|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
What is the point of this thread?
I am not saying you have to cater to powergamers(whatever you think that means) or snowflakes.
I am saying that when you put out an invite for a game that you should(I am suggesting) be very clear about what you expect from players.
As an example if I list a game I will at the least list character creation rules with the sources permitted for use at a minimum. Normally I take it a step farther and have a campaign guide with houserules that you can download. I also let players know that their characters can die. That why they know not to play as if they will be protected by the GM.
As a GM instead of using words such as rules lawyer and power gamer, you can go into a deeper explanationn. You can say "Do not question the rules during the game. We can discuss it after the game." You can also say "I don't like it when players only bring up an incorrect rule if it benefits them" depending on what your definition of a rules lawyer is.
As for power gaming, one person's super character is someone else's standard character or even subpar character. It is much more beneficial to say something like, do not push your AC to 55 by level 10. That way if you say no powergaming people will know what your standard is.
TLDR: Give players clear descriptions of what you want in a game. It helps everyone, and less people(you and the players) will spend needles time playing together before finding out you are not compatible. This is just advice, and it is not intended to offend anyone.
PS: No, I have not kicked myself out of an incompatible game recently, but these terms are tossed around, and I see it as bad communication, especially with the lack of house rules listed, and the very bare character creation rules on various sites.
PS2: No, I did not forget other gaming terms. I just used those two because they seem to be the most popular ones.
I don't have a name for this yet, but it the idea is that applying this will make someone quicker and better at fighting in darkness
SQ: See in darkness
The should add a +1 to the CR of a creature. Do I need to add more or take something away?
Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.
You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
*Cover and concealment are relative, so you may be able to stealth against one creature, but not against another creature. As an example if a creature has blindsight and you are within the range of its blindsight then you can not stealth against it, even if you have concealment.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving to avoid being pinpointed. Use the chart under invisibility in the glossary to determine how additional modifiers will affect your stealth bonus. The same chart also applies to your stealth check when not invisible. As an example if you are speaking in a normal voice it is a -20 to your stealth check. If you are speaking within the hearing range of another creature then it may not be possible to use stealth against them as you would be observed by their hearing. Whispering imparts a -5 modifier, to your stealth check, and your allies may need to make perception checks to hear you. The enemy may also make perception checks to hear you. If they can hear you whisper however, and you have already used stealth against them successfully it only gives them your direction but it does not pinpoint your location unless they can beat your stealth DC.
If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a bonus on Stealth checks (see Feats).
As of now I am undecided as to whether or not I should require total concealment for someone to hide if they are being observed by eyesight
This might get moved to the house rule section<---Disclaimer.
With that said the invisibility rules have a "notice" rule that means you can know an invisible creature is within 30 feet of you. I don't think the rule, while having good intentions, add more complexity to already complex rules.
However, since I want to modify the stealth and invisibility rules so they are easier to understand, and make sense I wanted the opinion of other people. This rewrite will likely be presented by next Tuesday(hopefully). From there I will present it to the community so they(you) can nit pick it, and let me know where RAW may not match RAI.
Basically----> Would you care if the "notice rule" was erased from the invisibility section?
Let's say I have an SLA that references a spell, but does not have the same name as the spell.
Does it take a standard action or a full round action to use the SLA.
Does it take a standard action or a full round action to cast "Bigger"?
You are basically surrounded by a wall much like you would be if you failed the reflex for being entrapped by wall of stone. So does FoM give the "wall" a middle finger, or would is being trapped by a wall of stone or this dragon ability beyond FoM since you are basically surrounded?
PS: If you are in my RotRL game this is not for you, so don't worry.. :)
I am sure they intended to say "attribute" modifier, but as written you add the actual attribute, so someone with charisma of 26 would add +26 to the DC, not +8.
FAQ so it can be errata'd please. :)
According to the rules when a caster loses a level he does not lose the spell slot. That makes since because that removes any character rebuilding, which was not fun in 3.5.
