Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Can I cripple my own character in PFS?


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
runescryer wrote:
So, why is it set up like this? I can only guess, but I'd say that the reason is probably to make Blindness a more serious condition that is preferable to avoid. It limits the effectiveness of an exploit like 'I stay blinded then get a mage to Craft me a helmet that gives me bat-like echo-location that will eliminate all Concealment caused by visual impairment.'
I see that you've put a lot of thought in to this, but I still think you're wrong. This is RAI vs RAW. If the Paizo team had crafted every single sentence with the precision of a ninja turned lawyer, we wouldn't need a category called RAI. But they're human, and there's a lot of sentences; they did a great job but there's always going to be some interpretation issues. Which is where we bring in common sense. My common sense pretty clearly dictates that "Blind-Fight" is useful while under the condition called "Blindness." Call me crazy.

No, you're not crazy. We just have a difference of opinion here with neither side being right or wrong. Until there's an 'official' ruling, GM's will interpret cases like this as they see fit and that's the way it should be.

Now, while Paizo may not have crafted every sentence or rule to have meaning, remember that the original 3.0/3.5 rules Pathfinder is based from were created by Wizards of the Coast, where virtually every word on every Magic: The Gathering card has weight and meaning. I'll have to pull out the old WoTC books, but I don't imagine the wording has changed too terribly between 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Sczarni ***

Regarding adding crippling conditions,

Nobody so far said and verified that you can't do it, only that you shouldn't. Comments that it's not supported by rules and that it grants mechanical advantage of any sort aren't proving anything.

On the other hand, I admit that even blind PC seems to much for me. I don't wish to play character which everyone treats differently and claim all bunch of nonsense against him.

But still there is nothing stoping me from making crippled PC.

Example:
a)PC has permanent leg injury so his speed is reduced by 5 feet. (flavor)
PC moves 25 feet instead of 30 feet altho mechanicaly he can move 30 feet. (mechanics)

b)PC is naturaly blind. (flavor)
PC has a blindfold over eyes. (mechanic)

There is nothing stoping me from doing this and if there are rules for deaf PCs in Society then other types of pathfinders can join also.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Some of it is just common sense. When you tell me how a paraplegic, blind, or deaf can avoid washing out of Pathfinder Boot Camp, or any of today's field services, that have similar training, I'll rethink my position. Because you're talking about some serious handicaps there and every Pathfinder is expected to have some degree of self reliance and to pull their weight in a group.

I take it you're not watching the Paralympics.

The Exchange *

Andrew Christian wrote:
If it isn't something specifically stated as something you can add to a character during character creation, you can't add it to your character in PFS. Like it or not, and regardless of any logical argument, this is part of organized play, and you can't just do whatever you want.

It doesn't specifically mention a lot of things, colour of hair being one:

PRD wrote:


humans possess a wide variety of skin colors, body types, and facial features

Some peoples bodies have a full set of limbs and sensory organs, some do not.

Sczarni *** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Andrew Christian wrote:
If it isn't something specifically stated as something you can add to a character during character creation, you can't add it to your character in PFS. Like it or not, and regardless of any logical argument, this is part of organized play, and you can't just do whatever you want.

I respectfully disagree. In fact, I would say that pretty much the reverse is true. Barring something being specifically *excluded* by the character creation rules, as long as it should (by common sense) be possible, I see no reason to deny a player the ability to create whatever character they wish.

What if a player wanted to create a character with beady eyes? Or a graying beard? There are no rules specifically stating that those are allowed, but I can't think of any reason not to allow them!

What about a character speaking with a funny accent? Or walking with a limp? Or being hard of hearing? Again, those are all memorable character traits, but there's no specific rule allowing them. But there are plenty of people like that in the real world, so why *not* have some Pathfinders like that?

Those sorts of things are the reason why many people play tabletop RPGs. The GM is not a computer! He or she is empowered to make decisions that go beyond the mere letter of the rules. As PFS GMs, yes, we are required to stick to the rules and be more impartial than we would in a home game. We can't house-rule things or change the way the system works to suit our liking. However, as long as everyone is having fun and there aren't any rules being broken, I don't see a problem with allowing players some leeway in creating colorful characters that will provide interesting roleplay for everyone. That's why we play the game!

