Fuzzy-Wuzzy's page

I've been clear this entire time that I do t think anyone should be FORCED to take poison. Yet multiple people have insisted on talking down to me as if I'm requesting that GMs take you by the hand the to coat it. It's absolutely dishonest and frankly downright pathetic.

but I think that unless you have a good reason , you're a bad teammate and that its unkind as a player if you dont have a legitimate one or arent willing to make concessions for your teammates for the sake of the mission. If you were actually in a joint effort to commence an operation where everyone's life is at risk you absolutely do owe it to your allies to explain yourself when denying your entire party an advantage---you are quite literally reducing chances of success and therefore survival, so you had better have a reason.

Teams should absolutely be making compromises for the sake of a missions success, not saying things like "yeah but it's my right to refuse". Of course it is. It just makes you stupid and selfish in 90% of the cases.

TOZ wrote:

What if I just don’t want to use it?

Unless you fill out the 'why I don't want to use poison' essay in triplicate, it seems some would find it a personal insult to the poison creating character... Clearly it's a dastardly plot if a group of players don't want poison... :P

So does misrepresenting people's stances in an attempt to ridicule them make you feel better about life or what's the deal?

I have seen plenty of players who don’t care about the people they play with, yes. Usually by demanding the others do what they say, such as using poison when they don’t want to.

Alright you should go play and refuse all buffs and heals from clerics! Those bastards expect to use their divine fonts and spell slots on other people.. how selfish of them.

haha reading the replies makes me glad I never looked into PFS. You guys don't care about playing with other people apparently. It's a team game and you're outright refusing to take advantage of a teammate's primary ability for reasons you can't even explain in-lore. As for it being complicated, it's really not. You just ask the details or let him answer any questions about the poison. It takes maybe 10 seconds and he's probably giving you the same poison the whole night, so it's easy to remember.

KrispyXIV wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Getting a bit lost in the weeds, so this will be my last comment on this, but part of what I'm saying is that I can't imagine calling a character an Archer or a Warpriest and not be talking about a particular sack of mechanics.

I mean, this is definitely a personal level choice though. Theres nothing "wrong" with in-setting/in-character referring to my Angel-Summoner as a priest or Cleric, and its not even a terribly inaccurate description of the characters background, role, and abilities.

Never said it wasn't a personal choice.

Which is why I'm slightly bemused that so many are interpreting my own personal preferences and choices as me telling them what they can and can't do, while they at the same time imply that I am playing the game wrong if I don't make the same choices as them.

I think the confusion is that you keep acknowledging that it's solely a personal choice but keep arguing against it when you're unlikely to sway anyone involved and all parties seem to realize that. I might be totally wrong-- it's just my read of things.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The problem is that the poison DCs don't scale and that their damage and effects don't scale, either. I mean, I guess they do, but they aren't as fluid or approachable as, say, proficiencies, which is the DC these things are meant to go against. So, you'll have plenty of levels where you're doing jack all unless the bad guys roll a 2 on their save (though even then if the DCs are up to snuff, but that's a system issue and not a scaling issue).

Toxicologist fixes this. And is otherwise a pretty solid research field, really, given that there's a Poison Bomb.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Not to mention, handiness and action economy. It takes an action to draw a poison (and a free hand, so if you're holding, say, a couple bombs, something's gotta go), an action to apply said poison to a weapon (or ammunition, though this can be done in bulk before combat, so it should last an entire encounter otherwise), which has to be adjacent to you, or also in your hand (referring which then leaves you an action to maybe deliver the poison with a strike, or move into position to do so next round? It's no less clunky than drinking potions or using bombs in combat. It's just awful, even with investments to help negate these drawbacks.

As Captain Morgan notes, I said 'before the fight' and did so for a reason. The good way for an Alchemist to leverage poisons is for everyone to get their weapons poisoned between fights. The poison will just sit there until used, after all, and is free (this is prohibitively expensive to do with non-free poison). This means that every combat a number of on-level poisons equal to the number of weapon users in the PC group will probably be used for a cost of 0 actions during the fight.

That's a fairly hefty damage buff to a party.

ironically people complain about the lack of an ability to buff up before a fight, but also completely ignore alchemist, who is arguably the best at buffing their party before a fight. Especially in early game where you don't have to worry about having magic weapons yet, having backup weapons that are poisoned are really strong.

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Imagine playing a buffing character and all your spells that would be a net positive for the party are refused by other players. Sure you cant force them but anyone who's not a complete jerk would make somevoncessions for things that would help the other player have fun. Especially if it helps keep them alive, too.

