Blake Duffey's page

I may be the only one, but I'd very much like to see PF2 move away from the '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' model. It is for the most part meaningless and adds needless complexity/bookkeeping. The Heal spell is a great example - removing '+ your spellcasting ability modifier' from that spell description multiple times would make it read much cleaner (it appears 4 times). And when you are dealing with 3d8, 5d8, etc - +2, +3, are not a significant impact, numbers wise.

That was my confusion. There was an older thread without complete consensus on the answer. As a player, I prefer the answer to be yes. Pathfinder has gotten somewhat fiddly lately, so I'm never sure.

Thanks for all the feedback.

I cast resurrection on this thread!

The explanations above seem to indicate this power could not be used by the caster to roll twice for an attack.

My cleric could whack his warrior buddy in round 1, who would get 2 rolls on every d20 attempt until my initiative in round 2.

But my cleric could not whack himself in round 1 and get two attack rolls in round 2. Based on my understanding of actions - My cleric couldn't use this on himself (standard action) and then pick a lock, climb a wall, tell a lie, or any other skill check that is a standard action. He COULD cast it and then move (and attempt a stealth check on that move).

Feedback welcome.

EDIT: Perhaps clarified here: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8wm?Question-on-Luck-Domain-spells

It's this kind of thread that has me considering leaving Pathfinder for something simpler.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final

Prerequisites: 5 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill.

Benefit: Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks. You receive a +2 bonus on your chosen Craft or Profession skill. *Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats*. *You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level.* You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item.

*Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats.*

It's unbelievably clear that the whole purpose of this feat is to allow a martial character to create a narrow list of magic items. For example - I have a samurai with craft (swords) and master craftsman (swords) for the express purpose of self-crafting a magical katana.

My problem right now is the rules forum. There is a chilling effect in my opinion for people who post there, and there is a very toxic discourse happening daily. A growing number of people are being very insulting when basic questions are asked, or when there is disagreement on what rules mean.

I'm going to propose a different solution, although I have zero expectation that it will be implemented. Have the rules forum monitored by developers who *actually answer the rules questions*.

For reasons I do not understand (please feel free to enlighten me) - Paizo has some kind of corporate stance that basically precludes actually answering the rules question. There have been many many many threads where developers (Sean Reynolds being a key offender) have spent 10x more times with excuses why the question isn't answered than it would to actually provide an answer.

(The range is 60 feet - that's an answer)

Compare the Paizo rules forum to a similar forum run by PEG, INC. for Savage Worlds: http://www.peginc.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=56

When I go to a rules forum (whether it be for Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, Star Wars SAGA Edition, etc) - I'm simply looking for an answer to a rules question. Clint at PEG gives a concise *official* answer I can use at my table. Paizo almost never gives a concise answer (James Jacobs answers are almost always insightful, but they are normally presented as 'non official') It leads to frustration, which leads to verbal barbs. Should the posters be 'better people'? Sure, I suppose so. But I can't tell you how frustrating the lack of support is when it comes to genuine questions/problems with the rules.

Nine times out of ten, an 'official' answer would solve the problem and end the thread. Why is that hard?

If your game has dead *players* - I'd notify the authorities.

The vast majority of this thread depresses me. It's called 'role playing'. If a guy wants to sit at my table and actually 'role play' - I couldn't cares less how 'optimized his build' is.

Role playing is a social game. It's supposed to be fun, time spent with friends, and a release into the imagination.

To the OP - if you are having fun, you are doing it right.

I was waiting for the 'clarification' before making a determination. I've owned many things - Atari 2600/C128/NES/SNES/PS1/Xbox/Xbox360.

Based on what I read - I won't be owning an Xbox1. I'm simply not going to support this 'business model' of treating your customers like crooks.

Call home or get locked out isn't acceptable to me. Restrictions on lending/rentals isn't acceptable to me. The mandatory Kinect being connected isn't acceptable to me.

As a consumer, I choose not to purchase this product. That's the only way I can voice my concern with the trends in the industry. If I'm a lone voice - so be it. I'll read a book.

I was posting based on the "no elves" desert-themed game we were discussing. But if I pick a human ranger, you all the sudden change it to an urban game just to "prove" I'm being disruptive?

NOTE: I'm going to assume that you missed the earlier references, and that you're not really going to change the entire setting just to spite one player. In fact, I know you won't, because you've got your wiki thing going on. But this unerlines where clear communication is needed. I'm operating under the "no elves" rule we'd discussed, and also the "aquatic races inappropriate" clause that you added. So if I show up and now all the sudden it's an urban game, I'm going to be confused.

