that is a simple fix. Just tell him to drop ____ worth of loot.
If he has any other errors have him fix those also.

What is the rest of the party playing? I don't really see an alchemist as the class to take everyone's roles.


GM_JD wrote:

This is all solid advice, but there is another obligation I am having trouble with. I am going to run under Society and I am not sure what to do with the Chronicle Sheet. Award him the experience for (not) taking in the adventure, or assume it under the rules of 'Dead' and not award him the experience or any of the items for the adventure completion?

Though I really do like the bar burning, since it does seem his character has self preservation habits at the moment.

Run the game for the other players. If he participates great, if not then don't worry about it. If you are worried about not having 4 people then you might want to get one more player. At some point however you need to let him know he is expected to participate.

What exactly does he do in the game?


Joe M. wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

So do I.

So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?

OTOH, many people consider the ability to find anything in a large room with a single check while standing in the doorway kind of absurd too.

I don't, and someone else already use Sherlock Holmes as an example of that, and he not only notices things he can almost reconstruct an entire crime scene.

Now if a part of the room is out of line of sight, and then you may be required to move, but if you can find these things with a reactive check, which is basically a free action, then I see no reason why a move action is that hard to believe.

Sure, and then the only question is what sort of thing can you find with a reactive check? And that's firmly in the realm of GM discretion. Players enter the room and make a reactive Perception check for what they notice, you as the GM determine if the secret door or trap or whatever is of such a sort that they could notice it or if it's well-enough hidden that they have to search for it.

"Observable stimulus" does need to be better defined. Since I have free time I will go ahead and start an FAQ for that. If the secret door is behind a curtain or under a rug then I would say it makes sense to go through more trouble to find it but otherwise I think it just slows things down.

I'm not sure that the "spot v. search" question would benefit from further specification. It strikes me as the sort of thing that will always come down to GM discretion, and my guess would be that any attempt to further specify wouldn't help too much. But I'll follow the thread if you throw one up!

I was speaking of observable stimuli not so much spot vs search since those don't exist anymore.

In any event the new thread is here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.

So what you're actually saying here, by proxy, is having a high Charisma makes your life much harder when you're trying to be a spy.

I mean, it must suck a lot to have invested into Charisma to help your spy have better Bluff and Disguise checks, only to have everyone in the hallway suddenly want to strike up conversations with you while you're disguised as a janitor. And they all show up friendly, and want to follow you around, because "oh starting attitude" and other such nonsense.

So really, if you want a good spy that can do their job, you're saying you actually need someone with as low a Charisma as possible so that everyone will ignore them for insert nonsensical reasons, while having lots and lots of ranks and training and feats invested into Bluff and Disguise. At which point you're practically invisible!

(-_-)

If you are a spy you presumably have multiple trained up social skills which you are actively using to not be noticed?
Which social skill allows you to not be noticed?
Disguise?

When I said "not be noticed" I was referring to people ignoring you per your and Ashiel's previous conversation. Disguise might make people not recognize you, but that is different than not being noticed if charisma makes you more noticeable, since it does nothing to alter your charisma.


thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

So do I.

So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?

OTOH, many people consider the ability to find anything in a large room with a single check while standing in the doorway kind of absurd too.

I don't, and someone else already use Sherlock Holmes as an example of that, and he not only notices things he can almost reconstruct an entire crime scene.

Now if a part of the room is out of line of sight, and then you may be required to move, but if you can find these things with a reactive check, which is basically a free action, then I see no reason why a move action is that hard to believe.

That was me :) Or at least one of them was.

I still have no idea how the reactive check and "search a 10'x10'" area interact. For it to make any sense at all, I think I have to assume that they find entirely different things. But what is unclear.

Makes no sense to me to give you a reactive Perception check to notice the hidden door when you first enter the room, but then require you to search 10'x10' areas if you miss it the first time. Especially if you're in the habit of Taking 10 on both.

