Cerberus1441's page

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32. Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 8 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 1 post (1,318 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
If they're specced for it, is a martial of extraordinary skill and power striking people 50 ft. away with a sharp blastwave from his sword-swing really that magical and non-fighter-type-appropriate?

Also, does it change people's opinion if you call it a super Spring Attack and don't describe it as a "blastwave"?

Mechanically, assume they both have an effective range of 30 ft., require both line of sight and line of effect, require an attack roll, and deal normal weapon damage. In one case, we give it an (Ex) tag and say the fighter is rushing forward in a charge (jumping over pits or caltrops or whatever in the way), attacking, and then retreating back to his initial position. In the other case, we describe it as a video game shockwave.

What amazes me is that, if you pitch it the first way, a lot of people will nod and say, "yes, that's reasonable." If you point out the second description, they not only yell "NO WAY!!!11!", but they actively change their mind and won't let you use the first description, either.

I believe because it's "too anime". Which is kinda funny, 'cause one is really just as anime as the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:

Of course, changing what martials are capable of does bring forward: what do you need casters for, then?

If they can True See, self-buff, self-heal, bring down fliers, alter reality thru sheer bad-assery, would you need a caster any longer?

I never played 4e, so I don't know what making all the classes nearly the same in terms of class abilities and options is like. It seems many people didn't like that approach, hence Pathfinder and 5e.

Yawn. Read #5.

Doesn't answer the question, Kirth. I'm asking: What would you need casters for? In a world where martials are capable of a more equitable contribution, how do you inspire interdependence?

It's not a challenge to the disparity. It's a question for clarification on what the roles would be.

It's a good question, one I know I've thought about at times. I suppose the best way to summarize it would be thusly:

  • Martial: combat experts with limited magical prowess // accomplishes amazing feats with cunning and physical power // has a small # of easily rechargeable options to augment it's out-of-combat capability in keeping with its thematic nature
  • Caster: magic experts with limited physical prowess // accomplishes amazing feats with raw willpower and magical potential // spells allow great versatility and power both in and out of combat but with thematic limitations and drawbacks

Essentially, martials should be able to take care of themselves and solve any of the problems that come their way. Casters should be able to step in and, to a limited extent, fill any needs that unexpectedly go above and beyond the martial's capability. That way, there is no issue of 'needing' a caster most of the time, but you're very glad you have one when you suddenly need just a little bit more defense, speed, or insight into a situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
Which begs the question: at what point are you no longer playing Pathfinder? Some people have a much broader tolerance for variation and still consider themselves to be playing "the same game" than others. What constitutes "the same game"?
Unchained changed a lot of the answer I would otherwise give. I guess the core components of Pathfinder would be the following:

  • d20 base system
  • AC, DC, and similar numbers / terms being the die roll targets
  • the six core ability scores and how their modifiers work
  • the class system
  • the monster classification system and how many iconic abilities work
  • the basics of how magic works, including the existence of magic item creation
  • feats being a thing that augment how well / what you do

Remove any of these and you're not really playing Pathfinder anymore. Everything else is optional.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
What do trolls need a real-world capital for? Isn't Twitter good enough for 'em?
Well, if they have a real world physical existence then they have to live somewhere.
Not if we get enough acid flasks together.

Best to be safe and call in a nuclear strike. Just to be sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:

TL:DR

Point x is a Myth!! I say so!
No is not!!! You haven't proven it!!!
Yes it is!! I've proven it by saying it is!!
No is not!! I've never see it!!
Then is a myth, i've proven it by saing point x is a myth!!!!

ecc. ecc. ecc.

All I see in this thread is some awesome display of circular logic.

Ecc ecc ecc?

I think it's about time we had another brainstorming session for martial powers. We could lay out the main narrative deficiencies (intraplanar transport, interplanar transport, flight, invisibility, mind control, terrain management, at-range combat utilities, conjuring/awakening/animating allies, communication, magic item affordability...wow, there's a lot of these...).

None of these, imho, is as big a hurdle as the lack of actual healing capabilities. "Martials can go all day" doesn't mean jack if they're down 2/3s of their hp, have taken a half dozen points of ability damage, have two negative levels, and are fatigued.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:

My biggest issue with the discussion is that it appears most notably at levels that I never play at. Why do I care about Wish, Create Demiplane, Simulacrum, etc., when I never see characters at that level?

One of my annoyances about the boards is that it seems that so many people appear to only play level 20 / mythic rank 10 characters when most of my game play is at the lower levels.

Just because it doesn't come up much earlier in any group's given game session, doesn't mean the potential isn't there. Let me give you an example that happened when we played through Jade Regent at a MUCH earlier level and without any mythic elements at all. In the very beginning of book 3, when you're about 7, there's a point where your caravan needs to cross a tumultuous arctic river. No obvious bridges nearby and it'd be incredibly hazardous to try and make the animals and carts cross as is. It's meant to be a challenge for the party to figure out, potentially a dangerous one that results in real loss in order to illustrate the perils of such an expedition into the frozen wastes of a pre-industrial era world.

