Devil's Advocate's page

It doesn't allow the Conan type unless they always have their signature weapon on hand. Was there never a story where Conan was captured and disarmed, or had to grab a plain standard sword or axe from a fallen enemy? I think the story would have become far less compelling if he suddenly had to hit everyone 4-5 times as much just because he didn't have his super special sword.

Minor nitpick:

The very first Conan story ever written, The Phoenix on the Sword, takes its title from a magic rune a sage had to place on Conan's sword because only a sword enchanted with that magic rune could harm the demon summoned by Conan's enemies.

I don't disagree with your overall point, but you didn't pick the best example when calling out an iconic character who doesn't depend on magic weapons.

So the optimal half-elf build is now a full elf with Adoptive Ancestry (human), because that build gets pretty much everything a human with Half-Elf gets, plus some additional elf stuff, right?

If paladins are going to hold a special place in the game world as recognizable champions of righteousness, the paladin class needs to be narrowly defined. Adding non-traditional class features to the paladin chassis cheapens the value of that chassis by making it unrecognizable as a paladin. Non-traditional features should be reserved for archetypes or for other, more-generic classes.

A paladin is and always has been a knight in shining armor. Unless we abandon that theme, the abilities of the paladin class need to reflect it. Like the worthiest Arthurian knights, paladins tend the wounds of the righteous and smite the wicked in hand-to-hand combat. They ride noble steeds and wield magic swords. They say prayers, uphold ideals, and go on quests to retrieve holy relics.

No part of the Arthurian ideal involves, for example, sprouting angel wings or shooting beams of light at enemies. Magic of that sort has nothing to do with the source material of the paladin class, and completely redefines the role of paladins in the world. If someone wants to play an angel-winged warrior that fires beams of light, they should be able to do so with some other class that better accommodates that role.

Unless and until the traditional concept of the paladin is completely abandoned, the paladin class should include only abilities that are appropriate for idealized Arthurian knights in shining armor.

My first character in the PF2 playtest is going to be a CG paladin.

Not a house-ruled, variant paladin. Not an alignment-removed, optional-rule paladin. A rules-as-written paladin who is LG at the time of character creation and immediately thereafter converts to CG. It's possible, if not likely, that his character sheet will list “CG” as his alignment and “paladin” as his class (not “ex-paladin” or “fallen paladin” or “paladin 1/fighter X”; just plain “paladin”).

His in-character motivation is to prove by example that being righteous is about more than following strictures and keeping company with celestial beings. He eschews the alignment restriction in the paladin’s code and parts ways with his righteous companion so he can walk a more humble path: demonstrating to the common folk that even those who fall short of a traditional paladin’s exacting standards can triumph over evil.

My goal with this character will be to test how viable it is to play a rules-as-written playtest paladin who strays from the LG alignment and never atones. Per the paladin preview blog, this paladin will lose his spell point pool and his righteous companion, so I will choose every class option I can that makes no reference to these abilities. I will then attempt to play this suboptimal paladin in level-appropriate adventures to see how well (or how poorly) he is able to meaningfully participate.

I find the whole Aroden's-death-is-forever-going-to-be-a-mystery thing really, really irritating. This one doesn't bug me, for some reason...

Spoiler from Starfinder AP #1: The PCs discover proof that Aroden traveled forward in time and died as a direct result of whatever events took place during the gap in history.

I promise to stop feeding on template errors if I get in Top 32! :P

You're more correct than you know. Once you make the Top 32, the system prevents you from posting under aliases in the Superstar forums. Template Fu will no longer exist here.

DM_Blake wrote:

That's a ton of changes. I'm never going to remember them all.

Think I can send back my ACG to trade it in for the next printing?

Seriously, should we be able to? Because I'm looking at almost nine full pages of changes with small font and two columns. This makes this printing of ACG almost obsolete and makes the GM have to remember a lot if he allows this book in case someone is using a hard copy first print. Can I at least get a discount?

You won't get a discount, but I hear you can pick up Erroneous Origins, a campaign setting tie-in to the errata document which includes a feat that addresses all of your concerns. Also, check out the Classes chapter of Errata Unchained, which includes some important errata the designers always intended to publish in place of the actual errata they published.

Psionics is essentially magic wearing the clothes of New Age psychic phenomena. Unlike magic, whose literary heritage spans from much older sources, Psionics in the game draws mainly from comic books, horror movies like "Scanners", and the "New Age" movement.