I missed some of the sniping, yes. :) It was simply a different example, there was no intent to be cumulative.

I'm certainly not changing the setting simply to spite a player - that helps no one. I believe the GM has the right to determine the theme and disallow whatever he/she doesn't feel fits. All this is known to everyone at the table well before anyone sits at the table.

Some posts in this thread have said that's unacceptable. I think you were perceived to be on 'that side' even though you don't seem to be completely of that thinking.

I think if you don't have a good grasp on how your world works, you can quickly be thrown for a loop if the players go off the tracks, and that can lead to annoying deus machina rather than reasonable outcomes that not only make sense in the moment but going forward.

I think this point is missed by some - a good setting should have a level of internal consistency. If we've never seen a tengu and the PC insists on playing one, the towns people are likely to attack him.

Then you'll really get the complaints of the GM 'being unfair' to the player.

What is wrong with running a single setting. I have two settings that I like to run, and I am very good at. I really don't like to GM outside of those, and it's not an "out of my comfort zone" thing, either. If somebody wants to play something else, somebody else can GM. And maybe I can play. That is totally not unreasonable.

Nothing is wrong with it. My point was if the GM wants to develop a setting with this flavor or that flavor, I don't think it's right for a player to demand to play any/ever race/class even if the GM didn't intend it.

What it does is indicate the habit of being a not very flexible gm. Which isn't a great precedent to set before the game even starts.

I feel your stance does the inverse - you are forcing the GM to essentially run a single setting - one that allows everything and anything. Today's setting doesn't have tengu, tomorrow's may. If the PC idea is that good, save it for the next game.

Several people have said the GM has to allow something or they are wrong, prejudiced, etc...

That's the main reason I'm still active in this thread. The idea that the GM MUST allow anything the player wants, whether it fits or not, is just silly to me.

Well more of the point was that there are fantasy races in any fantasy.

But not EVERY fantasy race exists in EVERY setting. There are no Gungans in Middle Earth. Dropping Jar Jar into Mordor would be akin to having a Tie Fighter rescue the hobbits from Mount Doom.

I'm still not seeing how having a different race "derails your campaign". The fact that a Kitsune is in the party doesn't change your story any.

There are no Ewoks in Middle Earth.

It's OK for players to have bad things happen to their characters. It's not OK to give them misinformation during the character creation process and then punish them for doing something you told them they could do.

I guess I don't understand the conclusion that the OP is 'punishing' the player (or the character).

I may be in the minority but I wonder if Paizo shouldn't have decided to release their take on the Epic Level Handbook. That way it would be clear the focus was on 'beyond level 20'. 'Mythic' seems to mean different things to different people.

It is best when the table works as a group to avoid either if these coming up as much as possible.

The comments from the two dragons are insightful. It's important that the GM not overuse 'rule zero' to the point that the framework of the game is uncertain. If gravity works this way today, it should work this way tomorrow. It shouldn't simply change based on GM whim simply 'because'.

I don't think that you and I disagree too much (except maybe on how viable an 8 Wis cleric is!)

:)

I do like to go somewhat non-traditional in my PCs, but even I wouldn't ever try a cleric with a WIS penalty.

I'm sorry, it sounds like your GM was using the "whatever sounds cool to me" system.

I've never understood the benefit of the 'you are playing it wrong!!' comments like these.

It's so nice to be criticized by someone who has such a wonderful grasp of the complete picture.

Others might think you have no idea how the characters were played in the campaigns they were created in.

Thank you for straightening me out in such a helpful way.

Jerry,

Umbral Reaver,
There isn't any 'wrong' way to play a role playing game. I MUCH prefer a player who wants to develop a character concept and interact with a story than simply a guy who finds a way to exploit the rules to make the most killtastic PC possible. Maybe you should stick to Warcaft?

Irontruth,
Please realize that there is more to table-top role playing games than combat. Again - this isn't WoW.

If you/your group want a tension filled game where death comes on a random die roll - that's fine. If your group wants a lighter game where the PCs are almost always just 'knocked out' and recover later - that's fine too. Depends on your style and the groups preferences. (most games I've played in people feel they have an investment in their PCs and death is typically something to avoid)

If you and your group are having fun, you are doing it right. :)

How do you discourage a player who adamantly wants to play a monk/oracle with a Vow of Silence and the Deaf and Clouded Vision curses?

I have a player who constantly wants to play a PC idea I find very annoying - I tell him said character has a congenital heart defect and didn't survive to adulthood.

Where is the best explanation on rules for this? Our party druid is changing into numerous animals gaining movement abilities, multiple attacks, etc. (giant squid, for example)

I'd like to clarify