Creative Director
|
Were I to build a summoner... that character would probably be chaotic good and have some sort of azata-themed eidolon something like a lillend, I suspect.You just made my girlfriend really happy - she's build exactly that character & eidolon a couple of months ago.
Excellent! Was it a cool character?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I have a good amount of questions to ask you. I will be kind and post them one or two at a time here, and save a few for PaizoCon in case I can talk to you in person for a minute or two.
What sets Pathfinder apart from other table top RPG games?
What sets Pathfinder apart from 3.5 the most? Essentially, what is it about PF that makes it a whole new game and not "3.75?"
Hello James
One of our players is looking for way to extend the duration of spells like beast shape.... His goal is to have the spell last for hours per level so he can do things like change into an eagle and fly places or into a horse and carry the wounded away or into a mouse and scout out the castle and so on.... Would it be better to re-research Beast Shape and give it a higher level for the increased duration? or Research a new spell?
If he was to re-research the spell with longer durations what levels would you make it for Mins/hours?
As a side note, in this case it didn't matter much, since we didn't start as level 1 characters - but it's not really possible to create a "correct" eidolon to mimic most existing outsiders at level 1, or the first few levels in general. Of course - at later levels the eidolon certainly exceeds the specifications of the desired base creature so its not necessarily an issue in bigger campaigns.
There's nothing wrong with shaping an eidolon at 1st level to look like a given outsider - I have a player who's giving his dragonish eidolon wings at 1st level... they are just mechanically useless until he takes the Flight evolution at 5th level. Likewise, you could make a multi-headed or hydraish eidolon, but it still only gets one bite attack as far as the mechanics are concerned. Fluff-wise, each turn it could bite with a different head, but it still only gets one per turn.
Do you make your alignment choice based upon what you find easiest to play or based upon making a character interesting? (In the case that they may be mutually exclusive.)
|
Is hanging a comon meathod of execution anywhere on Golarion? If so, are any specific groups closely associated with it or is it frequently linked with specific crimes?
Heh, I only answer because I was recently reading it but, in the Kingmaker adventure path the charter the characters receive specifically mentions that the punishment for banditry being the sword or hanging. Don't know if that helps much since the charter is specific circumstances :)
|
Creative Director
|
The abyssal sorcerer bloodline gives a +6 inherent bonus to strength at 17th level. So, does this mean that the inherent bonuses are not limited to +5 in Pathfinder?
There's no limit to how high inherent bonuses can go as far as the bonus itself is concerned.
Wish, though, isn't powerful enough to bring an inherent bonus above +5, so anything that goes higher than that has to be more powerful than a wish. AKA: Pretty rare.
|
Creative Director
|
Do you need Heavy Armor Profiency to wear a Mithril Breastplate + Mithril Armored Kilt? Are you lightly or mediumly encumbered as a result?
First... armored kilts are, in my opinion, silly and goofy. The game isn't built around a piecemeal armor system, so the addition of something like an armored kilt is kinda bad design. Since it causes weird confusing situations like this one. Which is why I didn't include them in the Inner Sea World Guide.
That said, if you still use them in your game... making an armored kilt mithral doesn't affect the fact that you're still wearing more armor than you normally would. A mithral breastplate is light encumbrance, but that plus a mithral armored kilt is medium encumbrance.
|
Creative Director
|
Greetings, Mr. Jacobs.
I'm mostly a lurker on these forums, but I do have a question for you. How likely would it be for some of the other Paizo staff to participate in a thread similar to this one? A "ask Lisa Stevens anything" thread, for example (I cite her specifically because I'm an avid follower of the history of the RPG industry and her name is quite prevalent in some interesting places).
That's up to them. The fact that everyone here at Paizo answers questions anyway means that a thread like this (which was started as a joke, I believe, but I decided to treat it as SERIOUS BUSINESS... ;-)) isn't all that necessary.
If you've got a specific question for Lisa, just post a thread with a title like "Lisa Stevens: How do you get to be so awesome?" or something like that.
If you're interested in the history of the RPG industry, though... RPG.net ran several historical articles several years ago. There's one about Paizo's early days there if you're interested... click here.
|
Creative Director
|
Who is your (currently) most played Pathfinder character, and what is his/her class and statistics?