The rules are not going to cover every conceivable situation. They can't; there is too much variation for that. This is a *good thing*! It inspires creativity! As GMs, we should do our best to *inspire* creativity in our players, not quash it because a particular quirk or concept is not defined in the rules one way or the other.

However, on the flip side, a player wanting to do something that isn't defined in the rules needs to be aware that there are different GMs with different styles and different interpretations of the rules. They should expect some variation and be willing to accept a particular GM's verdict, whatever it is.

The Exchange *

Funky Badger wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Some of it is just common sense. When you tell me how a paraplegic, blind, or deaf can avoid washing out of Pathfinder Boot Camp, or any of today's field services, that have similar training, I'll rethink my position. Because you're talking about some serious handicaps there and every Pathfinder is expected to have some degree of self reliance and to pull their weight in a group.
I take it you're not watching the Paralympics.

What, 80,000 people giving a standing ovation to a blind runner finishing last, 3 minutes after the leader? It's amazing what people can accomplish when they don't realise that there isn't anything in the rulebook that specifically allows it ;)

More seriously, it's our job as PFS GM's to ensure fair play and fun for all by adhering to the rules. It doesn't mean scouring the rulebook for sections where the rules are silent to find a reason to deny someone their specific kind of fun.

If the OP's character concept makes play at the table slow to the point where everyones fun is diminished, or they don't seem to be playing the mechanical penalties, etc. - fine, warn and then dismiss them from the table. Don't make the decision in advance when you are unaware whether the character may have specific meaning to the player.


brock, no the other one... wrote:


What, 80,000 people giving a standing ovation to a blind runner finishing last, 3 minutes after the leader? It's amazing what people can accomplish when they don't realise that there isn't anything in the rulebook that specifically allows it ;)

This guy's rubbish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mehyfy6xr70 ;-)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber

brock,

PFS GM's also have a responsibility to ensure ballanced play, and the RAI interpretation for the Blind Fight feat being talked about create a horrible mechanics imballance, IMO. There's literally no combat disadvantage to being blind aside from the 25% miss chance because of concealment. In return, you recieve immunity to a huge number of spells and gaze attacks. All for the cost of 1 Feat that can be taken at 1st Level with no prerequisites. While Malag wants this for a legitimate RP purpose, it's far too open to be abused by less scrupulous players. All the more so because PFS GM's can't alter the scenarios they run to take the blind swordsman into account. Spells like Color Spray, Daze, and Hypnotize that many lower level spelllcaster threats rely on to pose a challenge are now far less effective when the main tank and melee damage dealer won't find them a hinderance at all. Basilisks, Medusae, and other such challenging monsters loose their threat as well. Helck, for only a 25% miss chance that decreases at 10th Level and a penalty to a few skills that my teammates can compensate for in exchange for all those immunities, gouge my eyes out and call me Zaitochi. It's such a great deal, why don't more fighters do this?

Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with this in a regular Pathfinder campaign where the effects of my GMing decisions only affect my group. But there are larger concerns with PFS in that this character can be used at any PFS table in any game. All characters have to be treated equally, and if Malag's character is acceptable, what about Joe Schmo that's delibrately exploiting a loophole in the system? Similarly, is it fair to Malag to put time and effort into developing this character, only to not have consistency in being able to play outside his local group?

In the end, we've found an issue with the rules that was apparently not anticipated or planed for. Ultimately, Paizo will rule on this as they see fit. Until then, this issue is going to be in a limbo where it's a mater of the rules interpretations of individual GM's

The Exchange *

Funky Badger wrote:
brock, no the other one... wrote:


What, 80,000 people giving a standing ovation to a blind runner finishing last, 3 minutes after the leader? It's amazing what people can accomplish when they don't realise that there isn't anything in the rulebook that specifically allows it ;)
This guy's rubbish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mehyfy6xr70 ;-)

Awesome, and an inspiration for a solution that might satisfy the rules-bound.

My character is mostly blind. It's sufficient that he suffers all of the penalties of blindness, but receives none of the benefits.