However, I was playing a cleric and we had an inquisitor, as well as a few people with decent Strength scores. A few castings of both air walk and ant haul on the fighter, inquisitor, and a couple NPCs and we were able to carry everyone and everything, including the animals and the carts they pulled, across this dangerous river without any difficulty. What was meant to be a significant hurdle in the adventure path merely became a matter of "cast a few spells and we're done". Now, I'm sure many groups didn't do it this way, but that doesn't change the fact that magic makes it just this easy anyways.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
pennywit wrote:
I know this comes up every so often, so pardon me for re-asking ... but does Pathfinder need a second edition? We've got rulebooks and splatbooks galore now, along with Unchained's optional rules variants. These all have some good things, some bad things, and some neutral things. But it strikes me that we're reaching a certain critical rule mass, where the first step for a PF table is to run down a checklist of all the books to decide what is allowed and what isn't.
No. A moratorium on posts asking/suggesting/demanding a new edition? That we could use.

That would be the death of the General Discussion board. Without the constant possibility of another "Pathfinder 2.0 needed" or "Martials vs. Casters" or similar debate erupting in a new thread, you wouldn't have nearly as many people waiting with this webpage open, making the occasional post here and there, just waiting and ready to pounce on a new topic for maximum drama. Shame on you, sir, trying to kill our favorite source of argumentative frustration and entertaining rants!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DonDuckie wrote:
I do try to teach and I just give it a little at a time, nobody learns it all before playing - a lot. I'm not too keen on RP incentive mechanics, but that might just be my experience with GMs who almost punish players for not RPing to their satisfaction, or RPing passive/shy/careful characters simply doesn't get you anything.

Oh, punishing a player for not roleplaying (at all or enough) is NOT how it should be done. It should be an incentive rather than a mandate, something to encourage people to have fun getting into character. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

DonDuckie wrote:
I don't think paizo will run out of players for this style of expanding game system. But yes it does target other groups than lighter TT/video games. Although there is a PF MMO on the way if it's not released by now (haven't kept up with news for a while).

Roysier made some pretty good points that address this line of thinking, so I'll just point out his post above mine and leave it at that.

Yeah, I need to check on the MMO status too. I couldn't get the alpha setup for some reason and stopped trying way back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cablop wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Monk (both types), rogue/ninja, fighter, and barbarian are all obvious choices. Brawler could work, as could swashbuckler, oddly enough, if given a little Far Eastern flavoring. Warrior, expert, and aristocrat are all options as well.
What do you mean with "Monk (both types)"?

Core and Unchained.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monk (both types), rogue/ninja, fighter, and barbarian are all obvious choices. Brawler could work, as could swashbuckler, oddly enough, if given a little Far Eastern flavoring. Warrior, expert, and aristocrat are all options as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DonDuckie wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:

Does it need one? Yes, badly.

Will it get one? Haha, no.

I don't like the second answer, try again? Okay, maybe in another 5 years or so, but don't get your hopes up.

This.
That's two people saying it (badly) needs a new edition. Why is that? Is pathfinder really the system for you if it badly needs to be replaced?

Try teaching Pathfinder to a few friends who aren't incredibly numbers-savvy and who don't have much (if any) experience with TTRPGs. It's not an easy task. The rules for interactions between items, spells, feats, the environment, and different actions can get really confusing. Too many options are of the boring, "Add this number to that statistic in this circumstance" variant. There's no incentive to role-play besides what that person brings to the table. I'm not even going to mention the #1 favorite topic of the board. It's an inflexible system with a huge learning curve and an obsession for adding little numbers together in lieu of real creative options.

For the sake of its future, Pathfinder needs a more streamlined model that does a better job of balancing various player options while incorporating actual role-playing mechanics and benefits. After 8 years of this system, though, it doesn't appear Paizo wants to go this route. If anything, they're pushing the opposite direction. It's gotten a lot of mileage off of being the successor to 3.X, but that's only going to take it so far. Eventually, the geeks this works on are going to stop playing and new blood will be needed to keep the system viable. Whatever future of the game is offered will have to be able to successfully compete with the desire to spend hard-earned money and precious time on sitting down at a table with friends and playing this over simpler TTRPGs, video games, Cards Against Humanity, etc. It's good that Paizo is always introducing new options and sub-systems and I hope it works out for them in the long run, but that's not how I'm hedging my bets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a large part of the problem with your philosophy, Mr. Slaaad, is that you look upon the mere idea of a social contract with the heavy-handed term "government force". That doesn't mean, "I pay too much in taxes for these benefits I receive." It means, "I wanna get benefits but not pay for it". That is unrealistic and selfish, to put it mildly. If true, old-school libertarians are even still a thing, they basically have two choices: accept some degree of quid-pro-quo compromise with government "force", since they do benefit from it, or become an ex-pat and leave. Not to seemingly veer into the realm of dichotomy, but I really don't see a third option here.

Now, for the "legislating from the bench" and "forcing homosexual marriages" bits. The first is merely striking down unconstitutional laws and leaving others standing. That's not legislating anymore than the president vetoing a new law is. The second is concerning government-issued marriage licenses and benefits. It has nothing to do with, say, the FBI forcing the Mormon church to host a blood-rite wedding for two gay Pastafarians.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Does it need one? Yes, badly.

Will it get one? Haha, no.

I don't like the second answer, try again? Okay, maybe in another 5 years or so, but don't get your hopes up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:

There is an argument that Pathfinder magic is just science with different rules.

I'm not convinced. You still have wizards and the like who are special people. If it was really like science everybody who check out a spellbook could follow the instructions and fling spells. Spells wouldn't run out either. Science is repeatable by everybody all the time.

Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) are the science behind the science of magic that ANYONE can do. Magic itself is more like a complex chemical reaction. Those can get really intricate and long (spell formulae / casting time), require proper training and education (like a single class level), and need the proper reagents (verbal/somatic/material components) to produce the desired result. Because magic is so complex, spellcasters who use spellbooks fill these tomes with their own personal mnemonics, codes, and formulae that, while based on universally understood elements and rules (magic DOES follow rules), vary from the preferences and knowledge of other casters. So a spellbook isn't what allows a caster to perform magic, it's his own understanding that does it.