ALSO
All the iconic ladies are babes. Are we ever gonna see a cute, "girl-next-door" iconic for my not-so-attractive Hobgoblin Samurai?
I'd actually say that all the iconic guys are good looking too, to be honest.
Ugly doesn't sell well, like it or not.
Anyway, my currently most-played Pathfinder character is my character in Rob McCreary's super-modified to-the-point-it's-mostly-a-new-campaign Kingmaker in Iobaria campaign:
Echo Sidra
CG female human cleric of Desna 4
Str 15
Dex 18
Con 15
Int 9
Wis 16
Cha 15
|
Creative Director
|
What sets Pathfinder apart from other table top RPG games?
I suspect the sheer amount of stuff we produce for the game sets it apart from most other tabletop games. I'm not aware of any other tabletop RPG in this day that supports its rules with an average of about 200 pages of adventure and flavor and rules content every single month.
What sets Pathfinder apart from 3.5 the most? Essentially, what is it about PF that makes it a whole new game and not "3.75?"
Ask a hundred different gamers this question and I bet you'd get a hundred different answers. For me, I think that what makes it different from most 3.5 games is that the flavor drives the need for rules, rather than the rules driving the need for flavor.
|
Creative Director
|
Hello James
One of our players is looking for way to extend the duration of spells like beast shape.... His goal is to have the spell last for hours per level so he can do things like change into an eagle and fly places or into a horse and carry the wounded away or into a mouse and scout out the castle and so on.... Would it be better to re-research Beast Shape and give it a higher level for the increased duration? or Research a new spell?
If he was to re-research the spell with longer durations what levels would you make it for Mins/hours?
He should play a druid; wildshape lets you do exactly what he wants to do.
As for building a version of beast shape that lasts for hours instead of minutes... one solution is to build a magic item that lets him do this. But that's expensive.
A beast shape spell that lasts for hours would be pretty powerful. Would it be as powerful as one that takes a swift action to cast? Probably. I'd say increase the level of the spell by 4 at the minimum if he wants to do that.
A close analogy would be to look at the difference between fly and overland flight. Fly lasts for 1 min/level and is 3rd level. Overland flight lasts for 1 hour/level and is 5th level... but the flight it grants is slower than the flight the lower level spell grants.
An hour-long beast shape spell could be less than 4 levels above what the lower level one does, but it'd have to do a lot less. Fly only grants flight. Beast shape can grant flight AND a whole pile of other boons. Letting that last for hours is kinda tough, and frankly, it steps on the druid's toes a bit hard.
Do you need Heavy Armor Profiency to wear a Mithril Breastplate + Mithril Armored Kilt? Are you lightly or mediumly encumbered as a result?First... armored kilts are, in my opinion, silly and goofy. The game isn't built around a piecemeal armor system, so the addition of something like an armored kilt is kinda bad design. Since it causes weird confusing situations like this one. Which is why I didn't include them in the Inner Sea World Guide.
That said, if you still use them in your game... making an armored kilt mithral doesn't affect the fact that you're still wearing more armor than you normally would. A mithral breastplate is light encumbrance, but that plus a mithral armored kilt is medium encumbrance.
I agree, I'd personally rather have a piecemeal armor system (given we have half-plate/full plate/etc). However, given that it's created...
If you had Mithral Breast Plate, it requires Medium Armor Proficiency. If you add the skirt to it, it's still medium armor as far as encumbrance, but does BP + Skirt take Medium proficiency, or heavy proficiency?
|
Creative Director
|
Do you make your alignment choice based upon what you find easiest to play or based upon making a character interesting? (In the case that they may be mutually exclusive.)
For a PC? I pick the alignment that makes the most sense for the PC's personality. Since I often play clerics, my character's alignment is usually pre-selected (for clerics, I almost ALWAYS play the deity's alignment).
But I do tend to prefer Chaotic over Lawful. Chaotic Good is easily my favorite alignment.
|
Creative Director
|
Is hanging a comon meathod of execution anywhere on Golarion? If so, are any specific groups closely associated with it or is it frequently linked with specific crimes?
