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

35,972 posts. Alias of concerro.


1 to 50 of 35,972 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Somehow I didn't even notice that part of the title. Good catch.

Derek Dalton wrote:

I've read all the Unchained classes and will be banning them from my games when I GM. Nothing and I mean nothing about them makes me want them anywhere my game. The only class chosen to be unchained that did need help was the Summoner. The issue was spells and the lack of them. From what I read they nerfed their spell list even more. The Spiritualist is essentially a Summoner their Phantom slightly less powerful then an Eidolon. What makes them superior to a Summoner is their spell selection.

All the others show me not weak classes but weak or inexperienced players not playing them well. I have played Rogues all through 1st ed D&D, 2nd, switching to Pathfinder. Never ever had a problem holding my own in a dungeon. Same with the Monks.

Not everyone's games are the same. "Did ok in my games" does not mean they are ok.

I really doubt you are much better than most of the board members here at system mastery when it comes to Pathfinder and many of the better ones have had problems with rogues and monks. There are numerous threads on the topic. If you have a solution feel free to present it, but assuming people are weak players is 100% incorrect. Even the devs admitted the monk and rogue had issues. Normally when these topics come up the defense often comes up with a rogue is not supposed to be in combat, and/or to not rely so much on sneak attack.

PS: Most of those comments were about the core rogue and monk. Things such as the zen archer archetype tend to do well.

PS2: House rules to help them out or GM's taking it easy on those classes whether on purpose or by accident, does not help the case of them not being weak.

RDM42 wrote:

Unless someone concentrates specifically on making a bag character I find that scenario has pretty much been a total myth in my games. Someone might not be as strong a single others, but I've never seen someone make a cha after so incapable of effecting enemies that they just sit around.

And again, why does every single combination of race and class need to produce a viable character anyway?

That is a different question than the previous one, but my previous answer still applies.

That is not the same thing as saying there is a race that is so behind the curve that you cant use it to make a decent character with any class.

To my knowledge all PC races can be viable with any class that is viable already.

I also dont think you have to intentionally make a bad character in order for it to be almost useless, but I do think it is rare.

I am sure you also know that a nonviable character is not pulling their weight. They don't have to be 100% useless. That is pretty much impossible even if you use an NPC class.

I am really having trouble understanding the point of your question also. It is almost like you are advocating that someone bring a character in that will endanger the party.

RDM42 wrote:
Porridge wrote:
The Guy With A Face wrote:

I personally hate feeling limited by my class's required stats and being punished for "choosing the wrong race." That's what I don't like about 15 point buy. If you want to make something good you have to use one of the races that gives the right stat bonuses or you're going to have to dump a bunch of stats. What if i want my elven tanky fighter to be smart/charismatic/not a brain dead idiot with a big stick? I can't because all my points have to be forced into my con and strength. With 15 point buy I can't really do that without gimping myself. 25 point buy ensures that any race/class combination is going to work just fine.

Hmmm so this turned into me talking about why 15 point buy does not appeal to me instead....Whatever, I'll post it anyway.

I'm totally sympathetic to the idea that it's kind of lame that the rules disincentivize various class/race combinations, like Elven Fighters, Halfling Barbarians, or Dwarven Bards. But I'm not sure changing from a 15 to a 25 PB changes that -- a Halfling Barbarian is still going to be significantly disadvantaged relative to a Half-Orc Barbarian given a 25 PB.

What you need to do in order to make unusual class/race combinations viable, I think, is to offer the option of not taking the usual stat adjustments. For example, offering players a choice like this:

(1) X point-buy (with usual racial stat adjustments),


(2) X+10 point-buy (without racial stat adjustments).

That will make something like a Halfling Barbarian completely viable. It's true that a Half-Orc Barbarian can still get a 20 strength (using the first option), while a Halfling Barbarian can "only" get up to a 18 strength (using the second option). But a Halfling Barbarian built using the second option will get a batch of extra points to spread around to compensate.

Why does every race/class combination need to be equally viable?or even viable at all?

I agree they don't need to be equal, but viable on the forums means you are not dead weight in most conversations. If that is what you meant then being viable means you actually get to not die, and not hold the party down.

There is an FAQ on size increases that always goes by the base damage you are starting from. So as an example if you choose 1d8 no matter if it is weapon damage or Warpriest special base damage it goes up to 2d6.