As far as spells being limited and such, you can't make ten tons of soap from one ounce of lye. Likewise, the end result of magic is typically seen as energy being manipulated in a manner that requires the focus and mental clarity of the caster. In both cases, what comes out of the result is dependent on what went into it in the first place. You need enough lye for the soap and you need enough mental 'oomph' for the spells. That's why a wizard requires a minimum mental ability score for each level of spell they can use and needs 8 hours of sleep to prep their spells. If you're rested enough to put your focus into it and smart enough to understand how to pull it off, you can trigger an arcane reaction that channels energy in some pre-determined way to affect reality. Once you've done this enough, though, your ability to properly focus on your magic deteriorates to the point you can't pull off these awesome effects anymore. Simple reactions like cantrips are easy to do endlessly, though. That's more akin to using a flint and tinder to make a spark, rather than consuming fuel to use a lighter or a flamethrower. While both methods can start a forest fire, one has a lot easier time of it due to the energy being used for the process.

darth_borehd wrote:
Sure, somebody else who is a caster can make a magic item and then sell them, but you are still right back to it needing somebody special.

Master Craftsman would like a word.

darth_borehd wrote:
The reason why, in the real world, it takes a lot longer to develop technology is because we have generations of people who have to build on the discoveries of the previous generations. Discoveries need time for other discoveries to catch up to the point where a technology can take those disparate elements and combine them.

Exactly. Golarion actually has a parallel for this with arcane magic. Old Man Jetembe basically reverse-engineered arcane magic back into the world from studying with divine casters after the Aboleths caused Earthfall and ushered in the Age of Darkness. A LOT was lost in the Age of Darkness, like most of the advancement made in magic by the Azlanti and Thassilonians. The knowledge of how to use arcane magic wasn't "always there", it had to be recreated by a genius of mythic capability. Sorcerers, summoners, and other spontaneous casters are, of course, a rather odd lot that doesn't exactly fit into this mold, but I believe the example still stands.

darth_borehd wrote:
But you don't have that with magic spells. All of them exist already. You have humans and beings with human level intelligence or beyond that already know how how to make anything they want happen. There is no lead time. There is already a spell to make a automobile-like magic carriage. Just use "Magic Mouth" to make a magic radio. The reason they don't have those things is because it requires special people with special knowledge. That is the definition of magic.

The spell blood money exists in approximately two locations in the Multi-verse when the Rise of the Runelords AP starts. I would not say that means anyone in existence can use their own blood for a stoneskin spell, for example. So, knowledge and advancement in magic can be lost (and potentially found again) just like any other discovery about the world around us. If someone in current Tien Xia comes up with a similar spell, they'll have gone through a different development process and the end result will be quite different in some key respects. It will require different magic words, gestures, that kind of thing because it's a different spell than blood money. It's like convergent evolution, but with the science of magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM_Beernorg wrote:
Well, if they can sell Moby Dick as an action/adventure movie, then anything is possible I guess (am I the only one horrified by the turning of a literary classic into a mindless man vs. nature informed action flick?)

Look at the Wikipedia page for Moby Dick. Melville based a lot of the book on his experience on a whaling ship and two instances of interactions with rather bad-ass ceteceans. For instance:

Melville's Sources wrote:
One was the sinking of the Nantucket ship Essex in 1820, after it was rammed by an enraged sperm whale 2,000 miles (3,200 km) from the western coast of South America. First mate Owen Chase, one of eight survivors, recorded the events in his 1821 Narrative of the Most Extraordinary and Distressing Shipwreck of the Whale-Ship Essex


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do we need a certain size of rail to run her out of town on, or can I make do with whatever crap is in my shed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eretas wrote:
I very like your answer Cerberus! How can I bind you?

Oh, I'm easy to please. I like pizza, video games, and souls. If you can find a package involving all three, I'm in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
A lot of very true and relevant stuff

Mostly, my problem with it is that it's just so very very VERY badly written. I wasn't expecting Shakespeare, but I ALSO wasn't expecting to be bored to tears by a complete lack of anything even remotely unique, exciting, or innovative in these pages. If you're going to write a story about forbidden love between a human and monsters, make them actual monsters and not idealized specimens of humanity with no flaws.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Tacticslion wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing that study...someone MUST have done it at some point. Anybody know of papers on the subject?

It's not a scientific study, but it is oddly relevant.

Gauging fan reaction will be fascinating.

Yes, because the world needed MORE of the Twilight fictional universe, now with extra controversy! Where's a time machine when you need one, so you can erase the very notion of vampires from existence?
You'll be needing the machine to predate Stoker by quite some time. Probably somewhere about juuuuuuuuuuust before Europe is settled. Also, due to how they're all linked, in order to do so, you'll need to take care of ghosts, goblins, ghouls, zombies, and similar creatures, as well as sprites, fey, and probably angels, devils, and so on- waaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit a minute! You want to destroy Pathfinder! Hey! >:I

You can't prove that. XP


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, make it only one outsider at a time from any and all uses of this spell. This prevents you getting a small swarm of outsiders to help you and taking up too much time on your turn in combat.