Psionics is essentially is less sci-fi version of D&D's magic system. Unlike D&D's Vancian magic system, which was lifted directly from a science fiction novel and appears nowhere else in literature or mythology, D&D psionics creates a mechanic that reflects the way most people assume magic would work in a fantasy setting: practioners draw upon a depletable pool of energy which they shape to their will without "preparing" or "memorizing" an abitrary number of fire-and-forget spells.

So I might get blasphemed for this but, one of my friends brought up a good point:

Does a "superhero" like class like the vigilantee belong in a fantasy RPG?

If Robin Hood doesn't belong in a fantasy RPG, that game is probably not inspired by Medieval Europe.

Every Fly the Wizard has to cast on the Fighter is a Haste, Dispel Magic, Sleet Storm, Stinking Cloud, Hold Person, Displacement, Ray of Exhaustion, Paragon Surge or Slow that the Wizard isn't casting for the party.

Why would the party wizard need to cast fly for the fighter to drink a potion of fly? If the fighter is doing his job and purchasing basic combat gear, the wizard should rarely, if ever, need to cast common situational buffs on the fighter.

All of these arguments about action economy balance have convinced me...

I shall use both action economy systems at the same time!

At the start of your turn, you choose to use either the normal action economy or the unchained action economy. This choice lasts until the beginning of your next turn. If you have an ability that is not defined in the unchained action economy (like Manyshot), you can only use that ability when also using the normal action economy.

Bam! The unchained action economy is now complete and fully integrated into the game.

Wizard VMC gets a familiar at 3...

Does this mean my eidolon can have a familiar?

So, a Large demon moves up and attacks a 6th-level paladin who isn't wielding a reach weapon. The paladin then smites and attacks the Large demon...

Using the normal rules:

Large demon moves up to paladin. (move action)
Large demon attacks paladin. (standard action)
Paladin 5-foot steps up to Large demon. (5-foot step action)
Paladin smites Large demon. (swift action)
Paladin attacks Large demon. (part of full attack)
Paladin attacks Large demon. (part of full attack)

Demon 1, paladin 2.

Using the alternate rules:

Large demon moves up to paladin. (1 act)
Large demon attacks paladin. (1 act)
Large demon attacks paladin. (1 act)
Paladin 5-foot steps up to Large demon. (1 act)
Paladin smites Large demon. (1 act)
Paladin attacks Large demon. (1 act)

Demon 2, paladin 1 (or 2 if two-weapon fighting).

Changing the 5-foot step to cost an attack doesn't seem to do any favors to martials who get jumped by opponents with superior reach.

Seriously. I'm wondering if they "unchained" the trade dress for this book by making page borders unique to Unchained instead of using the standard Pathfinder RPG page borders.

Also, any good artwork in this book?

Everyone is missing the point of Formless Mastery. Don't think of it as an unchained monk class feature; think of it as an unchained Crane Wing nerf. If you look at it that way, Formless Mastery is a thing of beauty.

You see, the standard Crane Wing nerf turned a feat that automatically blocked one melee attack into a feat that provided a +4 bonus to AC against one melee attack if you happened to burn an immediate action before that attack was rolled in the first place. That's a fairly intensive nerf, but all of the sacred cows were really holding it back.

Now that everything's been unchained, Crane Wing can be properly nerfed. If you're stuck GMing for a bunch of uppity martials who insist on taking Crane Wing, even though its been nerfed down to an occasional +4 AC bonus against one melee attack, you can teach them a lesson by giving Formless Mastery to your NPC monks.

Your monks get a +4 bonus on attack rolls against anyone using Crane Wing, perfectly counteracting the +4 bonus to AC that Crane Wing occasionally provides. Plus, to further punish the PCs for daring to take a non-magical defense nearly as effective as some 1st- or 2nd-level spells, your NPCs also get massive damage bonuses and other perks against them.

Never before has a nerf been so perfectly complete.

Unchained core race changes sound dumb

Look, I get that halflings are not as popular as fantasy staples like dwarves and elves.

That said, I think Unchained sets a bad precedent by completely replacing the halfling core race with a tiefling core race. It's true that tieflings have better flavor and stronger mechanics than halflings, but using that as an excuse to errata halflings out of existence is a bad move. Unchained should never have done that.