PS: That 2d6 may not be correct. I am going off of memory. The point is that whatever base damage you are using is what is increased.

If I am not answering certain questions let me know.

The warpriest chart is not based not based on the weapon damage die. You use whichever is better for you. The size increase for damage is based on the base damage you are using. weapon damage increases have to go by the damage die you are using. There is no other way for them to work.

Also a spiked shield is its own weapon. You don't add spikes to the shield after it is made. I think there is errata or an FAQ that takes care of that question.

Here is proof that your player is wrong.

It is in the quote he used.

"When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. ...

He can't have a lower reduced initiative count and still have the same count.

If the rules just said he changes the order he goes in compared to everyone else then he could still keep the same number as another character in circumstances where they both had the same initiative count/result, meaning they would be on the same count, but he would be going after them.

However it specifically calls out the initiative count/result which is the number used to determine when you go.

Anguish wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The GM is not forced to add something just because you say it exist there.

That's an interesting take I hadn't seen at all. I'd imagined the GM was adding things <i>other</i> than what the OP was naming, to avoid things they knew about. Didn't see the angle that they're adding the creatures the OP mentions because "they belong here".

And this is why we have discussions.

Good point, but I also don't think it is forcing him to not have certain encounters either unless the OP is saying things like ___ has spell resistance, and DR 10/evil. It also has a paralyzing attack, and you should use freedom of movement if we see one.

Gisher I think he knows he is wrong because he won't explain why the ring rules should not take precedence when discussing rings. It's not a difficult question to answer if he thinks he is correct. Every once in a while we get someone who like this though. Hopefully he pressed the FAQ button, even if doesn't want to answer specific questions.

DrDeth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.

where is that FAQ?

It was not an FAQ, but a ruling so I apologize for misspeaking, but it still is a different direction than the team had when SKR was around, which is the point I was making.

Here are the relevant replies.

PDT wrote:

The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.
DM Blake wrote:

So, to translate into simpler terms: No FAQ required because Rule Zero...

This is quite unacceptable. We bought the rulebook, and keep buying supplemental rulebooks, because we want rules. Or at least guidelines telling us when it's a good idea to apply a rule and when it's not a good idea.

Saying "Oh, here's a fun rule but your GM is expected deny your use of it whenever he whimsically feels it would be more dramatic" is worse than having no rule at all. If we wanted that game, we could all just sit around playing "make-believe".

Why even sell a rulebook at all? The CRB could have been one page long and would have said "Everything is whatever the GM wants; you're all subject to his whims, fancies, and interpretations. Deal with it." End of rulebook.

"Design" is the middle word of "Pathfinder Design Team" but this non-answer is also non-design.

Very disappointed.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

I understand you are disappointed, but quite frankly the rest of what you say is hyperbole.

There are rules for take 10, but the last thing we are going to do is try to cover every instance on when you can take 10 or not. The game is far too complex and has a narrative structure where we must trust our GMs to make the best decision possible during play. And we do trust our GMs as well as the players to make arguments as to why they should be allowed to take 10 at a certain instance. Creating a long list of yes and no for all the situations of the game would end up being nothing more than advice anyway.

That is at least why I supported the answer how it stands. No FAQ needed.

Good gaming!

However I had already seen that bolded sentence as a possible reply when I wrote the FAQ so I addressed it with the idea to take care of it before it could be used as a non-answer. I specifically asked for a "good rule of thumb".

If you delay until after someone you move below them on for initiative.

Dr Styx wrote:

Sorry... can't help myself...

CRB wrote:

Command Word: If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.

A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Sometimes the command word to activate an item is written right on the item. Occasionally, it might be hidden within a pattern or design engraved on, carved into, or built into the item, or the item might bear a clue to the command word.

The Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (history) skills might be useful in helping to identify command words or deciphering clues regarding them. A successful check against DC 30 is needed to come up with the word itself. If that check is failed, succeeding on a second check (DC 25) might provide some insight into a clue. The spells detect magic, identify, and analyze dweomer all reveal command words if the properties of the item are successfully identified.

Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.

Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for


You still haven't answered my question using the ring rules.

So are you saying the general magic item rules trump the ring rules?
If so state why.