However it is basically understood that to cast a spell of level ____, and to have access to spell slots of a certain level you still need to have a certain caster level.
Let's say the following takes place:
I am originally an 11th level wizard which give me access to 6th level spells. I get ambushed by a vampire. After the energy drain hits me I am down by two negative levels. Do I still have access to my 6th level spells or can I only access spell slots that are at level 5 and below?
This came up in my game tonight. I just let it go to move things along, and by the time it was noticed the fight was over anyway, but I think it is poorly written and deserves an FAQ.
The spell has a duration of 3 rounds and it list what happens each round with no verbage saying that a made save ends the spell.
It also specifically says that each "failed save" gives a greater affect.
So if I get to round 3, but I make the first two saves do I have to save against the affects of round 1 or the affects round 3?
People keep trying to use TWF with creatures that have more than two hands, but it seems to me that you are supposed to use MWF(multiweapon fighting. If you do not use MWF there are no rules for it because that was never the intent.
The bolded area says it replaces, not that it can replace so TWF may not be an option.
The question is this--> By the rules does a creature with more 3 or more hands have to use MWF?
edit: If the creature had an extra arm that they could not use to get an extra, such as the alchemist's vestigial arm, I was not including it.
It seems there is some confusion about the ability to take or not be able to take 10. Your friendly rules guy, and evil overlord will be nice today and clear this up.
First we will look at the general rule for taking 10.
Using Skills wrote:
So we know that generally speaking any skill can use take 10 unless there is a distraction or threat.
Skill Mastery wrote:
Now with skill mastery the rogue is a such a boss(expert) at these skills that distraction and stress don't even matter.
PC: There are fireballs exploding around us, how are you so calm at picking that lock?
Rogue: This is my area. I am worried about nothing. You just keep those golems off my back while I get this door open. <while picking the lock one handed the rogue is thinking of a bar wench back in town he wants to bed>
Now here we come with UMD which says there is no taking 10 as a special rule. It does not say anything about stress or distractions being the reason why, or that the skill is so dangerous to use that you are always feeling stressful about it. It says you can not pass go. There is no taking 10.
Since skill master basically only makes you calm under pressure, and not taking 10 on UMD has nothing to do with stress or distractions then skill mastery does not apply. It does not say you can take 10 any time you want to. It gives specific conditions. There is no language to support skill mastery being able to trump specific rules, only the general rules which it referenced.
Thanks for reading this and have a nice day.
Frightened: Characters who are frightened are shaken, and in addition they flee from the source of their fear as quickly as they can. They can choose the paths of their flight. Other than that stipulation, once they are out of sight (or hearing) of the source of their fear, they can act as they want. If the duration of their fear continues, however, characters can be forced to flee if the source of their fear presents itself again. Characters unable to flee can fight (though they are still shaken).
Does this mean that a character can only fight back if unable to move from their location, or does it mean they are able to fight back if they know they have no way to escape their pursuer.
As an example if the victim is stuck in a 20 by 20 room with no exit, and no way to teleport out are they allowed to fight back?
My opinion is yes, but I would like for this to be FAQ'd.
Many times on these board GM's have said they restrict magic items/spells/fests, or they dislike pre-planned builds because it takes away from the "sense of wonder" or immersion, or it makes the player(not the character) excited about the new shiny thing*. As a player I could care less, and I have never seen a player say this restriction(s)does anything to keep them "in the game" mentally.
*The shiny new thing is really just a common magic item that has been made more difficult to obtain than it normally would be otherwise.
So I ask do you players really like it better?
PS:Note this statements are often made as general statements so I can only assume the writers of such statements think the majority of players would enjoy the game better if this was the standard.
I have just discovered pseudocode, and it looks just like real code to me. So I have to ask is it real code or just a way to let you know what you need to do while writing the real code. My instructor is not good at explaining things.
If they are different then a comparison of a simple code in C or Linden that adds two numbers would be helpful.