And by, "Unchained," I mean, "an imaginary game supplement I saw in a dream last night," because I've never actually seen a Paizo product suggesting that halflings be replaced with tieflings. But that's beside the point. A future Paizo product might say that, so I'm putting my foot down.

More like:

Player 1: Can I play a catfolk?
GM: No, You guys can pick any race except catfolk.
Player 1: Why?
And then the conversation branches in one of several directions
Alternative a:
Gm: Because I am the GM and I want to shove it in your face by reminding you that I can ban stuff!
Player 1: Waa! You're a tyrant!

Alternative b:
GM: Because they went extinct 400 years ago in my setting.
Player 1: Okay then, could I play a ratfolk?

Alternative c:
GM: Because I dislike the idea of talking cats--I can't think about it without being reminded of that annoying talking Meowth.
Player 1: Okay then , could I play a ratfolk?

Alternative d:
GM: Because player 2, player 3, and player 5 have expressed a strong distaste in having a PC with fur in the party.
Player 1: Okay then, could I play a gnome?

More like:

Alternative b:
GM: Because they went extinct 400 years ago in my setting.
Player 1: Okay then, I'm playing an undead catfolk.
GM: No, all the undead catfolk were destroyed 400 years ago.
Player 1: Okay then, I'm playing a 500-year-old catfolk who was true res'd.
GM: Please stop looking for loopholes and just pick something else.
Player 1: Waa! You're a tyrant!

Alternative c:
GM: Because I dislike the idea of talking cats--I can't think about it without being reminded of that annoying talking Meowth.
Player 1: Okay then, I'm playing a mute catfolk who knows sign language.
GM: But cats who convey words using gestures are just as silly as talking cats.
Player 1: Okay then, I'm playing a mute catfolk psion telepath.
GM: We're not even using the rules for psionics.
Player 1: Waa! You're a tyrant!

Alternative d:
GM: Because Player 2 has expressed a strong distaste in having a PC with fur in the party.
Player 1: What? Player 2, why do you dislike races with fur?
Repeat Alternatives B and C, substituting "Player 2" for "GM"

If anything, Pathfinder Society Core Campaign is fixing the perceived rules bloat.

These guidelines for reducing rules bloat are nothing but unwarranted rules bloat!

All the rules needed to adjudicate the system are provided in the ability. Casting time -swift action, resource to manage -mythic power, spells allowed -any arcane.

All the rules needed to adjudicate the fighter/archmage casting system are provided?

Cool, let's turn this thread into a play-by-post campaign where all of our character are 1st-level/1st-tier. I'll start:

I rolled up Fred, a human fighter/archmage. Fred is always paranoid that he is being threatened by invisible enemies, so before anything else happens in this campaign, Fred casts see invisibility defensively.

Let's adjudicate this action using the fighter/archmage casting system. Fred attempts to cast see invisibility (allowed by the rules) as a swift action (set by the rules) by spending 1 mythic power point (set by the rules). To see if this spell goes off instead of failing as a result of Fred casting defensively, Fred rolls a concentration check of 1d20 + [UNDEFINED].

Hold on, Fred's caster level isn't defined by arcane surge. No problem, we'll just use the caster level he gains from being a fighter. So we'll roll 1d20 + [UNDEFINED]. No worries, we'll use the caster level he gains for being human. 1d20 + [UNDEFINED]. Er, um. The default caster level for any Pathfinder character? 1d20 + [UNDEFINED].

Huh. I don't have all the rules I need to adjudicate the first action I attempted using the fighter/archmage casting system. Relying solely upon the RAW, nothing in that system can tell me if a spell my fighter/archmage is casting defensively succeeds or fails. The RAW system provides no rule that can be used to resolve that (rather common) spellcasting action.

---

On a completely unrelated note, it's been a while since I've seen anything posted by Successful Troll is Successful. I wonder what insight that guy could provide into the many issues being debated in this massive thread. Successful Troll is Successful always had such amazing insight into these sorts of discussions.

That is precisely the problem, though. "You can cast any one arcane spell" is in one sentence. All the meanings we are supposed to infer are locked behind a couple of gates that start with, "If." Of course we are supposed to read the whole thing together. But the whole thing together does not restrict characters who are neither prepared nor spontaneous casters.