If not then state why you are not using them.

quibblemuch wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
How is a paralyzed person setting off a pit trap?
Worst. Companions. Ever.

Good answer.

How is a paralyzed person setting off a pit trap?

SodiumTelluride wrote:
I believe that means that if a ring requires activation but doesn't specify some other activation method, it's a command word. So a ring of invisibility requires a command word and a standard action to activate.

Not a command word and a standard action. The command word requires a standard action.

deusvult wrote:

I'm not surprised at the ruling, even though I argued the other way. Handwavium or "it was just magic..." is pretty much the only way to explain how an immobile victim somehow moved across thin air and landed safely upon a downward sloped surface implicitly devoid of anything to snag and hang upon.

I'm actually intrigued by the decision to remove evasion. And I see the next rules dispute in what that RAW means.

"However, you lose evasion in these circumstances."

Which are "these" circumstances? When you make a save and magically move, or any/all circumstances where you make a save with 0 dex?

Let the arguments begin anew.

These circumstances are the ones listed in the question area of the FAQ.

The GM can provide the flavor.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
What's different between SKR's views and the FAQ in regards to Take 10?
SKR wrote:

The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.

The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances.
I'm not an athlete, but I can easily to a standing broad jump of 5-6 feet, over and over again without fail. It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump. With a running start, it's even easier. If I were an adventurer, a 5-foot-diameter pit would be a trivial obstacle. Why waste game time making everyone roll to jump over the pit? Why not let them Take 10 and get on to something relevant to the adventure that's actually a threat, like a trap, monster, or shady NPC?
Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things.

The take 10 FAQ says nothing about it being used to like this. They said it was used a rule to help the GM pace the adventure.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I agree, and part of it is that SKR had some influence on how the rules were being made. With him gone I have noticed the design direction has changed so some "unwritten design rules" are not what they used to be, is what it seems like.

As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.

Which is why "unwritten rules" are a dumb thing for a company to use.

When I say "unwritten" rules I mean the design rules that are in place, such as making sure characters of low levels dont get access to certain things or making sure PC's don't come into something they can't deal with.

Link to ring activation FAQ

14 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

It seems as if some people are not clear on how rings are activated so I am posting this FAQ in order to get a final answer.

The ring specific rules for activation are as follows.

Activation: A ring's ability is usually activated by a spoken command word (a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or its effects work continually. Some rings have unusual activations, as mentioned in the ring's specific description.

Are the methods to activating a ring limited to command words, the effect continually being in place, and whatever method would be described in a ring's specific description?

If a ring just says it has to be activated, but does not specifically say "on command" or have a special method of activation listed how is that ring activated?

An example of this is the ring of invisibility which just says "By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I'm sorry I started this thread.

It does show that some people are confused about how the ring rules work so maybe now we can get clarification on that. That makes it a good think IMO. I will start an FAQ on rings and activation later on.

Go to the rules section, and create a new thread. Then state in very specific terms what you would like to be changed. If people get behind it, then it will help. If people think it is ok as is then nothing is likely to happen.

MadScientistWorking wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I was saying the GM was correct as far as the official rules. I don't think it would be unbalanced mechanically, but it would change the lore of the race.
Weirdly enough the elemental affinity abilities are entirely inconsistent for no reason in particular. Three of them specifically call out clerics with the X domain treat their powers and spells at +1 spellcaster. Ifrits just say spellcasters with the fire domain.

That is what I get for going off of memory and what the OP said. Maybe I misunderstood what was written.

I was saying the GM was correct as far as the official rules. I don't think it would be unbalanced mechanically, but it would change the lore of the race.

The GM is correct. The rules are not going to add every possible option based on thematics alone. You can create a petition(FAQ) suggesting a rules change to add a specific thing, but if you try to add every possible thing that would reasonably be added then the answer will 99% likely be no.

edit: Also the sorcerer thing is also typically bloodline related. The oracle's power is from a divine source so they are really not that close despite both being fire based.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The GM is not forced to add something just because you say it exist there. If he doesn't you to have random banter going on about the game then he should just say so instead of making up excuses for it.

Saying vampires are in Ustalav is not metagaming, nor does it force the GM to suddenly use a vampire encounter.