I don't see this a lot, but I see it enough that I am confused/lost/etc. What makes people think it is a good idea to not buy a ranged weapon during character creation. I understand that sometimes our brains shut down and we just forget what I call "common sense" items. I am guilty of this. I am asking about the players that intentionally just don't get a ranged weapon. Some have said something about a character concept which I still don't agree with, but it is no my character. Others have said they did not think they would need one, and they have not always been brand new players. I had one player get mad that I had flyers, and he had no ranged weapon despite the fact that he had the gold to buy one, and just chose not too..
This is a question that has been on my mind for a while(within the past 6 months) so it is not a recent event, but I am sure it will happen again.
Even GM's that don't fudge rolls or make "mistakes" too often to allow the players to be successful really want the players to well 99% of the time.
Would you be ok in a game where the GM allowed you to get to the last boss, and you spend +6 months time in real life to get to the boss and you lost?
Just to be clear it would be a tough and fair, but winnable fight. Maybe too many failed saves on the party's part or too many crits from Team Evil..etc...
Why didn't the party try to run away and come back later?
Who knows.. Strategy is not the point there. The point would be that the party failed/TPK'd/etc.
The initial idea of the playtest was to use fliers, incorporeals, melee brutes, an ambush, and at least one team of highly coordinated NPC's.
I only got into the fliers, and an melee combat that should have been an ambush.
I set had the players on one side of a broken bridge. Their goal was to retrieve a cup and escape or kill the enemy. I also had a magical trap on the other side of the bridge with a hole in the middle of the bridge.
So after some technical issues and other things were resolved we got under way. The brawler jump the hole so he would not have to swim, but nobody rolled a perception check to check for traps so he triggered the trap which released an Erinyes. Before I go on, I will say the invesigator had trap spotter, but I did not know it. It would not have matter however since he needs to be withing 10 feet of the trap, and the perception modifier was low enough that he need a 19 on the dice to find it. If he waited for trap spotter he would have been within range to set off the trap since it was based on proximity.
The swashbuckler jump the hole and set off the trap. That led to combat.
I thought fear(SLA) was a cone affect, but for the Erinyes it is a single target, but since I had already moved the figure on the map. I just chose a random target. That was the swashbuckler who failed the save and was taken out of the fight. The shaman then summoned the eagles and had them attack. None bypassed DR. The swashbuckler used his turn to run away. The shaman used his spell to help the swashbuckler get farther away. The investigator flanked with the eagles and did decent damage.
Back up top to the erinyes who laid into the brawler since he was the closest to the cup. I thought he would try to run away, but to his credit he still went for that cup when his turn came up. The shaman cast searing light, but missed, and I asked him did he have dispel magic as a hint. I also turned back the wheels of time to let him know it was a summon spell, so that on his next round he could try to dispel it or try to free the brawler from the fear affect. The investigator and eagles once again teamed up to allow sneak attack damage on the erinyes.
Rounda 3 and 4. The erinyes knock the brawler unconscious, and and took out at least one eagle. A dispel check was made, but the roll was to low so the summon remained. The investigator went for the cup after I suggested a retreat, and due to snakestyle it was able to survive.
I feel like the brawler is not good enough in unarmed combat, and I might also suggest bow proficiency. If not then a dip in fighter is needed, or taking rapid reload to be able to use slings might be in order.
The investigator is good at being an all around character and the inspiration is very helpful IMO. I am kinda "meh" on the swashbuckler. It did decent damage. Ok, so it outdamage the brawler in the 2nd fight, but the brawler is not that great either. I like the shaman. I actually made one as an NPC, but I did not get to use it. It is very flexible IMO.
I will post the 2nd combat later.
This is not a thread to defend magic mart as whole. I have noticed that it is frowned upon, and I understand why. I also wanted to know if there was a behind the scenes reason as to why others allowed it. I will go first.