On its own, the phrase, "You can cast any one arcane spell," does not grant anyone the ability to cast spells. To resolve an action using the "Casting a Spell" rules in the Core, you must have a defined caster level available in case you are required to make an unexpected concentration check. The phrase in question does not, on its own, define a caster level. To rule that the phrase in question allows non-casters to cast spells, you have to invent an unwritten house rule that provides the information you must have available when resolving any "cast a spell" action. You literally cannot make that ruling without also inventing a house rule.

In the same way, the hypothetical rule, "Your attack deals sneak attack damage even if your opponent is neither flanked nor denied its Dexterity bonus to AC," does not, on its own, grant any character the ability to deal sneak attack damage. Sure, it says, "Your attack deals sneak attack damage," but to resolve a sneak attack using the Core definition of the sneak attack ability, you must have a defined amount of sneak attack damage available in case your attack hits. The phrase from the hypothetical rule does not, on its own, define your amount of sneak attack damage. If you rule that the phrase grants sneak attack damage to characters without sneak attack, your ruling requires you to invent an unwritten house rule defining the amount of that damage. You literally cannot make this ruling without also inventing a house rule.

If your interpretation of a written rule requires you to invent an unwritten house rule in order to resolve whatever it is your ruling allows, you are no longer talking about RAW. You are talking about house rules you are inventing to handle contingencies not covered by anything in the RAW. That is an instance of the RAW not defining something, not an instance of the RAW letting you do something broken.

Devil's Advocate wrote:

Check it out, everyone! The Eschew Materials feat lets fighters cast unlimited 9th-level spells!

Eschew Materials wrote:

Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

See that! "You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less..." It says it right there in the first sentence. And it doesn't say that spells you cast require you to spend spell slots or mythic power. As long as it's a spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less, you just cast it for free whenever you want.

Interestingly enough, the reason this doesn't work is because it doesn't provide a mechanism for casting spells. Arcane surge does provide a mechanism.

Arcane surge does not provide a mechanism for casting a spell any more than Eschew Materials does.

A mechanism for casting a spell would have to explain how it interacts with all of the rules contained in the section of the Core Rulebook entitled "Casting a Spell." Those rules, as a group, are the definition of what casting a spell is in Pathfinder.

From a rules perspective, an ability that says "you can cast a spell" is not spellcasting. Spellcasting is what happens when you perform an action allowed by that ability and also go through the process described in the "Casting a Spell" section to resolve that action.

Note that the rules in the "Casting a Spell" section repeatedly reference caster level. An ability that does not define a caster level cannot be used as a mechanism for casting a spell because it does not provide enough information to resolve the action it supposedly allows.

Also, you cannot bypass this mechanical defect by always using your action to cast a spell that is caster level independent, because concentration checks still depend upon caster level and can occur even while you are casting a spell that is caster level independent.

In fact, any time a PC casts a spell, the player has no way of knowing if a concentration check will be required. There could be a hidden opponent ready to cast a spell that creates a weather effect if you cast a spell, necessitating an unexpected concentration check.

The so-called spell casting mechanism you are proposing for arcane surge literally cannot tell you, at the time your character begins casting any spell, if your GM will have sufficient information to resolve your action using the the "Casting a Spell" rules.

Your proposed mechanism cannot ever guarantee that it will allow you to use the "Casting a Spell" rules to resolve your spell, so it is not a complete mechanism for casting a spell. It is also not RAW, because the written rules you cited do not contain enough information to implement your proposed mechanism. If a mechanism invokes things that are not actually defined anywhere in the rules, it isn't really a "rule as written."

Check it out, everyone! The Eschew Materials feat lets fighters cast unlimited 9th-level spells!

Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

See that! "You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less..." It says it right there in the first sentence. And it doesn't say that spells you cast require you to spend spell slots or mythic power. As long as it's a spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less, you just cast it for free whenever you want.

Also, the Quick Draw feat lets you draw a weapon even if you have no free hands or other prehensile limbs! It says, "You can draw a weapon as a free action..." It's granting you the ability to draw weapons even if you would otherwise be physically incapable of drawing weapons! After all, the ability to physically draw weapons is not a prerequisite for this feat, and the feat explicitly grants you that ability! If you have no available hands, you can just telekinetically draw your weapons!

Well, either that or an ability that says, "You can do X without doing Y," is granting you the ability to ignore Y whenever you do X, not also granting you the ability to do X. But that's crazy talk. That argument assumes that the English language grants readers the latitude to consider context and common sense when determining which of two clauses within a sentence is dependent upon the other. And, as we all know, the English language is an infinitely precise computer language, any sentence of which can have only one meaning when parsed, regardless of context.

