|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Derek Dalton wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DM Blake wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
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".
Dr Styx wrote:
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.
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.
These circumstances are the ones listed in the question area of the FAQ.
What's different between SKR's views and the FAQ in regards to Take 10?
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.
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.
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".
That is what I get for going off of memory and what the OP said. Maybe I misunderstood what was written.
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.
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.
So I thought it was a good idea to go ahead and get a final answer.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
That would get really annoying, and is not much better than, "your magic just stopped working", if it is the commmon solution.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.