Shadow Lodge

runescryer wrote:

brock,

PFS GM's also have a responsibility to ensure ballanced play, and the RAI interpretation for the Blind Fight feat being talked about create a horrible mechanics imballance, IMO. There's literally no combat disadvantage to being blind aside from the 25% miss chance because of concealment.

Hmm, I may have missed OP's discussion on how he expects to do the following (since someone must've mentioned it already): if you don't have blindsense, the char will have a hard time actually attacking the right square.

So, the 25% miss chance is only after you've already found the square: before that, you could be attacking thin air (or rolling %d to see if you attack the right square from where you hear the sounds). Heck, you could attack the right direction, but the baddie could be 2 squares (obviously missing).

The Exchange *

runescryer wrote:
PFS GM's also have a responsibility to ensure ballanced play, and the RAI interpretation for the Blind Fight feat being talked about create a horrible mechanics imballance, IMO. There's literally no combat disadvantage to being blind aside from the 25% miss chance because of concealment.

You've thought a lot more about the rules implications of this that I have. How does he find his opponents to enter combat? When he is moving around the battlefield, he still runs the risk of provoking AoOs from enemies that he moves past due to not having perceived them, doesn't he?

Even though he can move at full speed without needing an Acrobatics check, he is still going to need one if he moves through an obstacle.

Personally, I think that the combat disadvantages are so major that the character would be impotent without a full-time manservant calling out the state of the battlefield to him.

I concede your point about keeping the rules robust against unscrupulous players though, and hope that it doesn't come at the cost of allowing PFS to be inclusive.

Shadow Lodge

brock, no the other one... wrote:
runescryer wrote:
PFS GM's also have a responsibility to ensure ballanced play, and the RAI interpretation for the Blind Fight feat being talked about create a horrible mechanics imballance, IMO. There's literally no combat disadvantage to being blind aside from the 25% miss chance because of concealment.

You've thought a lot more about the rules implications of this that I have. How does he find his opponents to enter combat? When he is moving around the battlefield, he still runs the risk of provoking AoOs from enemies that he moves past due to not having perceived them, doesn't he?

He'd need blindsense for all of that. The only way I know to get blindsense (in my very limited knowledge of other classes) is via DD (and high level one, at that). Since you need 5 ranks of K: Arcana, it's nearly impossible to do in PFS.

Not sure if there are other ways, there could be divination spells that can be made permanent.

Shadow Lodge

brock, no the other one... wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
brock, no the other one... wrote:


What, 80,000 people giving a standing ovation to a blind runner finishing last, 3 minutes after the leader? It's amazing what people can accomplish when they don't realise that there isn't anything in the rulebook that specifically allows it ;)
This guy's rubbish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mehyfy6xr70 ;-)

Awesome, and an inspiration for a solution that might satisfy the rules-bound.

My character is mostly blind. It's sufficient that he suffers all of the penalties of blindness, but receives none of the benefits.

Don't get me wrong: that's amazing and admirable. But it's one thing to run very fast in a race, and quite another to fight off things that are trying to kill you.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber
brock, no the other one... wrote:
runescryer wrote:
PFS GM's also have a responsibility to ensure ballanced play, and the RAI interpretation for the Blind Fight feat being talked about create a horrible mechanics imballance, IMO. There's literally no combat disadvantage to being blind aside from the 25% miss chance because of concealment.

You've thought a lot more about the rules implications of this that I have. How does he find his opponents to enter combat? When he is moving around the battlefield, he still runs the risk of provoking AoOs from enemies that he moves past due to not having perceived them, doesn't he?

Even though he can move at full speed without needing an Acrobatics check, he is still going to need one if he moves through an obstacle.

Personally, I think that the combat disadvantages are so major that the character would be impotent without a full-time manservant calling out the state of the battlefield to him.

I concede your point about keeping the rules robust against unscrupulous players though, and hope that it doesn't come at the cost of allowing PFS to be inclusive.

As for detecting opponents while blinded, the rules for detecting an Invisible opponent are a good guideline and what I would use. So, according to those, a blind character can detect any being within a 30' radius by making a DC 20 Perception check. Opponents that are in combat or talking lessen the DC by 20. So, in a combat situation, the blind fighter would not know which squares nearby him were occupied only by rolling a natural 1.