In 3.x, Spot was for hiding creatures and Search was for stuff. So there really wasn't the same kind of overlap.

I think the 10 by 10 search should only be needed if things are not currently observable, but I don't know if that is what the rule will be. The trap door hidden under the rug would fall into that category.

The reason for the move action as a rule is so players can't keep rolling perception checks also. Even in 3.5 it was a move action to use listen or spot on your own if you missed something the first time, and it was not limited to a 10 by 10 area.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems as though there is going to be an FAQ or errata to the rules saying that a 10 by 10 area is the limit for move action perception checks.

Some interpret that to mean you need them to pick up on things that a reactive check is used for "observable stimulus", may not notice.

The question is "what counts as observable stimulus"?

I understand that a complete list can't be given but examples would help.

Would a hidden door that is in line of sight count?

Would a hidden door count that is behind a curtain?

Would you get a reactive check to notice someone hiding by using stealth and/or invisibility?

Press the FAQ button please. If they are going to errata perception I think it makes sense to get as many questions out of the way at one time instead of having one FAQ/errata spawn more FAQ's.


Joe M. wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

So do I.

So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?

OTOH, many people consider the ability to find anything in a large room with a single check while standing in the doorway kind of absurd too.

I don't, and someone else already use Sherlock Holmes as an example of that, and he not only notices things he can almost reconstruct an entire crime scene.

Now if a part of the room is out of line of sight, and then you may be required to move, but if you can find these things with a reactive check, which is basically a free action, then I see no reason why a move action is that hard to believe.

Sure, and then the only question is what sort of thing can you find with a reactive check? And that's firmly in the realm of GM discretion. Players enter the room and make a reactive Perception check for what they notice, you as the GM determine if the secret door or trap or whatever is of such a sort that they could notice it or if it's well-enough hidden that they have to search for it.

"Observable stimulus" does need to be better defined. Since I have free time I will go ahead and start an FAQ for that. If the secret door is behind a curtain or under a rug then I would say it makes sense to go through more trouble to find it but otherwise I think it just slows things down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
If charisma is presence it does make sense that, in the absence of other intervening factors, all other things being equal, the higher charisma person is likely to be the one people gravitate towards interacting with.

So what you're actually saying here, by proxy, is having a high Charisma makes your life much harder when you're trying to be a spy.

I mean, it must suck a lot to have invested into Charisma to help your spy have better Bluff and Disguise checks, only to have everyone in the hallway suddenly want to strike up conversations with you while you're disguised as a janitor. And they all show up friendly, and want to follow you around, because "oh starting attitude" and other such nonsense.

So really, if you want a good spy that can do their job, you're saying you actually need someone with as low a Charisma as possible so that everyone will ignore them for insert nonsensical reasons, while having lots and lots of ranks and training and feats invested into Bluff and Disguise. At which point you're practically invisible!

(-_-)

If you are a spy you presumably have multiple trained up social skills which you are actively using to not be noticed?

Which social skill allows you to not be noticed?


thejeff wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

So do I.

So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?

OTOH, many people consider the ability to find anything in a large room with a single check while standing in the doorway kind of absurd too.

I don't, and someone else already use Sherlock Holmes as an example of that, and he not only notices things he can almost reconstruct an entire crime scene.

Now if a part of the room is out of line of sight, and then you may be required to move, but if you can find these things with a reactive check, which is basically a free action, then I see no reason why a move action is that hard to believe.


Matrix Dragon wrote:

The closest thing to this you can do without getting into a rules arguement with someone is using swallow whole, and THEN dig underground.

Bonus points if it was an eidolon that did this, and then you dismiss the eidolon while he is burrowed underground.

A while back I came up with the question of what happens if a summon T Rex swallows you and then it is dismissed.

Do you get left behind?