Imagine respecting the wishes of other people.

Imagine asking people first.

Imagine bringing along a self-sufficient character for those times nobody wants you in their character actualization.

---

Look, I obviously understand that a Cleric's healing is going to be appreciated almost universally.

But the point here is that the OP learned a valuable lesson, which is: you need to ask first, instead of just assume your contributions will be appreciated or even accepted.

The thing to watch out for is player entitlement - the notion that you have a right to be offended when your help is turned down. You actually don't have that right. You should always ask politely, and if you get a polite "thanks but no thanks" reply, you should be prepared to play your character without relying on boosting others.

This is just common sense.

Nah, maybe this is ok with PFS type people but in any real teamwork setting this logic is insanely toxic. It's not entitlement to want to be able to use your abilities in a game that explicitly says you can use those abilities. God forbid somebody wants to play a support character! Oh wait you're actually fine with support characters you're just using this logic specifically for poisons which has no in universe basis at all.

Look, I'm not saying a GM should force somebody to let themselves be buffed in any certain way. But undeniably in my opinion anyone who straight up refuses to let a person play their character style (and yes, supporting as an alchemist poisoner is an explicit part of the game) is a detriment to their table and also a completely socially unaware tool.

SuperBidi wrote:

Hello everyone,

I've had a recurring problem lately: I play an Alchemist in PFS, and poison is one of her main tools. As such, at the beginning of sessions, I ask who has piercing/slashing weapons so I can poison them. And I got a lot of players/characters straight up refusing poison. Even a Rogue...

You can't force your abilities onto other players.

If you keep having this experience, play something else.

PS. To answer your question, no, poison isn't evil. It's neutral. That still isn't a great argument to foist your abilities onto other players.

Please accept that "but I need you to accept this for my build to be effective" isn't a good argument. If your build relies on having others do something they don't want to do, then don't play that build.

Imagine playing a buffing character and all your spells that would be a net positive for the party are refused by other players. Sure you cant force them but anyone who's not a complete jerk would make somevoncessions for things that would help the other player have fun. Especially if it helps keep them alive, too.

If your definition of functional is "peak performance" no game with any amount of character customization and meaningful choice will ever be good enough for you

Henro wrote:

Why is Acute Scent so important to people and what does it have to do with the power level of casters?!

1st level feat trouncing low to mid level invisibility/sneaking spells and illusionary spells.

weren't you the one saying it was useless though?

The OP apparently has disappeared, which makes it look like I created the thread. Is there a way to edit the thread title or re-add the OP's context?

I think it changes the tone of the thread greatly that the OP has disappeared.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

"Someone could theoretically build a 7th level NPC that invalidates my first level feat choice" is still a bad argument.

What makes it a bad argument? That it's theoretical? Not at my tables, it's not, and I'm pretty sure my tables aren't the only ones, either. That it takes 7+ levels and a specialized build for a creature to counter it? This is like complaining that your 1st level Color Spray spell doesn't work on the big bad that's an Undead, or that you can't Power Attack a creature that's flying because you have to use a bow instead.

It's a bad argument because you're using it to say that Scent isn't useful. That's like saying Color Spray is a bad 1st level spell solely because it won't work on undead, or that melee attacks are useless because flying creatures exist.

Nobody claimed it was an auto-win 100% of the time. They claimed it usually worked and was quite useful. A rare theoretical build that counters that does not change this fact, and yet that's exactly what you seem to be claiming. That the existence of a way around it makes it useless.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

How dare a GM make adversity and obstacles in NPCs that require out-of-box thinking and problem solving. For reals, I might as well make the PCs 20th level and throw Level -21 creatures at them because I dare use their same tools against them to make interesting or dynamic encounters that aren't easy or predictable.

Using the system to create occasional obstacles the players must be clever to overcome is fine, but for scent to not be useful, you'd have to start giving all your Stealth using villains Foil Senses...and that's not creating fun, clever, puzzles any more it's a mean spirited move that makes an ability a player invested in no longer useful.

So there are two options here:

#1: You use Foil Senses only occasionally. In this case, your argument is bad because scent is still

...

You come off very adversarial and full of yourself when you make these statements, and I just wanted to let you know in case you weren't aware I.E "said nobody ever" "its a useless ability" "How DARE the GM give you obstacles" etc.

Also, if you perceive the zombies in another room while you're raging because of your scent, your rage wouldn't end because you're perceiving the zombies. That makes it very useful.

