|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
They are done the same way as if you do not multiclass.
Also if you are the only stealthy character the others may ruin your stealthy. However if you go ahead of the party then you need to be able to escape or be a decent combatant if you are corned.
You don't really need stealth to avoid charging into a fight. If you have a high perception you might hear the enemies well before you seem them. That might give the party a chance to buff up.
When Paizo issues a ruling that is not liked.....
Overacting forum member: Paizo devs are morons/idiots/etc. How could they do that? They are ruining the game for everyone. Now (insert catastrophic event that is not likely to happen) will happen. Continues rant with wild exaggerations, and more insults some of them passive-aggressive.
Overacting forum member: Why don't those lazy Paizo devs do their jobs. Why are we not getting more FAQ's?
I guess they feel like Paizo devs have to put up with verbal abuse. Nobody wants to put up with that. It is possible to disagree and not be a jerk while doing so.
No. I like PF's better. Athletics combines too many things for me, but so does stealth in PF. I wish it had stayed like it was in 3.5.
Being able to lie and disguise yourself or not even related so it makes no sense for those to be combined for me. I understand it makes book keeping a little easier, but it kills immersion for me.
There are others also, but I think I have said enough for now.
He has not retracted the statement, but me not liking it does not make it "not the intent". Honestly I won't follow the intent, I think we will run it the same way.
It was also supporting an "FAQ" that was issued which takes the entire PDT to discuss.
We should not confuse what we don't like or what may not make sense with what the rule is or is not.
The once upon a time ruling of not being able to flurry with a single weapon comes to mind.
I agree that it is a free AoO, but the wording does not support it it. The wording just says you get an extra AoO at a -5. There should have been an extra line saying "You do not need combat reflexes....." or "You do need combat reflexes .....". That would have sealed it.
I have a lot of characters I want to play, but I also want to at least get them to a certain point. If they dont get there I will play them again in the next game or try to have them rez'd in the current game.
----------------------- Changing topic--------------
Rarely using difficult fights outside of boss fights so there is a lower chance of death might work.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Yes, this FAQ does exist. I just found out about it within the last week.
The only way I am paying more than is in the book is if the GM lets me know he does not always follow the book, and then I know the NPC won't take less that a certain amount. Not even my good characters would over pay. I am likely saving the world or the city so I see no reason to pay more.
The only time I have not played in a game where I was not trying to stop some catastrophic event was when I was playing an evil character.
Thanks for the info. The best thing I heard was redoing the talents and the +4 to hit. However the rogue is still not a combatant with skills, which is the flavor the OP wants. However it may stop the anti-rogue comments or at least reduce them.There are other good things in this video also.
This allows you to be the same level as the group for certain periods of time, and the earlier you die the earlier you catch up, but if you die later it takes longer, and even when you get the same level, they will still level before, so you still never really catch up in the sense that others mean when they say "you never catch up".
In 3.5 you could actually catch up with the number of XP the party had, so you really could catch up.
You should tell someone by audio or text about how you run the game. When players have died while I was GM'ing many chose to come back to life, some wanted new characters. It was never an attempt to game the system or avoid the difficult route. Maybe your player feels like the character is not equipped to survive in your game. Also there is no reason the new character should suffer for the previous character IMO. Now in order to keep things fair with regard to equipment you can give them the same gold as the party. If you have made getting equipment difficult then you can put some restriction on what they buy.
Just because you enjoy playing a certain way that does not mean others will. Did you ask the player why they wanted a knew character?
The trait is assuming that your character had a life that would lead to it being taken. I see no reason not to allow it. It is not something you have to justify with knowledge checks. I think the GM just does not want you to have it, and if that is the case they should just say so instead of making up excuses.
When did Paizo make any comments about the unchained rogue?
Now your argument is more reasonable but if it is possible to do comparable damage to someone who is power attacking without taking power attack it would still be inaccurate. This assumes similar type builds such as 2 handed weapons. No I cant think of a way to do so right now but taking or not taking power attack is poor metric by itself.
I will respond to point 3 later because even as a power attack advocate I know it is not true, and I am only referring to characters that attack in melee not archers or non-melee casters.
edit: To avoid any moving goalpost what counts as "not poorly optimized" in melee combat.
A few questions to get more clarification.
Does improved natural attack provide a "virtual" size change, or does it change the actual base damage allowing it to stack with strong jaw?