Second, bargaining with the creature is a one-time affair. If the PC doesn't present a bargain and convince the outsider to accept said deal within one day of its summoning and entrapment, the creature gets to go free with no penalty to the summoner. The rest of the party is allowed to aid another on the Charisma check, but with a scaling DC (10 for the first person -> 15 for the second - > 20 for the third). The outsider may be more inclined to listen to and interact with other party members at times as well, if their nature is more in tune with its. This lets the entire party get involved and prevents the "I can just keep this thing captive and keep asking it for help every single darned day" scenario.

Third, make payment of some kind to the creature mandatory. And I don't mean handing it a couple thousand gold pieces worth in assorted gems or coin. Let your GM get creative, something like a non-removable penalty to an ability score, or a sacrifice of some of your daily spell slots, or a spell-blight. Also, alignment repercussions, your GM can have fun with that. Once the creature is gone, your natural mental, moral, and physical state gradually reasserts itself. Make sure all of this is in keeping with the thematic nature of the being you summoned. In essence, you're giving the creature a portion of your power and/or vitality both in way of payment for its service and to guarantee its fidelity to the agreed upon task. This way, there's both a roleplaying and mechanical trade-off for the extra power you're gaining through your temporary 'servant'.

Fourth, make the potential list of things this outsider will do for you restricted to its nature. No getting archons to kill someone in cold blood while they sleep, for example. They will gladly, however, guard a location or lead soldiers in battle. No getting demons to lead supply caravans or repair a busted dam, but they will gladly serve as murderous shock troops or scare the bejeezus out of some fort full of soldiers. You can always use elementals for a task and not worry about restrictions based on their nature, since they have neither much stake or interest in mortal affairs and are generally far less powerful and versatile than denizens of the Outer Planes. This prevents summoning whatever you want to do anything you want unless you're willing to go with a less potent outsider.

Fifth and finally, make these creatures behave appropriately both here and at home. For example, say you want an object stolen from a hellknight citadel. Unless you're REALLY specific on the details of the assignment (giving the creature a bonus on the oppposed Cha check), they might do something else along the way. An angel might destroy an altar to Asmodeus it finds there, causing the hellknights to search for the perpetrator with heightened ferocity in the surrounding lands. A demon, on the other hand, might kill an entire platoon of the enemy before telling the survivors just who sent him and where to find you. When you release the creature back to their plane of origin, they also spread word about you to their fellows, so that repeated castings of planar binding get creatures who know how to deal with you. They come prepared to deal with prior allowable requests, but are harder to convince to do new things. This way, the summoner has to account for potentially troublesome 'developements' in their otherwise perfect 'send-my-servant-to-do-my-job' plan and finds that they have to deal with the reputation they're building among the denizens of the outsider realms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
"Aura" is just stat-block-speak for "area of effect around the creature who has it, that doesn't have a specific activation cost." Gaze attacks and frightful presence are both examples of "auras" in that sense.

I understand and to a limited extent I agree. It's an abstraction for an omnipresent / unlimited-immediate-action usable effect. However, in both the thematic and mechanical sense, auras still don't feel quite right. If a fighter is about battlefield command, why are we limiting them to a tiny section of the fight like this? Their warcries should be influencing whole armies, which according to Ultimate Campaigns is apparently a square that is 500 ft. on a side. If they're not going to be doing that immediately but instead scale up to that kind of range by high level, then it should still be wide enough to cover a small-scale engagement at lower levels. I'm talking about covering a really large room at first, then a complex of a few small close-clustered buildings a few levels later, then a decently-sized open area like a wide field later on, etc. Also, simply having an omni-present effect doesn't quite seem to suit the idea of commanding troops in the chaotic melee of ancient battles. Sometimes soldiers lose track of things and need their commanders to get their attention, or they'll pursue without thinking, run in fear, etc. A fighter bellowing out a commanding cry to have his soldiers change tactics at a moments notice seems like a better fit than simply having a sudden change to an effect in a comparatively tiny area.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing that study...someone MUST have done it at some point. Anybody know of papers on the subject?

It's not a scientific study, but it is oddly relevant.

Gauging fan reaction will be fascinating.

Yes, because the world needed MORE of the Twilight fictional universe, now with extra controversy! Where's a time machine when you need one, so you can erase the very notion of vampires from existence?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure where else this would fit, so I'll put it here, where ALL things are permissible.

One of the major devs at DSP is having some financial difficulty. Here's the GoFundMe page: https://www.gofundme.com/errantx.

Just spreading the word.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RedDingo wrote:

Okay, so I obsessed with making the Fighter not suck so much that I made my own concept of an unchained fighter. To be honest though, I kind of feel like I stole some ideas from DarkSol and Lemmy, so maybe I need some pointers. I did reference both of their concepts a little for inspiration I tried to put enough of my spin to keep things original. Key word there is tried.

I tried to make techniques (i.e. fighter talents) for both combat and narrative utility. The list is still unfinished.

Good artists borrow ideas. Great artists steal them. Have no shame, sir.

Signed, an idea thief


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skylancer4 wrote:

And you are completely capable of NOT using it in your home game.

PFS is basically the game they intended for the rules to be. It is Golarian, and if the rules aren't working as they want them too, it is actually their game to change. They just let us use them.

Way too often posters complain about changes Paizo makes, as if they are messing with their game. They aren't, they are adjusting their game, you just happen to be using their rules. If you don't like them, don't use them. If you are playing PFS, you literally signed up for it, to use someone else's rules with specific circumstances and rulings. Even above and beyond the "normal" rule set (PFS restrictions etc).