Obstacles, of course, would be a problem since he couldn't see things like debris or fallen bodies. Still, with teamwork, this can be overcome by party members alerting him.

The Exchange *

Khashir El'eth wrote:
brock, no the other one... wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
brock, no the other one... wrote:


What, 80,000 people giving a standing ovation to a blind runner finishing last, 3 minutes after the leader? It's amazing what people can accomplish when they don't realise that there isn't anything in the rulebook that specifically allows it ;)
This guy's rubbish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mehyfy6xr70 ;-)

Awesome, and an inspiration for a solution that might satisfy the rules-bound.

My character is mostly blind. It's sufficient that he suffers all of the penalties of blindness, but receives none of the benefits.

Don't get me wrong: that's amazing and admirable. But it's one thing to run very fast in a race, and quite another to fight off things that are trying to kill you.

Indeed - the point I was making was that since the athlete in question has only 10% vision, one option for the OP was to limit his characters abilities along the lines of the penalties for blindness without claiming to actually have the blinded condition.

The Exchange *

runescryer wrote:

As for detecting opponents while blinded, the rules for detecting an Invisible opponent are a good guideline and what I would use. So, according to those, a blind character can detect any being within a 30' radius by making a DC 20 Perception check. Opponents that are in combat or talking lessen the DC by 20. So, in a combat situation, the blind fighter would not know which squares nearby him were occupied only by rolling a natural 1.

I may be looking in the wrong place:

Core Rules p178 wrote:

An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can’t see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues).

I've not found the 30' radius or DC's that you mention, but I'd apply a penalty to the Perception check to localise a combatant by sound due to the noise of battle. Also there is the penalty to Perception for range. So I make it at least DC 40 if the opponent hasn't moved.

If they were attacking someone else, then they are unable to make a stealth check and would be easier to perceive.


Khashir El'eth wrote:
Don't get me wrong: that's amazing and admirable. But it's one thing to run very fast in a race, and quite another to fight off things that are trying to kill you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37jr7yc3CuA

Zing!

Obviously the real answer to this is to play an Evoker with a familier... you don't have to know exactly where the enemies are...

Sczarni ***

@Runescryer
Just to be clear, you are talking about adding +20 Stealth modifier to a creature who isn't "Invisible" to blind creature. If you plan on adding the +20 bonus to Perception DC then clearly creature is Invisible and Blind Fight adds Dex bonus against him ;).

Also to note, creature needs to use Stealth actively to gain that bonus.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Funky Badger wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Some of it is just common sense. When you tell me how a paraplegic, blind, or deaf can avoid washing out of Pathfinder Boot Camp, or any of today's field services, that have similar training, I'll rethink my position. Because you're talking about some serious handicaps there and every Pathfinder is expected to have some degree of self reliance and to pull their weight in a group.
I take it you're not watching the Paralympics.

When the Paraolympians get recruited for skullduggery, exploring dangerous remote monster filled places alone, and general intrique come back to me on that one.

Shadow Lodge

Funky Badger wrote:
Khashir El'eth wrote:
Don't get me wrong: that's amazing and admirable. But it's one thing to run very fast in a race, and quite another to fight off things that are trying to kill you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37jr7yc3CuA

Zing!

Obviously the real answer to this is to play an Evoker with a familier... you don't have to know exactly where the enemies are...

Lol, that's awesome, but still doesn't apply--here, both combatants are impaired, and judo is a grapple-based martial art: both fighters 'agree' (by convention/nature of the art) to not attack the other w/ anything but grapples and throws.

Enemies aren't going to play nice. Then again, you could make a grapple fighter, and you'd only have to deal with the penalties once.

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
I see that you've put a lot of thought in to this, but I still think you're wrong. This is RAI vs RAW. If the Paizo team had crafted every single sentence with the precision of a ninja turned lawyer, we wouldn't need a category called RAI. But they're human, and there's a lot of sentences; they did a great job but there's always going to be some interpretation issues. Which is where we bring in common sense. My common sense pretty clearly dictates that "Blind-Fight" is useful while under the condition called "Blindness." Call me crazy.

