Johnico's page

388 posts. 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist.

1 to 50 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Alarox wrote:

Precedence from 1E would lean toward yes, you are considered your own ally.

FAQ: You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, “your allies” almost always means the same as “you and your allies.”

I'd be hesitant to use 1e precedence to answer rules questions about the playtest/2e. It's a completely different game, after all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
The 14th level abilities from this and the fighter blog seem very... restrained. Hope they didn't tone down things too much.
Instant Opening might not seem as cool as it actually is because it might be easy to assume that it requires some kind of check (or a failed save, or a roll of some kind) in order to work. But it actually works automatically. So one action from you equals two rounds of AC debuffs and all your sneak attack-related favorites. And it's not flanking, so all-around vision-type abilities won't help them.

That isn't why it seems underwhelming. It's the 14th level part. The average campaign is long over. Most folks won't ever see it in play.

I'm really not sure about the feat spam. Can't tell yet if they're going to be trivial, traps (some certainly are, like the storm domain power for druids), or just fifty-eleven things to keep track of, but handing them out every 1/2 level or level, they don't seem like they're on a scale where they can be meaningful or defining.

Plus, if they're general skill feats.. just having more of them doesn't make the rogue special. Just hangs the class with the obligation to spread itself thin on mundane abilities.

Emphasis mine. Stop it. You don't know it's a trap. There's not enough material in these blog posts to know the game's math, nor how it plays, well enough to know that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
With the same stipulations of course - not while in the pressure of an encounter or where failure has real consequences.

And, of course, the latter of these only being for taking 20. If failure has real consequences, you can still take 10. That's the point of taking 10.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A buddy of mine back when he was first getting started in AD&D had a DM tell him that there was "a white dwarf standing in the cavern extending his hand outwards", to which he responded "I go up and shake his hand," resulting in a prompt death by level drain. Little did he know that the DM actually said that there's "a wight dwarf standing in the cavern extending his hand outwards."

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Two things:
1) Slashing grace specifically works for one-handed slashing weapons for adding Dex to damage, but provides no clause to allow weapon finesse to apply to such weapons. So, in the case of a longsword with both feats you'd still use Strength for attacks but add Dexterity to damage.

2) Unless your players are legitimately diagnosed (is that the right term?) as autistic, don't use the term so flippantly to describe your players just because they like to follow the rules as closely as possible. If you must call them something, just call them rules lawyers.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Star Dragon Caith wrote:
Robert Gooding wrote:

This discussion has ranged in opinion from 1/3 cost to same price for a box of 12

Also you’re the go, you can hand them out like candy if you want

Yeah I don't think handing out too many grenades is going to throw your game balance out of whack. Give them 1-2 per 3-4 encounters and they should be just fine.

And if too many grenades does start mucking with the balance of the game, just A) hand out fewer grenades and B) if you lowered the price to purchase them too low, raise it back up some. You're already in house rule territory anyway with the latter.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand the problem with leveled gear, personally. What's the difference between a Level 9 Cool Gun and a Cool Gun that provides the same bonuses but is so expensive that, assuming you follow WBL guidelines, there's no way you can reasonably afford one before level 9-ish? It has the same effect either way, that you don't get the Cool Gun before level 9.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you want to speed up combat, have you considered porting in the Escalation Die from 13th Age? Basically, it's a big d6 that starts at 0 round 1 and increases by 1 each round until it hits 6. PCs and certain big boss types gain a bonus to attacks equal to the Escalation Die. Gets the same idea as your "after 5 rounds, everybody gets a +2 Attack and -2 AC" but in a simpler, more streamlined way and also makes the change more gradual instead of a sudden change.

I highly recommend you make some changes to your Fumble rules. I don't personally like fumble rules (whether you have them or not is up to your group, obviously), but I'd recommend adding some changes to make it so that martial characters don't get more likely to fumble as they level up (more attacks per round = fumble more commonly). A common method of doing this is to make it so that only the first attack each round can prompt a critical failure, so a fighter with BAB +18/+13/+8/+3 can only fumble on the +18.

Also, add something so that spellcasters can get screwed over as well when they cast. It doesn't make sense that the guy who swings a sword can screw up and accidentally cut his own head off but the crazy wizard goofing around with the fundamental fabrics of reality can't screw up just as hard.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One of my friends runs a game at the local middle school as part of an after school program too. They pay to play in it, so I'm assuming he's getting paid for it.

So, based on this and Cal's story, it seems that if you want to get paid to run your games do it as part of an after school program! :D

7 people marked this as a favorite.

My rule is gonna be "would I complain if Star Wars did this?" If I'd be cool with Star Wars doing it, it's cool for Starfinder. Which, basically, means a minor hand-wave is good enough for me to buy anything.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:

The two most optional parts, as they are not covered anywhere else, are the baseline suggestion of how many casts and that an aligned spell cast for an opposing aligned purpose always becomes an aligned action the same as the spell cast.

To clarify this part, do you mean that casting Infernal Healing (an Evil spell) to save somebody's life (a Good act) would make Infernal Healing good or saving somebody's life evil? I don't have the book, so I'm not sure which you're saying it says. :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as I'm aware, the whole don't sleep/meditate thing is a thing in several D&D campaign settings, but is not true in Pathfinder.

Elves sleep just like everybody else in Pathfinder, they're just immune to magical sleep effects.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me, the APs. They're pretty much the only reason I'm still running Pathfinder.