For those who are wondering why I made this post it is because there was a thread on getting a caster to level 32, and a sub-topic came up about whether or not all trait bonuses were trait bonuses by default.
Going by the most literal reading of the rules all of them are not identified as trait bonuses, but the intent seems to be that they are according to various other post made on the site.

So I thought it was a good idea to go ahead and get a final answer.

Snowlilly wrote:
I am of the opinion all traits default to being typed as a 'trait bonus' unless explicitly typed otherwise.

In the other thread Turin the Mad said it was bad editing, and I agree. Since most of them do call out a trait bonus

However, in order to avoid someone forgetting one word the author should just have to specifically call out the exception if Paizo takes "many" as the default method.

As a more general thing since people are getting more nitpicky about the rules stating when ____ is the default/standard may also need to be done at times.

As for the trait issue I have created an FAQ.

Trait bonus FAQ

14 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

The specific FAQ question is bolded at the bottom.

The entry in the APG says that "Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a "trait" bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack".

However, there are traits such as Ease of Faith which do not specifically call out a bonus given by a trait as a trait bonus.

Your mentor, the person who invested your faith in you from an early age, took steps to ensure that you understood that what powers your divine magic is no different than that which powers the magic of other religions. This philosophy makes it easier for you to interact with others who may not share your views. You gain a +1 bonus on Diplomacy checks, and Diplomacy is always a class skill for you.

Are we to assume that all bonuses given by a trait or trait bonuses unless specifically called out as untyped or another type of bonus?

Or, is a bonus given by a trait not a trait bonus unless it is specifically identified as a trait bonus in the rules text?

Snowlilly wrote:
Activation: A ring's ability is usually activated by a spoken command word (a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or its effects work continually. Some rings have unusual activations, as mentioned in the ring's specific description.

As was pointed out so enthusiastically in the traits bonus type thread: usually =/= always.

Unless you can show where the Ring of Invisibility is explicitly bound a single activation type, we are left with the possibility of mental activation, a standard means of activation under the activated item rules.

Nobody is saying it is always. They are saying it is the standard unless the ring's effect is continually in play or it has a specific unusual method of activation.

You are not always invisible, and the ring has no special method of activation mentioned.

So since the ring rules only give you three options and 2 are ruled out that leaves the standard action.

Now I am going to find this trait thread.

ok, I found it. It is a small number of posters who regularly post who support that claim. You have to consider the source when you want to make it seem like most of us agree with something.

Snowlilly wrote:
Deadbeat Doom wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding something here. Under the basic rules for magic rings, it is stated that rings are usually command word activated, as opposed to being use-activated as you appear to want them to be. When the rules say usually, what that means is that all rings are command word activated, unless a specific ring says otherwise for the powers of that ring only.

I find it amusing that exactly the opposite argument was used, by quite a few people, when arguing that trait bonuses are untyped.

Even though the general rules for traits state many traits give a trait bonus, the consensus was all traits bonuses are untyped unless explicitly stated otherwise.

This opinion prevailed even with an explicit statement of RAI in the trait rules stating that traits are not intended to stack.

If explicit wording is required in once circumstance, one would think explicit wording is also required in all similar circumstances.

Most people here know better. By the very definition of it being a "trait" bonus it is not untyped. I really doubt the majority of the people here made that case.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The game is turn based for us but combat in the game world is always going on. I would say you are denied dex until your next turn if you close your eyes, since you can't see attacks that are coming at you while you are also attacking those images.

There are no official rules for closing your eyes.

sightless=blind/can't see

the figments go invisible also. They always take on the appearance of the caster so if he is invisible so are they. This is good because of if they stayed visible and the caster moves they would give his new location away.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree, and part of it is that SKR had some influence on how the rules were being made. With him gone I have noticed the design direction has changed so some "unwritten design rules" are not what they used to be, is what it seems like.

As an example comparing his idea of taking 10 to the FAQ(made after he left), and you see that it is not the same at all.

The Shaman wrote:
voska66 wrote:

As well I've played RotRl and 15 pt buy is playing that AP in hard mode. I've run a several APs and 20 pt buy works better, results in fewer TPKs.

Now with Horror Adventures book, well 15 pt buy might not be that bad as weaker character are easier to get that fear.

I can definitely agree with the last one. For me, something like Strange Aeons should not be played with very high PB. Wrath of the Righteous, on the other hand...