I actually think gaining imprecise scent can be game changing and very interesting. Please don't speak for everyone ever!

I think they need to make more feats to specialize into the schools. I just don't know how they can do it. Maybe make more focus spells based on that and give options. Like multiple choices of focus spells per school.

I think wizard is balanced but i think the lack of specialization does suck.

Whenever i read these threads it feels like im discussing pf2 with people who want to play pathfinder 1.5

They will list that casters are weaker, give specific reasons, and then if you try to point out that class balance is affected by OTHER reasons, they will say you're misrepresenting them or arguing dishonestly.

I'm honestly getting really close to no longer bothering with these forums. In play, casters feel very balanced in my opinion and I and other people have brought up tons of reasons. This reminds me of video game forums like WoW where people just whine for buffs even if their class is performing fine, solely out of greed or a misunderstanding of the game.

It'll be an eastern themed book. Not sure of the title.

Samurai - WIS based class that has proficiency with martial and advanced weapons. Uses abilities as "reads" that gives insight into their opponents and allows them to make attacks that deal extra precision damage while making perception checks. Can ignore concealed/hidden conditions because of prediction and reads.

Can choose subclasses to focus on archery, spears, or swords.

Shinobi- Proficient with specific weapons that have the Shinobi trait, Is about having specific ninja tools. The tools themselves are feats/features and the shinobi makes a few per day.

Could also be a rogue subclass but could have enough specific flavor to be its own thing.

Sage- A mystical spontaneous caster (4 slot progression similar to summoner or magus) that uses meditation and calmness to channel inner power. Could potentially be a monk subclass. High emphasis on focus spells, refocusing in battle through various meditation styles. Always of sound mind. Maybe has specific abilities to help allies remain calm and give bonuses to emotional effects. Could also have stances. I think a stance based spellcaster could be very interesting.

For myself, this all boils down to a frustration with the Vancian magic system. The limitation is too great or at least *feels* too great. The greatest modern innovation in tabletop rpgs to combat this? Cantrips that you can cast at will.

The ability to cast scalable cantrips doesn't offset this. Balance gets talked about a lot. However, I don't think this is a problem of balance. It's about human psychology. The feel of it. Maybe, mathematically speaking, casters are balanced. But it doesn't matter if they're not enjoyable.

I remember playing pillars of eternity where the Cipher class could cast more spells as he damaged opponents. Mathematically, he would be objectively weaker as he had to roll to hit with a physical attack and then roll to hit with his spells but the freedom of not having limited spells felt great. It's about feeling not maths.

But Balance is a far easier metric to analyze than fun.

I love vancian magic and find the limits to be the reason i enjoy playing the game. I wouldn't want to play a spellcaster that didn't have the spellcasting limits in the game now.

ExOichoThrow wrote:

If you're too afraid if using your consumables and you're a hoarder, that's your own mindset getting in the way of using tools. It's not the games fault if you're afraid of using items because they're consumable.

It's the games fault if you NEED them to keep up: if it's just to get you to the starting line, it's an issue. For instance, with the summoner playtest, if I need scrolls to get my low level buffs and utility spells, I consider the class a failure from the start. I have no intention to buy/keep consumables: the "tools" should be available in non-breakable forms if they want everyone to use them.

And to be clear, it's not "afraid to use them" but not literally throwing money away that could go to buy a permanent "tool".

the tools are available in non breakable forms. You can literally buy a wand or a staff.

You're not spending the money on weapon runes presumably as a caster, so you have lots of money to throw around. Whether or not you like the design is up to you, but it's objectively very balanced.

Its laughable that people think scrolls arent powerful. It sucks that you cant get runes to increase spell attack accuracy but consumables like scrolls especially at early levels are very affordable.

If you're too afraid if using your consumables and you're a hoarder, that's your own mindset getting in the way of using tools. It's not the games fault if you're afraid of using items because they're consumable.

A new domain spell is a new ability, and any new ability that would give a focus pool gives you a focus point. So it definitely gives one IMO.

I really dislike that Paizo isn't commenting on this, but I also don't think it would make a massive difference if they released one to be honest. an errata would be nice but its not like it's affecting my group's games.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Frankly, I'm surprised that people are so surprised. Unlike the alleged "majority" the "in this book" text did not go unnoticed by any of my friends or I.

I even posted about it, spreading the good word to others long before the ignorant made it into a big issue.

