DigitalWino's page

It doesn't require an "official answer" because it's exceedingly obvious and clear as day from just a few simple rules.

Fair enough about your quote from Ultimate Intrigue. I will admit that I stopped reading the posts once it because people discussing it, which is my bad, I should have read everything. I agree that particular thing does clearly state the answer. But to say that it's "obvious and clear as day"... I disagree. It's obvious once you read that, yes, but I'd never even heard of that book before, official or not. And I'm guessing most people probably haven't read that book. Thus why there is always so much discussion when it comes up. Besides, before you get all high and mighty about it, keep in mind that you didn't know that detect magic could go through walls, despite the fact that it says it can right in the spell description. You might have had the correct answer to my question (and thank you for that), but most of the stuff here is just people discussing it.

I find it funny how I asked a simple yes or no question: has this specific question been officially answered? I said I didn't want opinions (which to me would include rules interpretations). And instead I got a bunch of people discussing how they interpret the rules and think it works. *Sigh*. Oh well, I kinda had a feeling this would happen, lol.

At the risk of starting a firestorm, was there ever an official ruling of any kind on this issue? I'm very specifically NOT asking for opinions or house rules (not to say that they're not valid, just that I've already read a bunch of that stuff), just wondering if an official answer was ever given.

I've only ever been in campaigns with 15-point buys (all of which have had parties of 5+), but you shouldn't have too much difference between that and a 20-point buy. What's the party comp? If it's mostly martials, then they'll balanced just by virtue of the fact that they're having to share gold and loot more thinly.

So far we have a catfolk bloodrager (arcane lineage), a druid, a brawler, and a wizard. Not sure of the race of the latter three, and the 5th person may or may not be joining depending if we switch what night we game.

When you look at the last boss guy, when talking about his stats it says he was destined to be great from birth, so he's built off of 20pts instead of 15 like everyone else. I suppose you could argue that the PC's are destined to be great as well.

As soon as we started playing Pathfinder (vs 3.5) and saw that XP wasn't used in crafting anymore, we ditched it and the GM just told people to level when it was appropriate. What I like about this method, is that if you go off of XP, someone missing a game means that they are behind, and I don't think it's fair to punish someone for having a life.

Our group is pretty experienced and tactical. I want things to be challenging, but not overly so. I'm thinking that they'll probably level normally the first few, then hold them back a level after that if I find that everything is just too easy for them. And yeah, as a general rule, most things will have max HP. If for no other reason than because it will be easiest.

I also plan on evolving the tactics of the enemies as things go along. I'm not out to get the PC's and kill them, but technically the enemies are. In our last game one of the PC's was a gunslinger. He could solo kill just about anything between clustered shot (DR only counts once) and touch attacks to hit everything. So eventually, as we started to fight smarter things, they knew he was a threat and went after him first. So I like the idea of the tactics of the enemies changing for the situation (such as having them focus fire as well), keep the PC's on their toes.

I'm going to be GMing the Rise of the Runelords adventure path, but rather than having 4 players, there might be 5. Originally I was going to have people make their characters using 20pts, or 15pts if we have 5 players. But then I read something that made it look like the adventure was based on the characters being 15pts. So I'm wondering if I should lower the points a little bit if we have 5 players. Thoughts?

Edit: In case it matters it's the Anniversary Edition, so single hard back book with everything retuned for Pathfinder.

No matter how many times it's said on the forums, it doesn't make a wrong statement right. Ninja is an alternate class of the rogue, NOT an archetype. You won't find "the official post" because it does not exist.

Sorry... alternate class. This goes to the point of needing to come up with firm/specific terms that are uniform across the line. I mean what is the difference between an "archetype" and an "alternate class" in Pathfinder? If you look up archetype it talks about alternate class features, and if you look up alternate class, it brings up the section for alternate class features and talks about choosing an archetype and how you have to use all of it's alternate class features. So as far as I can tell, there is no difference and the two terms are interchangeable.

I agree, they really need to come up with a better way of referring to things. I mean base class vs core class? The difference is that core classes are in the main book, base classes aren't. That doesn't make sense. The only reason why I care about the ninja is the favored class. On it's own, there are no listed favored class options for the ninja. But as an alternate for a rogue, then you can take the rogue favored class options.

And I suppose if I was paying attention I would have also noticed that under Role for the ninja in the ultimate combat book it even says, "The ninja is an alternate class for the rogue core class." Thank you for the prompt response though :-)

So I've read in various forum posts that ninja is an archetype of rogue, which makes sense. But I was wondering if anyone could point to me what book or official post that is mentioned in. That way when I go to my GM and tell him that I'm taking Rogue as my favored class and getting rogue talents, I can point out to him where it officially says that a ninja is a rogue.