Well, that's a pretty heavy-handed way to break an economy. If the only way you can make a measurable number of poor people in the economy is a plague or similar-scale event, I consider my point proven.

With the possible exception of war, disease is the biggest cause of financial ruin in human history. It has been since ancient times, and medical expenses due to illness remain one of the single largest impediments to economic growth to this day.

When world building, unless you plan on ignoring all of human history and numerous current events, you really do have to factor the costs of dealing with diseases into your economic calculations.

It's basically impossible to be "poor" in Pathfinder. If you do them maths, any measurable level of any useful skill gives you an "average" lifestyle. The standard trope of starving sons of toil buried under tons of soil? Doesn't hold up if you crunch the numbers.

Sure, everyone with even a little skill can afford an Average lifestyle... right up until the plague hits. Then everyone owes the local priest over a year's salary for remove disease spells. Thanks, Obama.

When I read the name of this thread, I was hoping Magic: The Actual Problems would be a spin-off version of Magic: The Gathering that uses nothing but reprints of cards that are known to be broken.

Barbarian and Bloodrager and the Mutation Warrior things all show that you can do a Melee type who has a variety of combat buffs without breaking the game. But there just isn't currently an option like that that has dragon-themed buffs.

Pathfinder does have a straight martial with dragon-themed buffs.

The draconic bloodrager is literally a martial who (partially or completely) transforms in a dragon for short periods of time. Depending on his level and the spell he chooses to activate upon entering a bloodrage, he gains some combination of a bite, claws, wings, a breath weapon, resistances, DR, fear effects, and/or Large size. If you take the crossblooded rager archetype to mix in the arcane bloodline, you can even turn into multiple different types of dragons at sufficiently high level.

You may not like that implementation of your concept, but you cannot, in good faith say, that the concept itself doesn't exist in Pathfinder.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, 'KISS with the RAW' is not an unreasonable policy for most DMs. It takes a lot of system mastery to know which rules and restrictions exist for what reason, and which ones are safe to change.

Good thing the RAW actually do include explicit advice for GMs who are wondering if they can add spells to existing spell lists without breaking the game. It's on page 220 of the Core Rules, as quoted up-thread.

The rules of the game explicitly state that GMs should feel free, at their option, to add new spells to existing spell lists (specifically the bard and sorcerer spell lists). That is what it says in the Core Rules.

So let's review some optional rules of the game:
1) Rules for archetypes: Not in the Core Rules.
2) Rules for traits: Not in the Core Rules.
3) Rules for expanding spell lists: In the Core Rules!

If you want to add a spell to the bard or sorcerer spell list, the Core Rules say you can do it if your GM allows it (page 220). For comparison, the Core Rules say essentially the same thing about taking prestige class levels (page 374) and playing tieflings (page 406).

The Core Rules say you can play a tiefling with GM permission.
The Core Rules say you can take prestige class levels with GM permission.
The Core Rules say you can add a spell to your bard or sorcerer spell list with GM permission.

All three of those optional rules are equally valid according to the Core Rules. For comparison, archetypes, which seem to be almost universally accepted as valid character options, are not explicitly allowed by the Core Rules. Adding a spell to a spell list with GM permission is more core than taking an archetype with GM permission.

From the Core Rules, page 220:

Adding Spells to a Sorcerer's or Bard's Repertoire: A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time she attains a new level in her class and never gains spells any other way. When your sorcerer or bard gains a new level, consult Table: Bard Spells Known or Table: Sorcerer Spells Known to learn how many spells from the appropriate spell list she now knows. With permission from the GM, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they come across while adventuring.

Again, that's a quote from the Core Rules, page 220. (Emphasis mine.)

With GM permission (as allowed by the RAW without ever invoking Rule 0), your bard absolutely can learn gravity bow.

Deadshot Deed is not as good as Pummeling Style because Guns>>>>>Unarmed Strikes.

Who needs the deadshot deed? Just use Pummeling Style to punch bullets through your target's ribcage.

The 5e PHB is Amazon's Best. Selling. BOOK. now.

And right behind the PHB on the Amazon bestseller list is the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Clearly, we are witnessing the ultimate popularity contest in the history of tabletop gaming. Is D&D the more popular pastime, or will it eventually be overtaken by writing term papers?