Yup; hanging occurs in Golarion quite a lot, but there's not any groups I can think of off the top of my head that identify with it more than any others. Not to the extent of beheading in Galt, at least.
|
Creative Director
|
I agree, I'd personally rather have a piecemeal armor system (given we have half-plate/full plate/etc). However, given that it's created...
If you had Mithral Breast Plate, it requires Medium Armor Proficiency. If you add the skirt to it, it's still medium armor as far as encumbrance, but does BP + Skirt take Medium proficiency, or heavy proficiency?
A piecemeal armor system is interesting... but more interesting to me in a computer game than a tabletop game, since there's so much clutter and numbers to track. This is the same reason that Pathifnder doesn't have locational hit points for body parts, or weapon vs. armor type rules. The game's complex enough already without heaping more complexity on top.
My suggestion for how to resolve armored kilts is to skew the rulings so that it's more difficult to use in all cases, because that means there's less of it in the game.
I agree, I'd personally rather have a piecemeal armor system (given we have half-plate/full plate/etc). However, given that it's created...
If you had Mithral Breast Plate, it requires Medium Armor Proficiency. If you add the skirt to it, it's still medium armor as far as encumbrance, but does BP + Skirt take Medium proficiency, or heavy proficiency?
A piecemeal armor system is interesting... but more interesting to me in a computer game than a tabletop game, since there's so much clutter and numbers to track. This is the same reason that Pathifnder doesn't have locational hit points for body parts, or weapon vs. armor type rules. The game's complex enough already without heaping more complexity on top.
My suggestion for how to resolve armored kilts is to skew the rulings so that it's more difficult to use in all cases, because that means there's less of it in the game.
The reason I'd prefer it piecemeal is because it's already piecemeal.
There's just no rules to handle the piecemealness. :)
For example. A suit of armor is assumed to include all parts of said armor, helm/coif, gloves/gauntlets, boots/shinguards, etc. However, the item system assumes you can replace all those bits and pieces with any bit you want without any effects on your AC.
If you're wearing full plate, and you want to wear boots of springing and striding, and gloves of the duelist, and a crown, how is that not affecting your AC? You've just removed the helmet, the gauntlets, and the boots/shin guards of your armor. Which should be about the same as Half-Plate, but you keep your full plate AC.
By the same bit, you can be wearing leather armor, put on magic gauntlets and a helm of brilliance, but your AC doesn't go up.
Simply from a versimillitude standpoint, I'd prefer if each of the bits of armor had a rating, including magical components. Oh well... Just a pet peeve of mine.
Hello James
One of our players is looking for way to extend the duration of spells like beast shape.... His goal is to have the spell last for hours per level so he can do things like change into an eagle and fly places or into a horse and carry the wounded away or into a mouse and scout out the castle and so on.... Would it be better to re-research Beast Shape and give it a higher level for the increased duration? or Research a new spell?
If he was to re-research the spell with longer durations what levels would you make it for Mins/hours?
He should play a druid; wildshape lets you do exactly what he wants to do.
As for building a version of beast shape that lasts for hours instead of minutes... one solution is to build a magic item that lets him do this. But that's expensive.
A beast shape spell that lasts for hours would be pretty powerful. Would it be as powerful as one that takes a swift action to cast? Probably. I'd say increase the level of the spell by 4 at the minimum if he wants to do that.
A close analogy would be to look at the difference between fly and overland flight. Fly lasts for 1 min/level and is 3rd level. Overland flight lasts for 1 hour/level and is 5th level... but the flight it grants is slower than the flight the lower level spell grants.
An hour-long beast shape spell could be less than 4 levels above what the lower level one does, but it'd have to do a lot less. Fly only grants flight. Beast shape can grant flight AND a whole pile of other boons. Letting that last for hours is kinda tough, and frankly, it steps on the druid's toes a bit hard.
Thanks James for answering my question on what would be your Sunday and hopefully day off....
You have provided an interesting insight into how spell balance works.
I was wondering in the older editions of D&D (1st & 2nd) some spells lasted for longer than they do now, was that an attempt to balance out the 15 min adventuring day or was it they hadn't thought about the long term effects of spell duration on a game?