One of my first GM's used to make us use gather information to find an item, if it was not a scroll, wand, or anything he considered to be cheap. I do like the idea, since I doubt such stores would exist. However I also feel like any players I had would just get the most diplomatic party member to find the item for them. It would also force me to come up with rules to determine when a magic item is found. Well I could just make it up as I went along, but I just prefer concrete rulings. Another thing is that I don't want to spend game time shopping, if I can help it. That is something that can be handled by email as an example. So in order to avoid making up new rules, and to save the time in games I just assume items under a certain value are in city X.
I roll on the random chart for anything else. <-----I used to just roll an arbitrary success chance.
"If my action triggers a readied action, can I just avoid taking my original action, and do something else instead, once the other creature's readied action is completed? If I cannot continue my original action, such s being tripped on a charge do I lose it"?
As an example of changing my action:
Cleric is holding a stone with the silence spell cast upon it. He readies an action in case he sees someone casting a spell (cannot hear it), that action being to throw the stone near the person casting the spell
Wizard starts casting a fireball.
The Cleric sees the spell casting and throws the stone
A) Does the wizard lose the fireball? (But have a move action remaining)
Does Smite Evil allow you to hit incorporeal creatures even if the weapon is not magical.
Here is a rules quote for someone that believes it does. His argument is that smite evil is its own attack.
I disagree. Smite evil is not an attack on its own, and it in no way makes the weapon magical. It does not even target the weapon. It is an effect placed upon the paladin by the rules. If the weapon is not magic then it can not hit the incorporeal creature, and therefore the smite damage never takes place.
Other arguments are here.
Both the Bastard Sword and the Dwarven Waraxe are listed on the charted as one-handed exotic weapons, but the text seems to indicate that they are too large to be used one-handed without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat.
Can they be used in one hand without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency Feat, meaning the restriction is just flavor text, or without the EWP feat should they be treated as 2-handed martial weapons or 1-handed martial weapons with the restriction you must use 2 hands to wield them?
This belt's wearer gains a +4 bonus to all poisons and a +2 bonus on Escape Artist checks. In addition, once per day on command, the belt can be animated as a venomous snake or constrictor snake that obeys the animator's spoken commands for up to an hour. If the animated snake is slain or moves 100 feet away from the animator, the snake reverts into belt form.
I think this means a +4 to save against poisons, but it is not written well.
According to the new FAQ clarification
That seems to signify that a silence spell can block cackle, but previously I thought it did not because it is not a sonic affect so I thought the cackling was just flavor text.
My question is this, If an effect uses sound as the medium of delivery should we assume it has to be heard to be effective, even if it is NOT listed as a sonic effect?
PS: If order to avoid any confusion the specific question I want to be answered is bolded.
At character creation you are limited to certain languages depending on your race. It would make sense that this would still apply, but the new ruling does not say that.
1. If you can't gain language X through intelligence alone at level 1, I don't see how you can do it at level 4, assuming you use that level to increase your intelligence.
2. It gives some motivation to put ranks into linguistics.
FAQ Please. :)
Relevant section of Witchfire stats:
CE Medium undead (incorporeal)
Incorporeal per the PRD wrote:
An incorporeal creature's attacks pass through (ignore) natural armor, armor, and shields, although deflection bonuses and force effects (such as mage armor) work normally against it.
That quote is why incorporeal creatures attack against touch AC. Being a ranged attack does not make the witchflame bolt an exception.
If it has language such "Unlike an incorporeal creature's normal attacks..." then it could be viewed as a rules exception, and not an error.
FAQ please. :)
This question was asked in another thread, and marked as ""answered in the FAQ", but it is not there.
So please FAQ it again.
The purpose of this thread is to see if the monk can hold up across several combats to include boss fights against a variety of monsters. This will also show how well it compares to other classes.
When simulating the monsters use tactics. Don't make another poster have to call you out for dumbing a monster down.
The invisibility spell also give a +20 to the stealth modifier when making a stealth check. It also says it give a +40 if the target is stationary which is very close to, but not exactly, what the language in the invisibility condition for the glossary says.
The problem is they are not worded the same way, which leads to some confusion.
Is the invisibility spell better worded than the actual condition?