EDIT: Actually, both are now losing to a critically acclaimed novel by Gayle Forman. I can't wait to see how her cutting-edge game mechanics "change the way [I] look at life, love, and family."

Well, whatever the [Redacted] class is, let me be the first to say what we're all thinking:

[Redacted] is the final nail in the rogue's coffin. The rogue class was already the weakest in the game, and the [Redacted] only makes it worse. Anything you can build as a rogue you can shoehorn into the [Redacted] class instead, and doing so makes a better rogue than the actual rogue.

Secret Wizard wrote:

Oh, PF has a million hexes for a Witch to choose? Why do they all get Slumber Hex?

Because it's hilariously overpowered.

That, too.

Oh, PF has a million hexes for a Witch to choose? Why do they all get Slumber Hex?

Because they can choose a new hex on 2nd level. Then choose a feat on 3rd level. Then choose another hex on 4th level. Then another feat on 5th level. Etc.

When you get to pick eleven hexes and ten feats in twenty levels, one "obvious" choice at the start doesn't require you to give up very much flexibility. You're still picking twenty things in twenty levels.

Repeat after me: Author Fiat. And willing suspension of disbelief. Mechanics make willing suspension of disbelief not work. If you can't do something, you can't do something. No matter how cool it might be in a book.

Unless, of course, you're using the Fate System, where fiat is built into the mechanics.

If you're playing Batman in a game of Fate, you can literally declare that your contingency plans anticipate and counteract all of Superman's high-speed, long-range attacks by spending a Fate point and invoking, "I'm Batman."

I have problems with the aesthetics of a calling a non-mounted warrior a "cavalier."

Even if he supports King Charles I during the English Civil War?

If it weren't for the absence of slaad, would we have proteans?

Am I the only one who read that, "If not for the absence of salad, would we have proteins?"

If only there were a mechanic in the Pathfinder game that could do away with all of these fiddly mathematics by assigning an abstract, numerical difficulty to each in-character calculation a caster would make when using this feat. Then, instead of performing a bunch of metagame, out-of-character calculations to resolve an in-character action, a player could just roll 1d20, add any relevant modifiers, and compare the result to the assigned difficulty.

Too bad no mechanic like that exists in Pathfinder... What's that Jim? A mechanic like that does exist in Pathfinder? And it's the central action resolution mechanic of the entire game system? So instead of all this gonzo number crunching, this feat could have just assigned difficulties to various spell levels and required casters to make ordinary skill checks targeting those difficulties?

Huh. When you put it like that, this entire feat seems completely inefficient and regressive. Who knew?

I've had it with all these mythic monsters. I'm trying to run a gritty, 5-point-buy, 1st-level commoner game, and all I'm seeing in this week's preview is an overpowered CR 2 monstrosity.

And if the pipe fox is CR 2, how powerful is the guy who killed the pipe fox's mother? He'd have to be, like, 3rd level or something. This power creep is appalling. The pipe fox from literature could just as easily have been an ordinary fox wearing a Naugahyde belt.

How am I even supposed to run this monster? I mean, it has an ability called compression. Sure, compression is described in full in the Universal Monster Rules, but then I have to actually read Bestiary 4 to run a monster from Bestiary 4.

If all of the monsters in this bestiary are like this, I'm going to have to burn an effigy of SKR on a pyre made from all my Pathfinder books and never again buy anything published by Paizo until at least the end of next month.

Devil's Advocate wrote:

Dismemberment is Beowulf's finishing move, not Grendel's.

Grendel dismembered Hrothgar's warriors. Beowulf returning the favor was poetic justice.

I stand corrected.

The translation of Beowulf I read gave the impression that Grendel was mutilating the corpses of the warriors he killed, not actually dismembering them alive.

So am I the only one who's disappointed that Grendel is ripping people's arms off, not the other way around?

Dismemberment is Beowulf's finishing move, not Grendel's.

Orc Blood: Half-orcs count as both humans and orcs for any effect related to race.

And there's the inflexibility.

And his inflexibility isn't preventing his group from choosing which of many possible campaigns they should run, so the problem is... ?

EDIT: ninja'd by TOZ

Player 1: "can we play a pirate campaign?