Do you need Heavy Armor Profiency to wear a Mithril Breastplate + Mithril Armored Kilt? Are you lightly or mediumly encumbered as a result?First... armored kilts are, in my opinion, silly and goofy. The game isn't built around a piecemeal armor system, so the addition of something like an armored kilt is kinda bad design. Since it causes weird confusing situations like this one. Which is why I didn't include them in the Inner Sea World Guide.
That said, if you still use them in your game... making an armored kilt mithral doesn't affect the fact that you're still wearing more armor than you normally would. A mithral breastplate is light encumbrance, but that plus a mithral armored kilt is medium encumbrance.
Thanks. What about the required armored proficiency?
|
Creative Director
|
I was wondering in the older editions of D&D (1st & 2nd) some spells lasted for longer than they do now, was that an attempt to balance out the 15 min adventuring day or was it they hadn't thought about the long term effects of spell duration on a game?
It was indeed for game balance. It's worth remembering, of course, that the game played quite differently at different points in the past, so balance choices in one edition might not make sense in another. Early in the game, for example, lots of things just took a lot longer to do. There was even a really kind of weird bit of dilation of time between events that took place in the dungeon and those that took place outdoors, if I remember correctly... or maybe that was changes to movement rates? It was weird.
|
Creative Director
|
Do you need Heavy Armor Profiency to wear a Mithril Breastplate + Mithril Armored Kilt? Are you lightly or mediumly encumbered as a result?First... armored kilts are, in my opinion, silly and goofy. The game isn't built around a piecemeal armor system, so the addition of something like an armored kilt is kinda bad design. Since it causes weird confusing situations like this one. Which is why I didn't include them in the Inner Sea World Guide.
That said, if you still use them in your game... making an armored kilt mithral doesn't affect the fact that you're still wearing more armor than you normally would. A mithral breastplate is light encumbrance, but that plus a mithral armored kilt is medium encumbrance.
Thanks. What about the required armored proficiency?
And the weirdness caused by armored kilts continues—exhibit #32 why they should go away. :-)
If an armored kilt increases the armor's effective type from light to medium or from medium to heavy, you need proficiency in the final result in order to effectively use the armor.
|
Hi James, first of all thank you for taking the time of answering ALL our questions in this thread! :)
As a GM, I am not sure I understand how the Oracle's revelation surprising charge (and similar powers that involve the immediate action) is supposed to work.
The description says: "Once per day, you can move up to your speed as an immediate action."
Now, suppose an Oracle is attacked with a melee attack or a spell, and uses this power to move outside the range of the attacker (or outside the spell's range, which might happen easily for spells with Touch or Close range).
Is the attacker's action just wasted? Or can he redirect the attack/spell towards other targets within range (if any)? Or can the attacker forfeit that attack and just do something else (and different, e.g. drink a potion) with his action?
Thanks a lot!
T.
|
Creative Director
|
Hi James, first of all thank you for taking the time of answering ALL our questions in this thread! :)
As a GM, I am not sure I understand how the Oracle's revelation surprising charge (and similar powers that involve the immediate action) is supposed to work.
The description says: "Once per day, you can move up to your speed as an immediate action."
Now, suppose an Oracle is attacked with a melee attack or a spell, and uses this power to move outside the range of the attacker (or outside the spell's range, which might happen easily for spells with Touch or Close range).
Is the attacker's action just wasted? Or can he redirect the attack/spell towards other targets within range (if any)? Or can the attacker forfeit that attack and just do something else (and different, e.g. drink a potion) with his action?Thanks a lot!
T.
Well... I don't answer ALL of the questions in this thread. I ignore the ones that are too silly or annoying. There's not a lot of those in that category, though.
As for your question...
If the oracle uses this ability to scurry out of the range of an attack, she does so just before the target makes the attack (which might provoke attacks of opportunity, depending on circumstances, of course). The attacker's action isn't wasted, though. He gets to basically revise what he wants to do since the target of his original intent is no longer a legal target.
To make sure we really run the armored kilt in the ground does the "no effect with heavy armor" mean you don't get the +1 to AC? Because that is the impression I have always been under.
Ask a hundred different gamers this question and I bet you'd get a hundred different answers. For me, I think that what makes it different from most 3.5 games is that the flavor drives the need for rules, rather than the rules driving the need for flavor.