Hmm, what point buy would people here recommend for each path - or at least those you played?

In the current game of Carrion Crown, I am allowing 25, but the players don't really push the optimization(tactics or powerful builds) bar too high, and they all have characters which are decent to good in more than one area, and not hyperspecialized characters.

Normally I use 20, but for other GM's I would suggest looking at several factors vs me just saying what they should recommend.

How much customization do you like for the party to have when making a character?

How difficult will the AP be considering how they tend to play?

How good are they at combat? This is usually a combination of tactics and the ability to make a character.

How much are you willing and able to adjust the game if they struggle or start to mudstomp the AP?

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Mostly off-topic, but anyone who is really worried about massive PC buffing (especially before meeting the boss) might want to do a Pathfinder conversion of this monster.

That would get really annoying, and is not much better than, "your magic just stopped working", if it is the commmon solution.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Thunderrstar wrote:

No GM can cheat.

The GM is right the rules are wrong.

You obviously did not read my first post or could not comprehend it.

I will try again. There are game rules, and the rules of the social contract for that group. By stepping outside of the social contract the GM can cheat. Rule 0 does not cover the social contract, only the game rules.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, but it really depends on the social contract of the group.

Mostly the GM makes all the rules, and most groups have an understanding that the rules will work a certain way unless they are told they will change.

Other groups don't care about the rules as much.

I would ask the GM does he intend to always go by the rules. I would also ask him to let you know about any rules he plans to ignore.

Styxx the ring rules do not mention anything about wearing it as the method of using a standard action to activate it.

Correction to my previous quote.

1. has to be activated via Command word<---only option left

2. effect continually on<--not this since you are not always invisible.

3. Unusual method described in the description<-----not anywhere in the description

Once again if you think the general rules trump the rings rules say why.

Also if you need an FAQ that ring activations default to a command word unless otherwise stated in the description let me know, and I can start an FAQ for that.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Why do people keep posting about 3rd party stuff in places that are not the 3rd party boards? And it's always the complicated, overpowered Dreamscarred Press stuff.

How is it overpowered?

So it seems nothing less than an FAQ on rings will satisfy Styxx.

Boomerang Nebula wrote:
To summarise, and in the spirit of the opening post, I am looking for a way of changing the way will saves and mind-effecting enchantment spells work so that enchantment spells can be insidious, subtle, manipulative and beguiling like they are in some fiction and at the same time encourage roleplaying opportunities.

That is different than the opening post. What you are suggesting is that the magic change people vs expose what was already there.

For your slow change to work it would likely require failing the same save and being given the same command several times. Assuming average dice rolls most saves are not failed, and even so it is hard to justify giving the same or even a similar command every time. Using dominate person as an example you can go with "attack your friends", but that gives a second save, and it gives a bonus to the save. Some casters may instead, tell the dominated PC to do something that involves them leaving the area of the fight or they will command them to do nothing. Basically what I am saying is not every caster is likely to give the exact same command so it's difficult to work towards one thing(flaw). Pathfinder is not build to work this way.

Even so the group has to buy in, and if you push more enchantment spells expect to see more people with higher will saves and Iron Will as a result.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Gauss wrote:

As for Color Spray, APs generally do not have opposition spellcasters until several levels into the AP. As a result sleep is off the table, but even the stunning effect should only hit about 1/4 of the group. Assuming your party is half-way spread out (normal deployment) then only half the group should be hit by the color spray. Only half of those should fail. DC here for a 1st level NPC wizard is only 14. Even a 1st level fighter has a decent chance of making that save. Figure the 1st level fighter has a +2 Will save (12 Wisdom, +1 from trait) then they need to roll a 12. That is a 45% chance of success. Highly doubtful your party will succumb to this.

Aside from your hyperbole about the spells I also think your logic here is circular. If you buff the monsters of course your player's PCs will need buffing. If you don't buff the monsters then no, they won't.

Your hypothetical fighter is investing very precious resources [ridiculously precious in a 15 point buy] into that 12 Wisdom, AND spending half a feat on Will saves [half a feat at level 1 when these resources are incredibly precious even to the Fighter.]

As to your hyperbole about spells, have you looked at the duration of Protection From Evil? It doesn't cancel domination and similar effects anymore, that was changed in Pathfinder.