Is a spiked shield its own weapon, or do the spikes provide a "virtual" size change meaning it will not stack with lead blades?
Would a heavy spiked shield with the bashing enhancement do 1d6 or 1d8 damage?
I think that is enough to set a precedent for any other question.
In Pathfinder they do not become magical beast anymore.
From what I understood the GM did not know he was wrong. That is why we were saying you were wrong to hold the game up, if that was a real life situation.
Even if he is being stubborn about a game it is not on the same level as breaking personal property.
And this is not even about rule 0 to me. That is different from the GM having the final say. That is just how the game works. Once the GM has made up his mind there is no point in arguing anymore. If this was the only time the GM ever did this I would just talk to him after the game, and try to find a solution. If this is a constant thing with him never admitting a mistake I find a new group.
5)No, I'm not saying rogues are good. I am saying that they are playable. Hard mode? Maybe. Are there better ways to go about them? Most likely. But hardly unplayable.
I think we can agree they are playeable at most tables.
This does not prove any class is bad. It proves the GM is who basically God in fantasyland can kill a character. It seems jerkish to me.I don't play PFS, but certain areas have been said to have certain attitudes. I don't know how true it is. As for being "vicious" I won't make any comments because I would have to see the quotes to decide if they were saying "Stay away from non-optimal choice X" or "You have lost your mind".
This is fine and it is a lot different than your previous post especially saying it is common to suggest TWF'ing and use PA while doing so.
The main idea is to be really good at one thing and still branch out to other things, but I guess you know that.
This is the misconception that annoys me the most because what happens is many of us will say that you should focus on ending combat instead focus on building around healing for several reasons. Then one or two people will say it is better to let someone die, and the statement of those 1 or 2 people will be applied to everyone.
What do all these things have in common? I guess it's the idea that a character doesn't have to be the most broken, overpowered, optimized thing on the planet in order to work. In fact, I dare say that it shouldn't be. Have fun with characterization. Have a rogue with trap-spotter (it might just save your life!)
I don't think that most people that give advice actually play the best possible character all of the time, but if I am giving advice I will tell you how to do ____. What you take and what you(not you specifically) is up to you. If I come here asking for advice I want the best advice also. I may not use all of it, if it does not fit the concept however. I think you see the advice as "You must do this". Others see it as "This is a really good idea".
That is crappy GM'ing. At some point when the party is struggling the GM should realize the party is not up to his current encounters and scale back. Now I am not saying the GM is a crappy person. He may not have realized that the entire gaming world does not play the same way yet.
I have had this also, and it is hard to deal with. It is easier for me if everyone is highly optimized.
Now this is what I was going to write before you made this post.
Putting something before or after what you write does not remove you from the responsibility of what you write.
As an example: "I am sorry, but Wraithstrike you are a horrible person who should not exist"
"Wraithstrike you are a horrible person who should not exist, but I am just saying how I feel".
Both of these have insults, and neither the preceding or following statements make them ok.
Now I understand that sometimes we have to get things off of our chest. Rants allow us to do that. I have read and seen rants where the anger was visibly there, but they were also factual in nature. People knew where the person was coming from. You could have ranted to your hearts content, and it would have come out a lot better if you had posted the actual things that happened that pushed you to this point, than the exaggerated points you used.
Online people can't read tone of voice as well. <----Something people don't always remember.
Now I know someone will misread this. I mean after all we are on the internet so just to be clear: This post is not about telling Mr.Vamp what to do, but more about explaining why it is a bad idea to go about it the way he did.
I think Jason gave the RAI of the spell. If you fail the check you have to follow what is wanted. My problem with the spell is that if you are "convinced" to do something then you would do that, and not kill yourself instead, so the cha check should be to "convince them to do things they really do not want to do subject to GM discretion". Of course now you have to depend on your GM to be fair, but that is another topic altogether, but with dominate person they just do what they are told. Well they might get another save, but that is also another topic.
I was not saying you made the description. I was just saying why I think it is not selling, and to not blame your writing. :)
I personally hate RP'ing shopping. I don't want to haggle. I don't want to have a conversation with shop keeper 9F. Unless he is plot relevant I won't even try to remember his name. Actually I won't even ask. I want to mark X amount of gold off my character sheet, write down item Y, and get back to adventuring.
Now I am aware that everyone does not have that stance, but a factor in how well this goes over depends on how your players feel about shopping, and other game interactions. Even if everyone here said it was a great idea the players may not enjoy it.