For what it's worth I buy Pathfinder products for the rules, I don't really use any of the flavor, and I'm even a rules lawyer. The big difference has been the company treats the rules like a product WHICH HAS QUALITY CONTROL instead of a short term marketing tool.
Do you need Heavy Armor Profiency to wear a Mithril Breastplate + Mithril Armored Kilt? Are you lightly or mediumly encumbered as a result?First... armored kilts are, in my opinion, silly and goofy. The game isn't built around a piecemeal armor system, so the addition of something like an armored kilt is kinda bad design. Since it causes weird confusing situations like this one. Which is why I didn't include them in the Inner Sea World Guide.
That said, if you still use them in your game... making an armored kilt mithral doesn't affect the fact that you're still wearing more armor than you normally would. A mithral breastplate is light encumbrance, but that plus a mithral armored kilt is medium encumbrance.
Thanks. What about the required armored proficiency?
And the weirdness caused by armored kilts continues—exhibit #32 why they should go away. :-)
If an armored kilt increases the armor's effective type from light to medium or from medium to heavy, you need proficiency in the final result in order to effectively use the armor.
Therefore the Mithrilness of an Armor Kilt does nothing when increasing the armor's effective type?
Sounds like your disdain for the Armored Kilt means that they should be banned in Core+APG games. Are Armored Kilts 3.5 only?
If they are 3.5, could we get an Errata for the Arms and Armory supplement to bring it up to speed with the Core+APG? I would be very interested in that (e.g. items like Thistle arrows' mechanics).
On a side note, are Armor Kilts allowed in Society play?
To make sure we really run the armored kilt in the ground does the "no effect with heavy armor" mean you don't get the +1 to AC? Because that is the impression I have always been under.
Ask a hundred different gamers this question and I bet you'd get a hundred different answers. For me, I think that what makes it different from most 3.5 games is that the flavor drives the need for rules, rather than the rules driving the need for flavor.For what it's worth I buy Pathfinder products for the rules, I don't really use any of the flavor, and I'm even a rules lawyer. The big difference has been the company treats the rules like a product WHICH HAS QUALITY CONTROL instead of a short term marketing tool.
+1
|
Creative Director
|
To make sure we really run the armored kilt in the ground does the "no effect with heavy armor" mean you don't get the +1 to AC? Because that is the impression I have always been under.
The whole point of an armored kilt is to add a +1 bonus to AC, yeah? So if it doesn't, then what's the point about using one at all?
My advice remains to just not use armored kilts in the game, honestly. They're too much trouble and kinda silly.
|
Creative Director
|
Therefore the Mithrilness of an Armor Kilt does nothing when increasing the armor's effective type?
Sounds like your disdain for the Armored Kilt means that they should be banned in Core+APG games. Are Armored Kilts 3.5 only?
If they are 3.5, could we get an Errata for the Arms and Armory supplement to bring it up to speed with the Core+APG? I would be very interested in that (e.g. items like Thistle arrows' mechanics).
On a side note, are Armor Kilts allowed in Society play?
Mithralness doesn't really do much at all for armored kilts, honestly. Because armored kilts are weird and don't work the same as armor, so mithral doesn't work the same on it.
Use them if you want, though. Up to you and your GM.
(Thistle arrows, by the way, are just thistles—they're basically nothing more than weird flavor used by certain fey creatures. They do nothing that normal arrows don't, but they look just like thistles is all.)
I'm not the one to ask about armored kilts in Society play. Personally, I'd say no. But I'd also not allow summoners either, so I'm probably not the one folks want to ask on that count! :-)
|
Creative Director
|
Outside of D&D and Pathfinder, what is your favorite table top game?
What is the weirdest you have played?
What table top game (once again outside of D&D and PF, but not necessarily an RPG) should everyone play once?
My favorite RPG is more or less a tie between Pathfinder and Call of Cthulhu at this point.
The weirdest game? That's a tough call. Katamari Damacy is pretty weird, but it's so fun that I'd actually say it's not weird. Which is kinda weird. Anyway, nothing's really coming to mind. Maybe I don't think games are weird?
Everyone should play Call of Cthulhu at least once.
The abyssal sorcerer bloodline gives a +6 inherent bonus to strength at 17th level. So, does this mean that the inherent bonuses are not limited to +5 in Pathfinder?There's no limit to how high inherent bonuses can go as far as the bonus itself is concerned.