Now, if your party always has minute per level buffs in place, maybe that's the reason you don't feel the need to hand-hold 15 point characters?

PoE gives them a new save. That is what I think he was referring to, and if it is used in advance the spell doesn't work on them.

Not directed at anyone in particular:
With that aside the need to hand-hold 15 point characters is not objective. I have had groups with 25 point buy struggle, and groups with 20 point buy mudstomp an AP. That same group was full of people who knew the system well so even with a 15 point buy they are going to mudstomp an AP. That is why I really don't think the point buy matters much if you are dealing with players who know the system well, and this is even assuming you enforce the rule that magic items are only 75% likely to be available if they fall within the proper price range.

On the other hand, if you have players who don't know the system well and/or don't really push to optimize characters point buy will matter more.

Gnurro wrote:

Do Player Races (like Undines or Oreads) that have the Outsider Subtype get Knowledge(Planes) as class skill?

The Outsider entry says Outsiders always have it as class skill and the Native subtype doesn't say anything about this skill.

Do the racial rules override these creature type boni? Or does a Undine Slayer, for example, get Knowledge(Planes) as class skill?
They don't get the other stats from their type, so i'm unsure what takes precedence.

I couldn't find any verification on this anywhere.

...I know i could always just add it through the race builder, but i'm trying to keep to the basics for my first games.

Nope. They rely on class skills, not racial HD.

Dr Styx, you do understand that a ring with its effect working continually means that the effect is always on right?<--Feel free to answer this question.

If a ring of invisibility had the effect(which is invisibility) always on then you would be always invisible. <-----If you disagree and think that making you invisible does not always make you invisible then state why.

Now since you are not always invisible that effect must be activated.

According to the ring rules, which you seem to want to ignore that requires a standard action because the ring rules give you two options. Command word or always on. That is pretty much it.

Now if you disagree tell me how the rings rules don't agree with what I am saying.

If you believe the general magic item rules trump the rules made specifically for an item type then state why you believe so.

If possible also state why the devs(who have been quoted), and a rule about another item posted above are not agreeing with your position.

Bloodrealm wrote:
Retroactive changes in personality saves stating that this is the way the character has always been.

That would be inconsistent with past and maybe even later actions. Either you a certain way or you are not. That is like a spell forcing your to lie, and you trying to say "I have always been a liar", but your character has been completely honest before then even at the threat of death, and even after the spell happened.

Now of course a group/player buying into it could suddenly start to commit to the new action, such as lying but why now when this magic came up. People only commit to something when magic is in play? That is also hard to believe.

Gisher wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Dr Styx wrote:

No your quote says is usually a command word.

The quote from me in your post says;
"the description of an item states wether a command word is needed in such a case."
The description of a Ring of Invisibility says it needs to be activated.
No mention of a command word is in the description.

In the FAQ quote it also says use the item again, not to say a command word agin.

My quote says that activating it uses as command word.

Here is the quote " A ring's ability is usually activated by a spoken command word..."

After that it says "or its effects work continually."

My quote is from the ring section specifically.

Either the ring is activated by use or the effect is always working. We know you are not always invisible, and the ring says it must be use activated. That means it needs a command word. Specific trumps general and the ring rules are more specific to rings than the general magic item rules are.

And here is Mark Seifter on this topic.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Not one of the four of us thought it was continuous or even possibly continuous, but it's true that I personally wasn't sure it defaulted to command word over use-activated until some people in the thread pointed out that it's in the rules for rings.
This might be the quote you mentioned a few posts ago.

Yeah, that is it.

That was Mark saying he see that it uses a command word, but I figured I would quote the exact "ring rules" also.

I think Gauss is saying if you run the AP's as written the party will be ok. If you step things up by using more lethal tactics or otherwise not running the AP as written the party may need a higher point buy.

Zedth wrote:
Your average PF player seems to want higher and higher point-buys, and at some point I wonder why most of those players don't just do away with the pretense of picking stats at all and just go with straight 18s across the board. Heck, why not 20s?

Do you have quotes to support your claims. Not liking 15 point buy does not equate to a desire for all 20's. Post like yours which take things to extremes that the other side has not expressed do not help.

1 to 50 of 35,972 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.