Hi, Patrick.

There's "Rules as written" and "rules as the GM interprets them".

The GM, in this case, is the team of Mark M. and Mike B. If they make a ruling stating "it's okay to start with a Blind character, or with a Venerable character, or a character who cannot walk" then we'll go with it. Until that time, "rules as written" is all the rules we have.

I think runescryer has the correct reading of this. If the designers had wanted Blind Fight to negate the effects of the Blinded condition, they would have written the rule that way. They chose not to do so.

****

Chris Mortika wrote:
If the designers had wanted Blind Fight to negate the effects of the Blinded condition, they would have written the rule that way. They chose not to do so.

You really don't think the fact that they called it Blind-Fight gives some kind of clue as to their intent?

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I know, I know.

But this is the game where the the Attack action isn't the same as a Standard action that attacks another character, where some spells that affect all the enemies in an area aren't "area attack spells", and where the Synthesist can make weapon attacks with his personal weapons, but can't cast spells with somatic components unless he buys the limbs property.

In other words, this isn't the only rule that seems counter-intuitive.

Dark Archive **

Funky Badger wrote:
Khashir El'eth wrote:
Don't get me wrong: that's amazing and admirable. But it's one thing to run very fast in a race, and quite another to fight off things that are trying to kill you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37jr7yc3CuA

Zing!

Obviously the real answer to this is to play an Evoker with a familier... you don't have to know exactly where the enemies are...

So... do arcane writings and spellbooks come in Braille? :-)

Liberty's Edge *****

brock, no the other one... wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If it isn't something specifically stated as something you can add to a character during character creation, you can't add it to your character in PFS. Like it or not, and regardless of any logical argument, this is part of organized play, and you can't just do whatever you want.

It doesn't specifically mention a lot of things, colour of hair being one:

PRD wrote:


humans possess a wide variety of skin colors, body types, and facial features
Some peoples bodies have a full set of limbs and sensory organs, some do not.

<rolls eyes>

Really, you gonna equate being blind to having blonde hair?

The Exchange ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

There are two questions here:

1) Can you just declare your character is blind / hemophiliac / kleptomaniac /otherwise handicapped?

2) Can you make decisions about your character that make him dangerous in a party?

for example, can you decide your wizard PC is going to travel about in heavy armor, waving a greatsword, and hang the Armor Check and Nonproficiency penalties, because he thinks he's a warrior?

I'd say yes to the latter, but I'd argue that the other members of the party have a right to refuse a mission where their safety depends on his effectiveness.

The same is true of the blind PC.

Liberty's Edge *****

Tamago wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If it isn't something specifically stated as something you can add to a character during character creation, you can't add it to your character in PFS. Like it or not, and regardless of any logical argument, this is part of organized play, and you can't just do whatever you want.

What if a player wanted to create a character with beady eyes? Or a graying beard? There are no rules specifically stating that those are allowed, but I can't think of any reason not to allow them!

What about a character speaking with a funny accent? Or walking with a limp? Or being hard of hearing? Again, those are all memorable character traits, but there's no specific rule allowing them. But there are plenty of people like that in the real world, so why *not* have some Pathfinders like that?

So you are equating a gray beard to being blind? Really?

Come on folks. You know better than this!

Character fluff and description choices do not equate to something that effects your character mechanically.

Equipment choices is different as Chris notes. If you want to waste your money on equipment that essentially make your character useless, that's your choice.

But you can't add a mechanical flaw to your character that isn't presented as a character creation option.

Not in PFS. In a home game, sure, figure it out with your GM. In PFS, though, anything that is integral to your character that would have table variance implications, such as not playing your character if he can't be blind, is a major no-no.

Dark Archive ***

Chris Mortika wrote:

There are two questions here:

1) Can you just declare your character is blind / hemophiliac / kleptomaniac /otherwise handicapped?

2) Can you make decisions about your character that make him dangerous in a party?

for example, can you decide your wizard PC is going to travel about in heavy armor, waving a greatsword, and hang the Armor Check and Nonproficiency penalties, because he thinks he's a warrior?