Wish, though, isn't powerful enough to bring an inherent bonus above +5, so anything that goes higher than that has to be more powerful than a wish. AKA: Pretty rare.
Wish has a broad range of effects besides granting inherent bonuses. So, someone could research a new spell that only grants inherent bonuses to abilities without any of the other powers of Wish. This specific spell should be able to grant inherent bonuses greater than +5, especially if it costs the same as Wish to cast and you need to cast several in immediate succession to gain higher inherent bonuses.
Also, what do you think of using a Wish to gain an extra feat?
|
Creative Director
|
Wish has a broad range of effects besides granting inherent bonuses. So, someone could research a new spell that only grants inherent bonuses to abilities without any of the other powers of Wish. This specific spell should be able to grant inherent bonuses greater than +5, especially if it costs the same as Wish to cast and you need to cast several in immediate succession to gain higher inherent bonuses.
Also, what do you think of using a Wish to gain an extra feat?
Whether or not someone could research a spell that grants an inherent bonus over than +5 is up to that campaign's GM. It's not something that you're likely to see show up in print from us, though, since spells generally grant enhancement bonuses to stats, not inherent bonuses. Wish is, as in many cases, an exception.
I think that letting someone use wish to gain an extra feat kind of sets up a slippery slope. Feats are designed with the idea that a character only gains a limited number of them, and if he can essentially start trading in gold points for feats (aka buying wish spells for new feats) that can get out of hand fast.
Conversely, I'd probably be fine with wish doing this if an adventure's story needed it, but in that case you can control more aspects of the NPC who made the wish to keep things balanced. Not every option that you let NPCs have should be made available to PCs.
A theoretical question. I'm playing with the idea of the following house-rule and would like to know what you think about it:
Charisma is also a measure of how in-tune a character is with the world. The effect is that creatures targeted by harmless spells have the caster level of the spell modified by the Charisma modifier of the target. Ramifications:
- my 14 Charisma barbarian gains 1d8 + 3 hitpoints when drinking a potion of cure light wounds
- my 8 Charisma dwarven fighter does not benefit at all from a level 1 mage armor spell
- three allies targeted by haste could each have a different duration for the spell effect
Obviously there is additional overhead associated with the rule, so it isn't necessarily suitable for every game. But pbps for example are sedate enough to play with such a rule; and many groups play with PC support to keep track of various things anyway.
thanks :)
I think that letting someone use wish to gain an extra feat kind of sets up a slippery slope. Feats are designed with the idea that a character only gains a limited number of them, and if he can essentially start trading in gold points for feats (aka buying wish spells for new feats) that can get out of hand fast.
One house rule I've used, and it worked fairly well, was to allow someone to trade in their +1 stat bonus acquired every four levels for a feat. The idea being that they're working on the new feat so hard that they cost themselves a bit of advancement in other areas (either mental or physical).
|
Creative Director
|
I still feel that that's too much. Feats aren't supposed to be something you ever get to a point and say, "Whew... got all the ones I want. Now I can waste the rest of these slots." Feats are supposed to be tough choices for you to make, in other words, and being a relatively limited resource (AKA: Having only 10 to choose from for the typical character) is part of what makes them so important, and also part of what makes classes that grant bonus feats so attractive.
Hmm, here's a question. Came up in a different thread, thought I'd just ask.
Taking 20 blurb in the rules say you can take 20 on perception checks when looking for traps, because there are never any negative consequences.
However, symbol traps are set off when you look at them.
This means to my way of reading that either symbol traps are exceptions to the take 20 entry, or, that symbol traps are utterly useless, since you can never set them off while searching for traps by the take 20 rules.
Oh, also, the traps section still has some text about magical traps only being able to be spotted by trapfinding.
I still feel that that's too much. Feats aren't supposed to be something you ever get to a point and say, "Whew... got all the ones I want. Now I can waste the rest of these slots." Feats are supposed to be tough choices for you to make, in other words, and being a relatively limited resource (AKA: Having only 10 to choose from for the typical character) is part of what makes them so important, and also part of what makes classes that grant bonus feats so attractive.