PS: I was not proposing anyone actually try this because it was outside the intended use of the spell.


logan grayble wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
logan grayble wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
logan grayble wrote:


We actually very specifically DIDN'T complete objective 1. Objective 1 was stealing a large gem from the creatures of the forest who told us specifically it would destroy the forest if it was removed. So we left it where it was and went to the court wizard as it were and told him the situation. But even after multiple skill checks including Knowledge Nobility, Local, and Arcana, and a Diplomacy check that ended up being 28, AND a Craft check to make false artifact, were were told to go underground and involve ourselves in a Drow/Dwarf war. So we bailed.

Did your characters have no ties to the local area? I can definitely understand neutral characters or ones with no attachment letting someone else handle the issue, but if the characters were good and had family/friends nearby it might be difficult to walk away, assuming of course the situation actually threatened the place where you lived.

It is a good idea to give the characters a personal stake in the quest. As a player I try to find one, and a GM should try to help foster a connection also.

We were totally new to the city. We had all wandered to the city desperately and basically met up from a personal ad.

This is a variant of the "you met in a bar/tavern" trope.

Are you still with the GM? If so have you spoken to him as players?

Yeah, he's still our DM. I think our next plan is to pick up an adventure path book so he doesn't have to come up with everything himself and there's a better flow.

That's a good idea. They also tend to give you a reason to go into areas you might not really want to go into.


That archetype is interesting. :)


logan grayble wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
logan grayble wrote:


We actually very specifically DIDN'T complete objective 1. Objective 1 was stealing a large gem from the creatures of the forest who told us specifically it would destroy the forest if it was removed. So we left it where it was and went to the court wizard as it were and told him the situation. But even after multiple skill checks including Knowledge Nobility, Local, and Arcana, and a Diplomacy check that ended up being 28, AND a Craft check to make false artifact, were were told to go underground and involve ourselves in a Drow/Dwarf war. So we bailed.

Did your characters have no ties to the local area? I can definitely understand neutral characters or ones with no attachment letting someone else handle the issue, but if the characters were good and had family/friends nearby it might be difficult to walk away, assuming of course the situation actually threatened the place where you lived.

It is a good idea to give the characters a personal stake in the quest. As a player I try to find one, and a GM should try to help foster a connection also.

We were totally new to the city. We had all wandered to the city desperately and basically met up from a personal ad.

This is a variant of the "you met in a bar/tavern" trope.

Are you still with the GM? If so have you spoken to him as players?


UnArcaneElection wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Even clumsy people don't risk falling down every day, which would only really happen if dex checks were constantly made just to walk.

Well, we should probably go in between: Dex check is not needed every day for somebody who semi-dumped Dex down to 8, but full-dumping Dex down to 7 or less gets you a Gerald Ford award.

wraithstrike wrote:

And I have not known a business to treat a customer worse than average just for coming off as unlikable* unless they actually did something. Many times they are given good service, just to make sure they don't come back to fix the problem.

*The person that comes in and has not done anything wrong, but might be annoying or you just want him to leave, and you cant' really explain why.

It clearly is not going to happen to 1/3 of the population, which is what trying to penalize charisma is suggesting for people who would have a shopowner be less than nice to someone.

Some business get away with giving lousy service to more than 1/3 of the population, although often this is influenced only to a small degree by the charisma of the customers.

Actually there there is no rule or proof that a 7 would be a terrible stat that makes you a lot less functional, as in "You must deal with random nonsense that nobody else has to deal with".

Basically what happens is GM's feel like the game does not do enough to penalize low charisma so they go make things up and try to justify it.

Back on the topics of 7's or lower.
In races with inherent penalties a stat of 6 is happening in 1/6 of the society so 1/3 of some entire races have 6's or 7's. Do they all go around getting bad service, and struggling to walk.

Also I realize some businesses owners have more leeway, but on average it is likely a bad idea to be a jerk to 1/6 to 1/3 of your customers.

edit: Gerald Ford award according to google--> The award honors an individual who has provided significant leadership as an advocate for college sports over the course of his or her career.
How does not match up with a low dex


Bill Dunn wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

I (as the GM) say 'what's everyones modifier' - and apply take 20 rules if they start doing that.