I'd say yes to the latter, but I'd argue that the other members of the party have a right to refuse a mission where their safety depends on his effectiveness.

The same is true of the blind PC.

meanie be picking on my wizard

Who incidently wields a greatsword and light armor soon to be medium armor, arguably people could have a build decision that allows them to use heavy armor and a greatsword with few penalties

I know I have a Dragon Disiple build who will wear heavy armor and carry a greatsword with a mere 5% spell failure which I argue is the same chance I have to fail with my sword anyway

However yes the party would have the right to refuse to go on a mission with someone who obviously cannot contribute to the success of the mission (however have you ever seen a pathfinder turn down a mission even though we all have that right?)

Sczarni ***

Andrew Christian wrote:


But you can't add a mechanical flaw to your character that isn't presented as a character creation option.

You can't, but you can still add one later. Peg leg is legit to buy for example and adds tons of flavor mechanically.

The Exchange *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
brock, no the other one... wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
If it isn't something specifically stated as something you can add to a character during character creation, you can't add it to your character in PFS. Like it or not, and regardless of any logical argument, this is part of organized play, and you can't just do whatever you want.

It doesn't specifically mention a lot of things, colour of hair being one:

PRD wrote:


humans possess a wide variety of skin colors, body types, and facial features
Some peoples bodies have a full set of limbs and sensory organs, some do not.

<rolls eyes>

Really, you gonna equate being blind to having blonde hair?

In so much that they are both physical attributes that typical members of the population might possess, yes.

Is there a reason you are resorting to mockery? I personally believe that we should be very, very cautious about wielding the ban-hammer on someone who (for whatever reason) wishes to play a character with some form of impairment. We could inadvertently send a very strong and distasteful message about PFS.

Regarding mechanical benefits, I agree with you - not in PFS unless spelled out. I can't agree on what you term 'flaws'.

By all means, work with the player if it's overly slowing combat or discuss it in advance if you feel (as GM) that it's not the right character for the party or scenario. But don't blindly (no pun intended) ban it in advance and certainly don't scour the minutia of the rules to provide justification for doing so. Especially if you don't know why the player has created that character.

With that said, I'm getting way too emotionally invested in this so I'm going to step away from the keyboard.

Liberty's Edge *****

This isn't about arbitrarily banning flavor or fluff.

This is an organized play campaign.

As such, there is a certain level of expectation that you only use the rules that are presented for character creation.

I don't feel that presents PFS in a bad light.

If it is something that creates a mechanical flaw and/or benefit for your character, and it isn't explicitly listed as an option for character creation (race/class/gender/archetype/trait/skill/feat/height/weight/age/alternate racial traits/spells/abilities/equipment) then it is not appropriate to add it to your character.

What this does is it puts your GM in an awkward position. Does he say, "sorry, no, your character can't be blind for this scenario if you want to play him." Or does he say, despite knowing he should stand his ground, "Ok, I guess, this one time." Nobody wants to be the GM that says no. I know I don't.

So why, as a player, would you create such an obvious fringe character, and put me, as a GM, in the awkward position of maybe having to say no?

As much as I don't want to, I would say no though.


Khashir El'eth wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
Enemies aren't going to play nice. Then again, you could make a grapple fighter, and you'd only have to deal with the penalties once.

First level Tetori with Blind-Fighting and Strike-Back.

Bring It.

:-)


LazarX wrote:
When the Paraolympians get recruited for skullduggery, exploring dangerous remote monster filled places alone, and general intrique come back to me on that one.

Quite a lot of them are ex-soldiers, so...


Josh Shrader wrote:
So... do arcane writings and spellbooks come in Braille? :-)

Hmmm, interesting.

Spell Mastery?
Sorcerer instead of Wizard.
Beyond that, Braille's a form of writing, so why not...

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Funky Badger wrote:
LazarX wrote:
When the Paraolympians get recruited for skullduggery, exploring dangerous remote monster filled places alone, and general intrique come back to me on that one.
Quite a lot of them are ex-soldiers, so...

Lets be honest here. The very things that made them ParaOlympians, are what put that "ex" in that description.

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Can I cripple my own character in PFS? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.