I imagine PFS drives A LOT of business. And home games are free to do what they want regardless. What is the point in complaining about it?

Then why don't they at least leave the initial, un-nerfed version some of us were enjoying on the PRD somewhere? When they change it, they change it EVERYWHERE. If you don't own the books, good luck finding the correct wording of the original spell/item/feat/whatever. You might be in a game and bring up the PRD or d20pfsrd to reference something, only to find that the element in question is now very different and doesn't make sense anymore. Thus, you're forced to rewrite part of your character / adventure as part of this change you didn't even know happened.

HFTyrone wrote:
I would not entirely disagree with this approach if it didn't seem like their choices in errata were so utterly sporadic, such as the adjustments to weapon cords and abundant ammunition, yet Simulacrum is still a thing that exists.

Wait, abundant ammunition changed? What happened there? There doesn't appear to be an FAQ entry for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
See, that's just it. Improved Evasion can let you dodge the entirety of a blast of 10 lbs. of c4 going off 1 foot away. How? No idea. Must be magic, because even encasing yourself in concrete wouldn't actually save you.
Except Pathfinder doesn't use C4. It uses "cinematic" C4. Makes a big difference when figuring out who gets killed by it.
Yup. As long as you're a main character, all cinematic explosives do is knock you down and maybe stun you for a minute. Unless you turn your back on the explosion and start walking away, at which point you gain total immunity to them.

Obligatory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

See, that's just it. Improved Evasion can let you dodge the entirety of a blast of 10 lbs. of c4 going off 1 foot away. How? No idea. Must be magic, because even encasing yourself in concrete wouldn't actually save you.

Oh, yeah, and because of this, all those other things should happen too. And level 1 rogues should be able to run around invisibly in broad daylight surrounded by people who can't see them, martials should topple armies by stomping their foot, and barbarians should be able to leap up to the sky to hack a dragon in half with an axe. Because magic.

And, yeah, a fighter should be able to hack a swarm to death with just a few swings of a longsword. Because magic.

This whole fallacy is illogical (as all fallacies are) and has no bearing on a discussion of game rules.

I'm actually talking about regular Evasion, which is only level two for rogues and monks. It's not magic, as least not as far as Pathfinder is concerned, as even a cursory glance at the game rules will indicate. Saying "It must be magic" is not only not helpful at all to the rules, it's demonstrably, factually wrong.

Again, no one's arguing for these other things you keep mentioning. The mechanics of Pathfinder simply allow for weird and amazing crap to happen, magic or no. Surviving a drop from 100,000 feet in the air, for example. Or punching out a blood-crazed polar bear. Or wrestling a giant squid into a knot. These are things that, on worlds like Golarion, you don't NEED any magic for. No reason this (fighting swarms) can't be another such example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
None of us are high level martial combatants in a fantastical world where magic flows from every other hole in the ground. Real-world physics shouldn't be a factor when the other members of the party can do things like dodge the entirety of a nuclear blast, transform themselves into a creature of pure living fire, make their own personal demiplane with customized time settings, or restore to life people who have been dead for a century. Screw realism and screw simplicity. If I have to crunch a few numbers to be able to murder the hell out of a swarm of demonic gnats, so be it!

Ah, yes, this old argument. Over and over and over with this. Every discussion on this forum about how something should work ends with this.

Yes, orcs should fart fireballs, fighters should belch prismatic lightning and hamsters should have vorpal teeth. Because magic.

You're right, you win, there's no arguing against logic like that.

Wow dude, way to strawman argument. Evasion = 100% non-magical. Evasion can let you dodge the entirety of a blast of 10 lbs of C4 going off fifty feet away from you. Non-magical, absolutely amazing none-the-less. Now, why exactly is something similarly impressive but useful offensively against one small subsection of creatures somehow equivalent to every Tom, Dick, and Harry literally eating lightning and crapping thunder?

And what's wrong with small animals having vorpal teeth, anyways?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
I agree. Swarms shouldn't be immune to weapon damage. Highly resistant, maybe, but not immune.

How many times do you need to swing a sword at a swarm of locusts to kill them all? While the answer is some number that is less than infinity, it is so large that nobody would ever, ever do it. Anybody who did would give up long before he could even see a difference in the size of the locust swarm.

Sure, sure, his sword kills a few locusts. Keep it up long enough and he might kill hundreds of locusts before his arm is so dead-tired that he can't even lift it anymore. But the locust swarm will not even notice the loss, won't look smaller, won't do less damage to local crops, won't be affected in any way.

The dead locusts on the ground prove that they are, individually, NOT immune to the sword. But the essentially unaffected swarm has, literally, suffered no ill consequences for that swordsman's best efforts.

That's practically the definition of immunity.

The abstract combat system we use cannot effectively draw a line between "immunity" and "Millions of rounds of attacks would eventually eliminate the swarm but thousands will not". That degree of "highly resistant" just doesn't exist in this system, nor should it.

So swarms just use "immunity" because it's simpler than tracking millions of sword attacks.

None of us are high level martial combatants in a fantastical world where magic flows from every other hole in the ground. Real-world physics shouldn't be a factor when the other members of the party can do things like dodge the entirety of a nuclear blast, transform themselves into a creature of pure living fire, make their own personal demiplane with customized time settings, or restore to life people who have been dead for a century. Screw realism and screw simplicity. If I have to crunch a few numbers to be able to murder the hell out of a swarm of demonic gnats, so be it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To follow up on what Todd said, Protean is also the only language in the multiverse that regularly changes how the entire thing is spoken. And I don't mean new dialects or words are added, no I mean the entire tongue itself mutates at entirely random intervals. Proteans don't try to learn this new language, either; they simply know how it's now spoken. Hell, they probably don't think it ever changed. From a certain standpoint, they're right too, as there is no prior dialect to reference. Nothing from then, just as there will be no current dialect to look at some point in the future when Protean has changed anywhere from five to twenty million times.