I've not had any balance issues in my games using it. I have noticed that fighters and spellcasters are usually the ones that don't take the option, it's usually rangers and rogues.
Thanks for your response.
|
|
I've found myself in a bit of a quandary, I've allowed a player to create a very robotic Eidolon in a game I'm running (Not the player with the Keketar) and I didn't mind it stylistically but now the player has given it a command phrase (something like "Program A5L12") and I find its making my sense of anachronism(can the term be used as such) really rear up and I really dislike it. Now my question is two fold, am I being an unreasonable GM in thinking something like that doesn't mesh in a game I'm running and secondly, what would you find to be anachronistic in a game you were running?
|
Creative Director
|
Hmm, here's a question. Came up in a different thread, thought I'd just ask.
Taking 20 blurb in the rules say you can take 20 on perception checks when looking for traps, because there are never any negative consequences.
However, symbol traps are set off when you look at them.
This means to my way of reading that either symbol traps are exceptions to the take 20 entry, or, that symbol traps are utterly useless, since you can never set them off while searching for traps by the take 20 rules.
Oh, also, the traps section still has some text about magical traps only being able to be spotted by trapfinding.
If you take 20 on a symbol trap, you get zapped. Symbols are among the toughest and most dangerous magic traps out there for a reason. It's why they skew toward high level. Of course, most symbols also have range limits, so you could search for them beyond this range limit with safety (although with the penalty to Perception for using the skill at range, of course).
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There were times when complicated rules issues came up, sometime due to interaction of rules, or a possible copy and paste error. We were told it would be looked at. This was over a year ago for some things.
Do you(Paizo) have an actual document with things that need to be looked at again or do we need to re-FAQ possibly forgotten subjects. The statement in 3.5 that allowed reach to affect diagonal squares, not being included in pathfinder is one of them since it allows you to "game the system" from my point of view by attacking from a certain angle. It is also one that comes up from time to time. I am not asking for an answer to this question now. I do want it to be addressed in the next Errata if it is errata worthy since it is fundamental to combat.
We have records of all the FAQ button pushes folks have made. Re-posting them only clutters things up.
Reach, in my opinion, should work into diagonal squares, though. For what that's worth. Because treating reach like movement leaves "holes" in the corners that pretty much defeat the whole purpose of reach weapons. Which is lame.
|
Creative Director
|
I've found myself in a bit of a quandary, I've allowed a player to create a very robotic Eidolon in a game I'm running (Not the player with the Keketar) and I didn't mind it stylistically but now the player has given it a command phrase (something like "Program A5L12") and I find its making my sense of anachronism(can the term be used as such) really rear up and I really dislike it. Now my question is two fold, am I being an unreasonable GM in thinking something like that doesn't mesh in a game I'm running and secondly, what would you find to be anachronistic in a game you were running?
Heh. Alas, by allowing a robot, you've kind of made your bed. Unless you want to take the player aside and explain to him that his choice of eidolon is grating on your nerves and that you'd like him to rebuild it to match your vision for your game world... you kinda have to put up with it, alas.
When a player comes up with an idea that I think's anachronistic, I nip it in the bud. Once I let a player have a toy, though, taking it away is usually not a great idea. And if I do take it away, i generally allow the player to do a complete rebuild of the character.
Can a barbarian use his rage powers while under the effect of the rage spell?
Can you imagine an 'extra resolve' feat for the samurai's resolve ability?
If you take 20 on a symbol trap, you get zapped. Symbols are among the toughest and most dangerous magic traps out there for a reason. It's why they skew toward high level. Of course, most symbols also have range limits, so you could search for them beyond this range limit with safety (although with the penalty to Perception for using the skill at range, of course).Hmm, here's a question. Came up in a different thread, thought I'd just ask.
Taking 20 blurb in the rules say you can take 20 on perception checks when looking for traps, because there are never any negative consequences.
However, symbol traps are set off when you look at them.
This means to my way of reading that either symbol traps are exceptions to the take 20 entry, or, that symbol traps are utterly useless, since you can never set them off while searching for traps by the take 20 rules.
Oh, also, the traps section still has some text about magical traps only being able to be spotted by trapfinding.
That's always been my interpretation of the corner case, glad to know that's the creative director's frame of mind as well. :)