Player 2: "dude that would be awesome!
Player 3: As long as I can play a kitsune i'm fine with anything
Player 4 (notice we don't call him a dm because there's no campaign yet): I can run one with no kitsunes because its pure tolkein!
Player 3: that blows monkeysauce for me... anyone else hate the idea of my kitsune in a pirate campaign?
Player 2: dude that would be awesome!
Player 1: I dont care as long as I get to play a crafter for profit
Player 4: *chokes on his own bile*
Player 3: whaddya say there mister 'super thinks he's got such a great campaign planned' the tolkein lover? is that going to ruin your precious plot? I mean how could it if you're so awesome...
Player 4: *jumps out the window and runs screaming into the night*

*Players 1 through 4 roll initiative*

If you ban all exotic races, and they complain because all of them wanted to play an exotic race, this is a good sign they were not interested in a "no exotic races" campaign to start with, but you forced one down their throats because that's what you (and no one else) wants.

The GM "forced" a campaign "down their throats"? What sort of gulag are these players living in that they are chained to the table and only given food and water if they dance for the GM?

The GM says, "Here's the campaign I want to run." Any player who then makes a character for that campaign is willfully agreeing to play in that campaign. (Assuming the GM isn't the "surprise, you're all were-tigers" guy who tricks you into playing by not telling you what the campaign is really about. And even then, you can leave at any time if you aren't having fun.)

There's no gun to the players' heads. Any or all of them can walk away or sit it out if the campaign doesn't sound fun. No one can "force" a campaign "down their throats" simply by offering to run a campaign a given way.

The only asymmetry in power in this situation results from an asymmetry in the value of the services being provided by the two people involved. The GM is doing lots of prep work to provide an ongoing service to the player. The player is consuming that service. As the provider, the GM is free to outline the terms under which that service will be provided. As the consumer, the player is free to either accept those terms or to reject them and not partake of the provided service.

In the context of gaming, no one player has leverage to make demands of the GM on their own because, frankly, they aren't providing anything to the GM. Only the entire player base available to the GM as a whole provides any sort of benefit to the GM. So long as the majority of players like how the GM runs things, the GM has all of the tools needed to have fun running a campaign.

That's not me being harsh. That's just supply and demand.

How much should a pistol cost in a campaign with no guns?

In a campaign that does allow guns, a pistol costs 1,000 gp. How much should that cost increase in a campaign where guns don't exist?

Someone can make the biggest, best hamburger in the world, but if they gripe and moan when I want to put any sort of condiment on it (my preferred is barbecue sauce, for future reference) on it, I'm probably not going to eat at their table again.

If I make the biggest, best hamburgers in the world, and you insist that I change my recipe by mixing your favorite condiment into the ground beef before I grill it up and serve it to everyone at my table, I don't see how you leaving when I refuse to change my recipe is somehow punishing me.

I'm just going to leave this here. The horror, the horror.

See also: any episode of "Cops" where police officers talk to the camera while driving their patrol cars.

I'm shocked. Shocked and appalled. Louis is a danger to everyone around him, and will one day lead to the senseless deaths of a minivan full of orphans and nuns. And when he does, he's just going to laugh maniacally and tell us all that his marketing plan is working perfectly. This man is clearly a sociopath with no regard for human life.

Also, he spells things wrong on the internet.

D&D Next is going to crush Pathfinder; the Mythic playtest was a sham; I'm growing increasing concerned about rules bloat; I'm sick of all these Asian classes; SKR couldn't design his way out of a paper bag; Paizo needs to stop making rulebooks and go back to making adventures; they abandoned the spirit of D&D when they created rules for guns; we need more PFS events tailored specifically to male gamers, with no girls allowed; I'm rage quitting this messageboard because I'm tired of being attacked by overzealous Paizo fanboyz; Razor Coast!

#IAmNotATroll

Rest assured if a Developer or FAQ were to clarify it I would be on board with the ruling.

Why are people still debating blood money? My previous post links to the line from the Core Rules which explicitly states that you must manipulate the material components of a spell to cast a spell. That's the same sentence in the Core Rules which says you must gesture to cast a spell with somatic components and speak to cast a spell with verbal components. So you can't argue that the manipulation of the material components only happens in the first round of casting without also arguing that somatic and verbal components only happen in the first round of casting.

Per the Core Rules, blood money doesn't work on a spell with a multiple-round casting time.

So can we all just agree that blood money doesn't work on spells with multiple-round casting times unless you are duplicating them with wish spells and move on?

On an unrelated note regarding explosive runes, is there somewhere in the rules where it states what sort of action it is to read text?