If THAT doesn't embody chaos, I don't know what does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakhor wrote:
Malwing wrote:
If otherwise wasn't so ingrained in the game I would love to do what 5th edition did. Sorcerers get exclusive access to metamagic feats. Or at the very least give sorcerers exclusive metamagic feats in exchange for spells known.
I think there are lots of things that 5E has done correctly. It's just a shame that 5E and PF are largely incompatible.

If you took some of the good parts out of both 4E and 5E and made PF house rules out of them, it'd be a pretty awesome set. Action points and inspiration being one and the same would be freaking sweet. Short rest healing with hit dice would eliminate a lot of issues with healing. Actually combat-worthy at-will spells / cantrips would be nice, no more cross-bow / ray of frost wizard if he doesn't wanna expend a real spell. Bounded stats means less munchkining. Backgrounds would add a lot more flavor than traits do. Full-attacks as standard action would rock and make movement far more worth it. 1/2 level bonus on class skills, up to your total number of ranks in the skill, would make skill checks really interesting.

...y'know, I should start making a list of this stuff. New item for this weekend's plans!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jimibones83 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Str-to-Hit makes sense because the stronger you are, the faster you can swing your blade, making it harder for your opponents to avoid the attack. You can also lift and swing your weapon more easily, which boosts accuracy.

And keep in mind that in PF, Dexterity is much more about balance, reflexes and precision than about speed. You don't get to move faster just because you have high Dex.

That's not true at all. For one, if strength determined speed, then the worlds strongest man would also be the worlds fastest man, but that's nowhere near the truth. Olympic runners are nowhere near as muscular as olympic body builders, not even close.

Hand eye coordination is what determines accuracy. However, a moving target requires good reflexes too, but since that's also determined by dexterity, no further attribute contributes to hit.

Where strength fits is to damage, and possibly as a prerequisite to use two handed weapons.

If you don't believe any of this, get plastered and go play whack-a-mole. Alcohol doesn't affect your strength, but it does affect your dexterity, and you will probably do significantly worse while drunk. Plus, the guy next to you could be twice as strong, but that doesn't mean he will be better at the game. He can inflict more damage when he hits, but he won't necessarily hit more often just because he's stronger.

Dexterity determines reaction time, but strength is 100% correlated with actual speed. There's different types of muscle fibers, y'know, some for sustained force and some for bursts of exertion. So when you're drunk, you're just as capable of exerting force, but your coordination and reaction time are utter s@#^ which leads to all the whiffing vs moles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seth Dresari wrote:

Introducing Prismatic Bolt!

Prismatic Bolt is a new cantrip that was developed for multiple reasons:
1 - To replace the many cantrips that are used to cause the same amount of damage, but in different types, keeping the spell list tidy and allowing you to equip the cantrips that matter.
2 - To provide a last-ditch spell that can be used when you run out in the midst of several high-level encounters and don't have any weapons or higher-level spells that do the right damage type.
3 - To provide a cantrip that can do either Force, Fire or Aether damage, since as of yet only Acid, Lightning and Cold are available.

Level: 0
School: Conjuration
Class: Any Arcane

Casting Time: One Action
Duration: Instantaneous
Components: Somatic, Material (A clear prism)

Effect: One Missile, Ranged-Touch (automatic Crit if target is within melee range, in the event you are mad enough to risk an Attack of Opportunity)
Range: 25' + 2.5'-level

Damage: 1d3 + 1/2-level
Damage Types: Force/Aether/Lightning/Acid/Cold/Fire

I like it. Cantrips should be allowed to be cool, just not uber-powerful. The flexibility on damage type is good and the 1/2 level bonus means it will scale okay. I do have some suggestions and concerns, though.

  • Spell range: you'll want to list this as 'close' range, which is already established as 25 ft. + 5 ft. / 2 levels. This is important if, for some reason, you want to apply a range-increasing metamagic feat to it.
  • Damage types: Force damage is too good. It negates any reason to use ANY of the other elements. Leave that for actual spell slot damage. For the next element, aether, what is that anyways? I know it's a thing with kineticists where it essentially amounts to typeless magical damage. Is it the same thing here? If so, you're looking at a damage type that is not going to worry about resistances at all and is, 99% of the time, better than the other energy options. That might be balanced against DR working against aether damage, but this is a small can of worms you need to lock down first.
  • Melee auto-crit: yeah, don't do this. Reason being is that it'll be on the magus spell list and they don't need this instead of the typical 'arcane mark' Zorro-style spell-combat stuff they do. Getting one attack at highest BAB for free starting at level 1 is good enough. Maybe replace it with a bonus to critical threat range or confirmation rolls in melee?
  • Components: drop the material component. I don't think there's any other cantrips that require that, plus it's already a worthless (no gp cost) component. If there's no need to track it since the wizard or whoever likely has several spell component pouches on him, might as well not include it in the spell anyways.
  • Spell-resistance: does this work against your new cantrip? It's Conjuration, which is why I ask, that school's full of this kind of stuff. If it's not gonna worry about SR, that's a huge boost in its usefulness, especially use in conjunction with meta-magic feats that apply conditions like dazing to a target damaged with the spell.
  • School type: speaking of Conjuration, is that really the right school? All the 'prismatic <insert effect area here>' spells are Evocation. Plus, Conjuration typically summons some kind of solid, or at least viscous, matter from thin air. This, however, is drawing fire, cold, or lightning energy from wherever as well. It definitely feels more like Evocation and Conjuration.
  • Action type: unless you're using revised action economy out of Unchained, 'one action' makes no sense. You should specify it as a standard action, like the other cantrips. If you want, a line could be included to the effect of getting a second attack with it via a full-attack action at +6 BAB or something.
  • Class selection: I honestly don't see a bloodrager getting this spell, it's not in-your-face enough. All the full-caster or 6th level casting classes, sure. Speaking of which, what about the new psychic classes? They're not, strictly speaking, arcane.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kaouse wrote:

Mythic isn't "just better" unless you are a full caster class or pulling of one of the 2 ways to get full casting. For just martial abilities, you may often be better served by Gestalt. The same can be said for martially inclined partial casters.

That said, Hero points are a decent alternative.

...uh, dude, have you looked at what the Champion and Guardian paths give you? A high tier champion is a terrifying combatant and a guardian can just soak up punishment like a divinely-inspired sponge. That's not even getting into the standard things tiers give you, like Surge, Amazing Initiative, Mythic Feats, Ability Score bonuses, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Some of the cove rules are kinda silly. A gargantuan dragon with a tiny bat familiar in front of it is almost guaranteed to have cover from an archer in the same direction as the bat.

*sigh* No. A bat is tiny, meaning it has a 0 ft. by 0 ft. presence on the battlefield. It's all but IMPOSSIBLE for such a creature to provide cover for the rules. More importantly, when attacking a large creature at range (from the way this scenario is phrased that seems to be what you're hinting at), you get to chose the line of attack from any corner of your square to all of the corners of ANY of the target's occupied squares. That means every 5 ft. cube the dragon occupies is fair game. It's gargantuan, 20 ft. by 20 ft. by 20 ft. I'll let others do that math.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. Rogue's don't need more spike damage, they need to have an easier time hitting and landing sneak attack in the first place. Unchained helps with that a lot (in melee, anyways). Now, what WOULD be good is if rogues could elect to do sneak attack in place of a confirmed critical hit. Their damage mod isn't gonna be amazing anyways, plus they have weapons and options to get bonus combat feats to make their threat range pretty decent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
It was going so well for a while with a couple of FAQs each week. Now there is a veritable FAQ drought.

It got errataed. They will now issue FAQs only on Fridays whose date does not end in a real number.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Whitley wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Aaron Whitley wrote:
Because the 3.0 cover rules are simpler and more intuitive so we use them instead. The 3.5/Pathfinder rules for cover are just obtuse.
They're the same rules, dude.

Nope, they are completely different. The 3.0 rules are much clearer and simpler to apply.

EDIT: removed the actual rules list since the formatting was terrible. Check here for the rule instead (under Combat Modifiers).

If you look at the rules for Cover under the d20srd.org webpage, I think you'll find they are. Though, that may be 3.5 rules, now that I think of it.

Also, how in the name of the lord of all unholy eldritch horrors is THIS simpler to apply?!?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Am I to understand I can make simulacrum Constructs?

If so, do they have all the same features including spell immunities, etc?

I...huh. Well, THAT'S a whole new category of shenanigans waiting to happen now, isn't it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It means the spell was copied wholesale from the 3.X PHBs. As it's read, you couldn't deck a simulacrum out in armor and hand it a sword because it's "becoming more powerful" (aka it's numbers on a sheet improve). Which is completely unenforceable, totally against the general intent of the spell, and beyond idiotic. Those two sentences really should have been combined to read something to the effect of, "A simulacrum cannot gain new hit dice or any of the benefits associated with this, like hit points or feats or class features". Paizo (perhaps unwisely) trusted the player base to NOT be ridiculous with this. They do that a lot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Now if my problem with the anime I dislike was in any way based on its internal mechanics and not it's paradigms, writing, tropes, the little things for it's target audience, and other forms of flavor that would be comforting.

You say this as though anime were a single genre with a single target audience.

Anime is nothing more than a medium- albeit one far easier to display fantastic elements with than live action film- filled with innumerable distinct stories and vast numbers of distinct styles/genre.

What, you don't see the blindingly obvious similarities between Cowboy Bebop and Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood? Or Death Note and Gurren Lagann? Or Kill la Kill and Ghost in the Shell SAC? C'mon man, open your eyes!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:

I'm just going to quote this guy in full:

David J Prokopetz wrote:

Lately, I’ve run across complaints that modern depictions of the Knights of the Round Table are too “anime” - giving them all sorts of goofy powers, and sending them on weird, over-the-top adventures.
Allow me to point out that the following are all actual things that appear in the older tales about the Knights:
Sir Kay is said to have had the power to grow to giant size, hold his breath for nine days, and radiate supernatural heat from his hands.
Sir Bedivere openly practiced sorcery, and suffered from an accordingly sinister reputation; on more than one occasion, he was saved from being hanged as a witch only by King Arthur’s testimonly to his good character.
Sir Galahad possessed supernatural strength and speed by virtue of his moral and sexual purity - making him a rare example of a male character with virginity-fueled super powers.
Sir Balin once wielded the Lance of Longinus, and blew up an entire kingdom with a single blow. He also fought an evil knight with the power of invisibility.
Sir Marrock was a freaking werewolf.
Conclusion: modern depctions of the Knights of the Round Table aren’t anime enough.