Entire thing is over in 2 minutes and the players don't get to roll.

Then again I'm all for moving the game along.

I don't think you understand what taking 20 means.

Taking 10 doesn't increase the time of a check.

Taking 20 means making 20 checks, taking 20 times as long.

Under this new proposal, searching one 10ft square is a move action.

Taking 20 would mean 2 minutes, per 10ft square.

So taking 20 on this particular room would be 24 minutes, using this Unchained idea.

Yeah, so? 24 minutes to do the best search you can possibly do in a 30x40 room, enabling you to thoroughly search for secret doors? That seems pretty decent to me. It's about time Paizo got on the stick with a search check that's not so abusable as taking 20 and searching the whole room from the doorway.

I think the problem is the real life time it is taking up, more than the game time. As someone mentioned up thread it can take a lot more time.


There are no rules that allow it. The ability allow for the earth elemental to travel this way, not someone it is holding hands with or grappling. The only way it can be a rule is if there is a rule allowing it.


I think the problem is his team mate not keeping his mouth shut, more than the alignment system. Maybe he should be gutted along with the NPC.


RDM42 wrote:
I would say having the person wit the lower charisma not be noticed as much as the one with a higher charisma is not remotely the same as making dex checks to walk.

That is not what I compared it to.

I brought up how GM's would have an NPC go out of their way, such as a shopkeeper or bartender, to treat an PC worse, when the PC had done nothing to warrant a cha check. By the same token walking does not require a dex check.

You don't need an feat(not game term) of athletic ability to walk, and it should not take effort just to buy something from someone when it is a straight forward deal.

You give give them 5 copper, and you get your drink. That is all it should be.


Brother Fen wrote:

I'm going to call douchey player move. The guy builds a story for you and you don't play it. That's just not cool.

I don't think the player is required to play just because the GM makes a story. It is more complicated than that. From what we have so far there was a breakdown in communication however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It happens. Kids also get left in stores. A lot more parents do it than will ever admit to it. To answer the question it can be a crime if it leads to the child being harmed. It should most definitely not be a recurring event.


logan grayble wrote:


We actually very specifically DIDN'T complete objective 1. Objective 1 was stealing a large gem from the creatures of the forest who told us specifically it would destroy the forest if it was removed. So we left it where it was and went to the court wizard as it were and told him the situation. But even after multiple skill checks including Knowledge Nobility, Local, and Arcana, and a Diplomacy check that ended up being 28, AND a Craft check to make false artifact, were were told to go underground and involve ourselves in a Drow/Dwarf war. So we bailed.

Did your characters have no ties to the local area? I can definitely understand neutral characters or ones with no attachment letting someone else handle the issue, but if the characters were good and had family/friends nearby it might be difficult to walk away, assuming of course the situation actually threatened the place where you lived.

It is a good idea to give the characters a personal stake in the quest. As a player I try to find one, and a GM should try to help foster a connection also.


You are basically asking adventures to represent the bad guys.

What you can do is buy an adventure and make modifications to the story-line. If you don't want to shoehorn the party into being evil, then have the opposition also be evil. That way someone who may not like the idea of supporting House Throne might be able to get behind it, if hurting House Throne will also cause Cheliax more harm than House Thrune would. Basically it is a "lesser of two evils" deal.


Just let them know that it is a home game using PFS rules. Other people that don't run PFS, use PFS rules sometimes. In other words put the information into your description or house rules document.


Rub-Eta wrote:

andreww: Can't say that it's overrated at all. A difference of 3 points in a skill is even worth a feat. The fact that a 5 CHA dwarf diplomancer will always be 6 points shorter than a 16 CHA gnome diplomancer is a big difference (so big that you shouldn't be a 5 CHA dwarf diplomancer).

And skills are the least affected parts of ability scores.
The impact of a low caster stat is huge, as a spell caster can't cast spells then. The impact of a low CON is death.