FAQ this please.
PS:An explanation on how this works on stationary and moving targets would also be nice.
This post is made to get FAQ's so we can get an official answer.
The book says "While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand" rather than "While mounted, you can wield a lance as a one-handed weapon."
By RAW you are using a two-handed weapon in one hand, but getting two-handed benefits.
No matter what your stance is I kindly request you press the FAQ button.
The game is already in progress. I am looking for 5th player that can be reliable. We play on roll.net which is a virtual table top every Monday from 900PM until 1AM EST. We try to be there by 845 to make sure we start by 9. Roll.net is very easy to learn and use, and it is constantly improving.
The next game is tomorrow so the chances of making it are small, but the party is currently level 5 with 4 players.
We have a:
They are optimized pretty well.
This is the GM's campaign guide that includes character creation rules and game rules.
You will also start with 5000 gp. No more than 33% of that can be spent on any one item.
Background stories are not mandatory, but they will help if I am on the fence about who to let in. I also roll the dice out in the open, and there is a very real possibility that your character might die. No far nobody has died yet though. :)
Now that I have your attention I want to bring attention to a common theme on the boards. That would be people assuming that anyone disagreeing with them is saying there is only one way to play the game and/or insulting them. That is not the case. If I say I don't like rolling dice, or any thing else playstyle related and I give reasons for it, that does not mean I am insulting you, or insisting you change your style of play. I am sure that if you are asked why you play the way you do, that you will have your reasons, and you are not trying to insult me or saying I am "doing it wrong." Don't go reading between the lines for insults that don't exist because if you look for an insult you will find it, whether it exist or not. That also goes for statements that don't exist.
The other issue is people assuming you are trying to say one thing due to reading between the lines, when you are discussing something else. My last thread got a lot of off-topic GM rants. It seems they did not read the topic, but read between the lines or tried to. This led them to believe I was trying to deliver a message that was never in the process of being made.
There are some people who will tell you that your style of play is inherently wrong, but all you have to do is ask those people is that their belief, and they will say yes. They won't try to hide it, and force you to figure it out.
In short don't accuse, ask. It is better for discussion, and stops bad blood before it starts. You might think you know someone's intent, but if they don't say it in exact words, then you really have no proof.
With that said I will apologize for my recent snark over the past day or so, but in the future I would also like anyone who falsely accuses another poster to apologize. If the person does not apologize to you then it is better to ask for a quote and an explanation than it is to turn up the sarcasm meter. I feel like asking for a quote is fair for someone being accused of something online. The accused can either explain the quote, if it exist, or they just get to denounce the accusation since the lack of a quote is a lack of evidence.
The above mentioned thread has GM's saying they do or would ban a class due to the flavor that Paizo gave it. I am not understanding this. A class's mechanics is just a means to an end. Nobody has to be making a character that get rages/gets angry, and hits harder due to his untamed nature. He could make a living by guiding people into dangerous area, and is able to channel some mystic force when it is time to fight. The fatigue could be a result of the force causing him a lot of strain. The ninja concept class does not even need the ninja class. I would use a ranger to do it, for those that say eastern classes don't fit.
In short banning class X does not really stop the concept from being played so why ban the class?
This is just an interest check. I would like to use roll20 to run an online game. I was intending to run one for a local group but it looks like things are falling apart.
I should always be available between 830 PM until about 2AM Eastern standard time.
I am normally off on Mondays, and some other random day during the week.
The days I work might have me going in at 7AM or in the afternoon so while I might be able to game at other times on different days the first listed time is the only one I can guarantee.
I was thinking of running Savage Tide or War of the Burning Sky. Both go to level 20, but the AP's that end at before that are also acceptable assuming I have the AP. I don't have anything past Carrion Crown though.
Game Difficulty-TPK's are possible. I am not out to kill anyone, but you will be responsible for your character for the most part.
The character creation rules have not been set because the game will be decided by committee if I can get enough players. The more difficult the game the more things I will allow at character creation. As an example Savage Tide will have a higher point buy and more books allowed than Carrion Crown would.