This is the best thing I've read all month.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Pale King wrote:
Part of the elven schtick is being in tune with nature, yet as far as stats and abilities go the nature based classes aren't exactly their strong suit. The best is probably an archer Ranger since the low con and no wisdom bonus don't matter too terribly, but classes like Druid, Hunter, and Shaman just don't really jive with being elves. I've definitely played such characters anyway, but it feels like the race should lend some more support to such builds.

Elves in Pathfinder are more like the Noldor from the Silmarillion, genius crafters of metalworking and magic. Hence the +2 to Intelligence rather than Wisdom. Which means Paizo didn't really do much new with elves other than make Valinor another planet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
Usane Bolt can run 200ft per round. Making his move action either 50ft or 40ft. Being 6 times faster than him is still well within the realm of possible.

It's within the realm of "possible" for your fighter to run at around the speed an arrow comes off of a longbow (200 ft/s)? Barring a major rewrite of the human body, it's not.

I don't particularly care if you want to have a game where your players constantly do the impossible without the aid of magic. But it's certainly a different game from classic D&D (of all stripes, including Pathfinder).

But it is Pathfinder. And D&D.

See aforementioned punching out rhinos.

Or for a more mechanical example, the world record long jump is just under 30'. That's a DC of 30, reachable at low levels with a roll of 20 - which you pretty much have to assume for world records.
Trivial for a 20th level character, even stripped of any magical assistance, especially with a few traits and feats. Not too difficult to double it, I'd suspect.

You can't travel more than your move with a jump, so you'd have to somehow double your move first without the aid of magic.

Running/sprinting is a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@HWalsh: I've seen full-attacking meleers like you're describing, they mauled the hell out of the AP. The thing is...not only were they decently optimized, they also didn't do that on their own. They had inspire courage and magical spell support to buff their accuracy and damage. They still missed fairly often (well, one of them did, the other has magic hands when it comes to rolling d20s). The aegis I played before that was able to move + full attack, but he had the aid of psionics to let him do it while ALSO buffing his attack/damage/AC/save numbers to let him do really well. Before THAT, my half-orc crusader with the aid of a word-casting bard to do accelerates on us was decently optimized and quite formidable, but nowhere near a omni-slaughter monster. Obviously YMMV, but it doesn't seem that the game will fall apart for everyone if move + full-attack is the default option.

Also, I'd be VERY interested to hear a play-by-play of how that steam-rolled APL+3 encounter went.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isonaroc wrote:
Barachiel Shina wrote:

I hope in a future product Pathfinder designers would make a feat (that can stack with itself) that increases the monster's damage reduction.

Unless there is a way to do so already that I am unaware of?

I have an iron golem and the DR 15/adamantine is not cutting it, not with PCs that can do 4 times that amount of damage to it. If I can increase it to DR 25 or 30 somehow, that'd be awesome.

While it would be nice to have an official feat for that, if you're the DM there's nothing stopping you for just giving your iron golem DR 30/adamantine.

EDIT: Or just fudge the HP. Whatever.

The latter is a better idea. Maximize hit points or apply Strength mod to each hit dice as bonus hit points, rather than the measly +whatever constructs get normally. Hell, do both, make the PCs really work to take it down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

Honestly, I find Spell Pouch sundering to be horridly meta gamey...

Why?

If someone is shooting at you do you aim for the gun or do you aim for the shooter?

Same thing... if you can sunder, then you are in range to target the caster himself... and most people would aim to kill the wizard instead of weakening him, unless the enemies are run like they are disposable numbers and have no thought pf living beyond their encounter. If played like real people, they would most likely shoot the threat...

Because the wizard almost certainly has a lot more hit points than the pouch. And the pouch almost certainly doesn't have stoneskin or some similar DR, temp hp, or AC boosting magic on it. And sunders can be done in place of a normal attack, unlike most other combat maneuvers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Why does all this even matter? The acts of gods are thinly veiled GM fiat that have practically no rules basis beyond rule 0. Debating what the RAW powers of gods are is just a stupid conversation to be having.

It's highlighting the fundamental difference between a game and a story hour.

If the gods can do anything the DM says, including override everything else, then all cause and effect in the game ultimately devolve to DM fiat. The rules hold if and only if the DM doesn't decide to suspend them on a whim. Some would argue that, at that point, they might as well be abandoned altogether.

Saying that the gods have phenomenal cosmic power does not take away from the ability and agency of the players unless said power is wielded on the PCs by a bad GM. Remember, even if a god can do anything, there's other gods on their level who might not like their 'colleagues' screwing with reality in that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:

It does bring up the question" should magic be better than skills, or just easier?

It would take a complete rework of the spells to adjust them down so that they don't necessarily outshine skill use by people who have a large degree of skill mastery. But as a design philosophy, might not be a bad place to start.

"Yeah - I could jump that, but my Jump spell guarantees me a success. Nothing flashy, but it gets the job done!"

Reworking all spells is too much work AND wouldn't really help the martials shine. A character with 20 ranks in Acrobatics and +15 from ability score & class skill still couldn't jump to the top of a two story building on a natural 20. A tenth level character with max Acrobatics ranks, a +10 from other mods, and an appropriate CL jump spell can do so more than half the time without a problem, though. If jump is all about jumping awesomely, it should put you somewhat briefly on the level of those whose skill and power far exceeds your own and let you do the amazing things they can. That way, everyone wins.

1 to 50 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>