It's only a caster stat for casters that use that stat. In the above example with touch of idiocy which is what this subtopic is about the character was intelligence based.


thejeff wrote:


You're still missing what I'm saying.

I am not saying you should apply the 10 by 10 rule to reactive checks. I'm saying that it shouldn't apply to all move action perception checks.
Back in 3.5, Search was always an active check, but Listen and Spot could be either active or reactive. The same logic applies now, even though they're all the same skill.

I see what you mean now, and I agree, but depending on how that rule is written some will run it that way. Hopefully Paizo is reading this.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
You can't really avoid errata in PFS.

I know. That is part of the reason why I have yet to GM or play PFS. I am not saying it will never happen, but the odds are not high.


Pathfinder deities don't have stats, but 3.5 had a book with deity stats in it. There is also nothing detailing the Test of the Starstone.

3.5 is mostly compatible with Pathfinder so that might work. The rules should also be on 3.5's SRD, but I dont know if any prebuilt deities are there. Pay attention to divine ranks.

Click here

Look at the divine rules section and maybe the epic rules section.


Nefreet wrote:

Just had this exact conversation derail a PFS game tonight.

PCs entered a room with 2 secret doors on opposite walls (which they were aware of OOC).

One player proceeds to move his figurine 10ft, declare a search area, roll for Perception, wait for my response, then move 10ft, declare a search area, roll for Perception, wait for my response, and continue to examine the entire room in the same way.

After a couple such rolls everyone starts doing the exact same thing.

Normally, I'd ask for one Perception check from everyone, and modify for distance. It was just a 40ftx30ft room. Max penalty for Perception would be -3 for any one character.

5 players making 5 rolls total is no problem.

5 players making 12 rolls each is a problem.

And if they didn't declare that they were searching the particular square with the secret door, then they wouldn't find it, under these new "rules". Right?

So I told them they'd never have to worry about it (or at least at my tables), because there's no way we could ever possibly fit all that needless dice rolling in a 4-5 hour scenario.

Tonight's scenario was an older Season 1, and most of its content was Faction Mission material. It took us a total of 2.5 hours (Core game, everyone's played/GMed it before).

But nearly 30 minutes of that was discussing Perception.

I'll reiterate how absurd I think this is.

More reasons for me to pretend this errata does not exist once it becomes official.


A single two-handed attack tends to do more damage than a single one handed attack so it would help two-hander more.


Arakhor wrote:
One of my player's rogues is using Telling Blow (from the 3.5 PH II), which allows you to add your sneak attack damage on a critical hit. I'm guessing that feat would be overpowered if used by the Unchained rogue?

It does not add the sneak attack damage twice so it might be ok.

As an example if you are flanking and getting SA damage anyway the feat did nothing, but if you stabbed someone, and it was crit when you would not normally get SA damage then it would be added.


Complete Adventurer allowed for a further reduction in poison cost if you were to craft it. IIRC, it dropped the price in half again so it went down to about 1/6 of the original price.


Thanks for the info. I think a customized template might be needed.

"Customized template" is really simplifying what I am saying, but I don't have any actual mechanics.

Basic Dragon stage 1 would require X amount of sacrifices, X amount of gold(also a good way to keep this away from players besides the GM just saying "no"). Maybe some knowledge and spellcraft checks would be thrown in.
In return you would get certain abilities.

Dragon stage 2 would require you to already have be a stage 1 dragon, and make more sacrifices etc etc as noted above, and the pattern continues.

At some point, maybe around dragon stage 4 the ritual is more difficult since it may have to be personalized much like a lich's transformation, but the number of sacrifices and gold still increase. <----suggestion
----------------------------------------------------------------

However since most of the "how to" is flavor because players will likely never get to do this anyway we can probably take care of the mechanics first, and the requirements seconds.
My lack of knowledge wont be much good until I can get my hands one of those books so right now "we" is really "you". :)

1 to 50 of 32,796 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.