Yeah I am with you on the summoned animals things. I understand if you hardly ever summon anything, but if you always summon things then have the stats ready. At least tell me in advance. I will just set up the monster for you while I am prepping the game. No, I am not prepping every possible monster, but I will do a select few.
Some people are just a lot better at learning the rules than others are. Now I do expect for them to know which dice to roll, and other basic things. I also like for them to know their character. I get more annoyed by people who don't level up between sessions. Unless someone is a caster and they have to choose spells, it should not take long.
Sorry I am just seeing this.
I would not make a scene I would just kick you out of the house.
Now if you come up with something that actually compares to a gaming situation, and not being a jerk then I would tell you how I respond to game related situations.
As an example if I as the GM yell at you, for you correcting me on a rule then that is a more of a me being a jerk than a gaming issue because I should not be yelling at another person. So if you respond by walking out of the game because you feel disrespected that is fine.
My example of you ending the game as a player is more comparable to you breaking my personal property because we both have issues with the way the other behaved that was not good, and not entirely game related.
At no point should a person be disrespected, and accidentally killing your character is not being disrespectful.
PS: Just to be clear I am not calling you a jerk. I was saying the breaking of personal property is jerkish behavior.
I think the description is the reason why for that book. I know I am getting different encounters, but that is not saying much, and the description/presentation of an item is a large part of how it sells.Hopefully you make it through the open call, and actually get some exposure.
Admittedly this may not be clear. If it is unclear I will clarify once I am home
It is trolling if you intentionally misrepresent points(power attack) and it looks like trolling when you are inaccurate(wizard) . It also helps to have accurate thread titles. When you claim "the boards did ______" it looks like you are talking about most of us.You could hav said "certain people _____" and still gotten your point across. You can rant and still be precise while doing so. The two are not polar opposites.
No. The level of the SLA stays the same. It will always count as a first level spell.
However the caster level will change as you level up to whatever your current sorcerer level is.
edit: To clarify the highest level spell you can cast when you gain an SLA is the spell level it will count as. So if you gain it at level 1 then it would be a level 1 SLA and never change.
If you gain another SLA at level 8 then the new SLA will count as a level 4 spell since sorcerers can cast level 4 spells.
Furious Focus is not legal, but I do understand that sometimes it is good to break the rules.
Ready actions work, unless that person has been afflicted with the blink poison, which activates immediately, at which point the still-ethereal spiders can dog-pile them without shifting onto the material plane, which is the main fear of fighting them.
I was talking about the rest of the party, that is not blinking. :)
I don't see this, and I GM a lot.
Most of the time when I see people complain about GM's treated unfairly it is the same people who have directly or indirectly said "players should just shutup and play and not question the GM". Some of them will also quote Gygax or go to "players are too entitled now..back in my day..".
Disagreements do not mean that you(general statement) think someone is dumb, so I still disagree.
There is a BIG difference between this not is a good idea, and saying someone is stupid if they do so anyway.
By that logic just disagreeing with someone makes them stupid in the other person's eyes on any topic.
If he really did any research he would know that being clear when you write here is important because people can only read what you write, and considering how far the took the power attack example out of context I really can't give him the benefit of the doubt.
So you are saying the majority opinion is to not EVER heal in battle no matter what?This only requires a simple yes or no.
If you say yes I can show that you are wrong. I actually made a thread on the of people taking the idea way out of context and only a few posters said "let the person die".
If you say no then his general point is wrong because his general stance was that most of are promoting never ever heal. If he general stance was more in the middle which it is not then it would be correct.
If you somehow think he is in the middle then you need to reread his opening statement.
Actually they get the full affect when they take a talent that gives trapfinding and trapsense. It can be taken as early as level 2.
Marco Polaris wrote:
Oh man, that thread. The worst part is, even as you're complaining about his arguments being flanderized, there are people in that thread saying the same rules are exactly true. Clowns to the left of you, jokers to the right.
Yeah I saw some of those, and I am sure he will see those and miss the others that don't agree, thinking "See MOST of you do exactly like I said".
I agree that per RAW/RAI it works, but to me that is the domain of dominate person.
Charm person should only go as far as what someone might do for a best friend/family member.
In my games--> The +5 DC makes you more convinced, but it still has limits. As an example you(an NPC) might, depending on your level of loyalty let the PC's in through a secret opening into the castle and that may lead to the king being killed, but you might not directly assist in the killing because that is way beyond your event horizon.