Quote:

from the common spells on the divine spell list in this book (page 309) or from other divine spells to which you gain access.

Yes. Your conclusion is perfectly accurate if you ignore the part that comes after your ellipses, which us "ignorant" read as future proofing and to which our GM, OP had ostensibly granted us access in the sanctioning blog.

It seemed pretty clear to me and mine that, that was regarding otherwise restricted spells to which you have Access (typically from a feat, ability, or GM).

Example: Fireball on a cleric of a nature deity.

So you ignored the four rarities in the rulebook, essentially.

"Common elements are prevalent enough, at least among adventurers, that a player is assumed to be able to access them provided they meet the prerequisites (if any)."

There was never any pre-requisite on the common spells from new books that they had to be learned seperately or anything like that. The book itself tells you that by default, you have access to the common spells on your list.

I dont think 99% of people who read the spellcasting section of clerics and druids would interpret it this way. Its needlessly complicated and frankly seems downright pedantic to even assert that you should have to learn common spells as a cleric/druid.

This is a joke and most people who play will never read the rules this way.

The whole problem would have gone away if Paizo had refrained from publishing any material labelled as "common" after the release of the CRB.

It would certainly have been easier to explain if clerics had a "prayer book" of spells, equivalent to a wizard's spell book.

This said, calling it "the most downright silly thing I've ever read" is pure hyperbolae. There are many examples of silly things that would rank higher, at least in my subjective estimation. Starting with non-magical healing in a single action with no hands and no materials.

YMMV.

The intent seemed really obvious to me and everyone I've played with that if it's common, you have access to it by default. This kind of reading of the rules is downright idiotic, to be honest with you. Yes, it specifies that you get the spells at page X of that book. It seems extremely clear that the reason it says that, is because that was the only book that was out as it's the original rulebook.

The team has been extremely clear on most issues like this and you'd have to be a fool in my opinion to actually start limiting clerics/druids in non PFS games. As somebody who was slightly interested in PFS, I now am not.

I haven't seen anything in the rulebooks that says you have to be within intitial range to sustain a spell. Sustaining a spell is not reactivation, it's sustaining. They would have called it reactivation if that's what it was.

Forbidden ward would become a nearly unusable mess if we played by those rules, as that means you have to stay within 30 feet of two different moving targets.

Summons also aren't particularly strong as it is.

Sustaining is very clear. You can't be fatigued, and you have to have a spell with a sustained duration.

"Choose one spell with a sustained duration you have in effect. The duration of that spell continues until the end of your next turn. "

Range isn't mentioned once.

I don’t know if this was aimed at me, but I agree with you.

Me apologizing, even though I never engaged in any of the behaviors you mentioned was just an attempt at moving forward in the exact manner you mentioned. Sorry if that seemed like attempting to change anything. Didn’t mean to silence, nor invalidate anyone

Now it's my turn to apologize, LOL. I was replying to Skyler.

And yet a GM can, and would, say "This is my [insert name of published adventure here] campaign" if they used any of the published adventure, or even just kind of based their adventure on it... or once I played in a "Temple of Elemental Evil" campaign wherein the only thing the GM had actually used was the title and the maps, with every other detail changed.

Are you seriously going t sit here and argue that even though you actively chose not to play what was in the AP, you still played an AP?

Just admit you said something a bit silly and move on. It's a nonsensical argument.

"True Strike fixes spell attacks" is honestly a weird position when you have spell lists that include attack roll spells and don't include True Strike.

Yeah, it's a very puzzling position. Does that mean they think spell lists without true strike should just never be used for spell attacks?

Deadmanwalking wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

The same could be said of a few more of the spells in the game that involve attack rolls because they also bring saving throws into the mix (specifically tanglefoot, but also ray of enfeeblement and disintegrate since those are attack+save spells).

Given that these are all single target it's a disadvantage rather than an advantage, since the spell needs to get through two...

Actually, the text of Disintegrate doesn't note that you need to hit: "You fire a green ray at your target. Make a spell attack. You deal 12d10 damage, and the target must attempt a basic Fortitude save. On critical hit, treat the save result as one degree worse" (CRB page 330).

The attack trait added to the spell in the errata doesn't change it too because it only says you need to roll against an AC.

Edit: Ray of Enfeeblement's text do note that you have to succeed in order to cause the target to save. I am not sure which of these spells need an erreta (but I hope Ray of Enfeeblement does) ;).

I would bet money that you have to hit the spell attack on disintegrate for it to have any kind of effect.