Whatever I run will be set in Golarion most likely. Well WotBS won't be, but that is the exception.
The goal is to get 12 hours of gaming in a month. That is about how long it normally takes me to GM one book of an AP. More hours are better. :)
Houserules that apply to any campaign::
Sorcerers don't have to use a full round action to cast a metamagic spell. They also use the same spell progression as a wizard.
Monks will get more help too, but exactly how is still being worked on.
I already have a spot reserved but that still leaves 3 to 5 spots open.
The summoner will be allowed, but I expect for you to know the rules for it. If I have to keep saying "no you can't do that", I reserve the right to ask you to change to another class.
If you post to say you are interested please list 3 AP's to include 3.5 AP's that you are interested in. AoW is not availible, at least not this time, sorry about that, but SCAP and STAP won't be an issue.
EST=Eastern Standard Time in the U.S. There are several sites online that can convert that to your local time zone.
I made a post in a PbP thread, and it is showing up in my account's post tab, but it is not in the actual thread. If I click on the timestamp from the post it takes me to the thread, but my post is not visible.
The following is the post that is not showing up.
At 3rd level, a samurai gains an unparalleled expertise with his chosen weapons. At 3rd level, the samurai selects either the katana, longbow, naginata, or wakizashi. The samurai can draw the selected weapon as a free action as if he had the Quick Draw feat. In addition, whenever he threatens a critical hit with the selected weapon, he gains a +2 bonus on the confirmation roll. Finally, his samurai levels stack with any fighter levels he possesses for the purposes of meeting the prerequisites for feats that specifically select his chosen weapon, such as Weapon Specialization.
As we can see the Samurai actually has no levels in fighter, and there is no verbiage saying that his Samurai levels count as fighter levels for the purpose of this ability.
An eldritch knight adds his level to any levels of fighter he might have for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites for feats (if he has no fighter levels, treat his eldritch knight levels as levels of fighter).
I know Paizo does not promote multiclassing so I was thinking that the RAI was to count the Samurai as having fighter levels even though the RAW does not say that, but then there is this:
Bonus Feats: An internal alchemist can select Alertness, Extra Ki, Great Fortitude, Improved Critical (unarmed strike), Improved Initiative, Improved Unarmed Strike, Iron Will, Lighting Reflexes, Stunning Fist, or Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) in place of an alchemical discovery.
This alchemist archetype does not have any ki. It has to multiclass in order to use that feat, but otherwise it sound monkish in nature by its flavor.
This is mostly a post asking for FAQ's, and I am asking everyone to hit the FAQ button no matter what your stance is on the matter. :)
We seem to have a new poster who does not know the difference between a general rule and a specific rule. He also does not realize the PF devs trump 3.5 devs when they have conflicting ideas.
My reply to his last post:
Today we bring to you the last match of the First Annual Grand Battle Tournament. Your two combatants are have bested many of the most powerful creatures in existence.
First we have Darius Blackfire a man whose martial might, and ability to withstand punishment is second to none. His dark powers make him a worthy adversary.
His opponent is a man with considerable magical talents, and his power is not to be questioned. I present to you Orion the Smooth.
2.Forest-no cover or concealment within 20 feet. Trees 20 feet tall
I believe the words "unarmed strike" and/or "unarmed attack" should be removed since unarmed strikes are also made with other body parts. It would also prevent someone trying to say their knees do lethal damage, even though they are only wearing gauntlets. Now I know common sense dictates that metal on your hands won't help your knees but a lot of posters here like to be intentionally obtuse. "Oh, but RAW says..."
It would also prevent people trying to argue that a weapon mentioning unarmed strike or unarmed attack allows for a monk's damage to override. Yeah I think it is silly to since there is no raw to take the monk's damage can overtake the weapon's damage, but that is neither here nor there.
The other idea is have a specify that the monk's unarmed strike damage does not override the weapon's listed damage.
Please hit the FAQ button.