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
3) PLAY STYLE: Spontaneous action declarations; essentially trying to do something cool and thematic that isn't immediately covered in the rules. Things like "I attempt to flatten the charging group of enemies by flipping the bar table on top of them" or "I take out my grappling hook and attempt to snag the flying peryton's antlers so I can pull it out of the sky." Such declarations are invariably followed by multiple complicated nigh-impossible checks from the GM, inevitably results in failure, and then gets me blasted by the other players with responses like "you can't trip multiple people at once" or "why didn't you just shoot the peryton with your arrows instead of acting like a moron?" Far too many people have the "just kill it" mentality and they miss out on a lot of roleplaying fun as a result. What's more, when faced with unusual requests, many GMs go overboard with their rules (decreasing the odds anyone else will try anything similarly fun or exciting ever again) or just plain shut it down.

The tough part about the players doing wacky stuff (at least for me) is that I want to let them do it because it's awesome, but if it's too effective the really awesome one time thing will become just another standard tactic. You let them knock over a table to flatten a charging bunch of goons and it works amazingly well, they'll want to do that every time there's a table nearby. Or, even worse, they'll start carrying around a table for the express purpose of flipping it at people.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Spell Combat says:

prd wrote:
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty).
Then the section Touch Spells in Combat from the Combat chapter says:
prd wrote:
In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action.
And, finally, Spellstrike says
prd wrote:
Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell.

So, in summary:

Spell Combat lets you cast any standard action spell during a full attack.
When you cast a Touch spell, you get to make a touch attack as a free action.
When you make your free touch attack, Spellstrike allows you to use your weapon instead of a regular touch.

Putting these rules together, this happens:
I use Spell Combat and cast Shocking Grasp. The rules on touch spells let me touch somebody with Shocking Grasp as a free action, since I just cast a touch spell. I then use Spellstrike to whack them with my sword instead of just touching them.

EDIT: And/or read what KingOfAnything posted. :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just played the tutorial adventure, liking it a lot so far. Keep getting disconnected and reconnected to the PlayFab while playing though.

Not sure if it's my internet being awful or something weird with the game.

I've also tried just running off my 4G, because that's way faster, but it has the same issue. :/

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

This is a great example of what James Jacobs said about everyone playing the game differently.

We don't agree on much, so I'll just say this.

We both seem to agree that in terms of narrative power a certain subset of classes is dominant assuming equally skilled players.

I think this is a bad thing since I believe the game was advertized as an equal opportunity hero/villain simulator.

You don't think this is a bad thing since it meshes with your views that casters should have more power than non-casters.

Is this mostly correct?

Yeah, pretty much (except I also agree with you that if there is a martial-caster disparity, it shouldn't be advertised as a game where all classes are equally powerful - I just havent noticed that sort of advertising).

I think the main way it "advertises" that is by claiming that a 12th level Fighter and a 12th level Wizard have the same CR if the party fights them. Nothing as overt as having a bullet point on the back of the book that says "All classes are really well balanced!" :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's okay.

I prefer FantasyCraft and 13th Age for my d20 Fantasy, but I think they're both a bit too abstracted for my main group's preferences.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The conditions line is referring to things like Blind, Confused, and so on, not whether it will punch people on command. Punching people when told isn't a Condition.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Keep it fun. Try hard to read the table to see what THAT table thinks is fun.

And even more importantly, if you can't read the table, ask them directly.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It may have been the intent to cover foci, but the RAW says it doesn't.

It's not being overly literal to interpret "material components" to only mean material components. It is a distinct game term from focus, after all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:

And so another nail is driven into the coffin of gaming

You can not and should not be able to control some aspects of gaming just like in life

If some people on the internet not playing your way is enough to be considered a nail through the coffin of gaming, I don't know what to say.

This argument of "there are things you can't control in life, so you should just deal with it" is patently ridiculous, but I keep hearing it. I don't care if I can't control stuff in life. I'm playing a game (and not the Game of Life :P). I don't want my Barbarian to be permanently crippled in what I expected him to be able to do because of one or two or three bad rolls.

Stuff happening to kill my Barbarian in the course of the game? Fine. Being useless as a frontliner because I happened to roll a 1 on just a couple die rolls? Not fine.

I'm not saying you have to take the average or whatever. Keep rolling hit points if that's what you find fun. :)

But don't pretend I'm somehow a lesser gamer because I think this particular mechanic is bad.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, basically, your method of preventing spellcasters from stealing the spotlight is to just tell them "nope, doesn't work" with no rhyme or reason?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, if it is just a straight nerf, we just don't use it. We've already got the good Barbarian, after all.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ayanzo wrote:
Kot the Protector wrote:
They did try to break down the door to the processor and ended up being attacked by the orcs, dark stalker, ettin, and Kulgara while they were all confined to the tiny hallway.

"Got Rouge?"

A well balanced party is the key to success :)

How will make-up help them survive the dungeon? :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Daneel was just bringing up Staggered since the GM used the fact that Staggered specifically says you can still take Swift/Free actions while being restricted to a single Move or Standard meant that Nauseated does not allow Swift/Free actions, since it similarly restricts your actions but doesn't include the language allowing Swift/Free actions.

As the others have said, by RAW, Move actions are it. No Swifts, Frees, or whatever else.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except that this literal reading of explosive runes doesn't work (the dispel magic thing). There's nothing in that sentence that says Greater Dispel Magic doesn't work, it's only explaining what happens if you screw up a dispel.

Also, yes, Greater Spell Immunity makes you immune to Dispel Magic, but not Greater, because it specifically says you are immune to the one chosen spell. There is nothing in Explosive Runes that says Greater Dispel doesn't work. Saying "you can do X" doesn't mean you can't do Y, when Y is something you could normally do anyway.

I can erase my sentence with the eraser on my pencil, but I could also use white-out if I wanted to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Celanian wrote:
To stop explosive runes abuse, just use a literal reading of the spell. It specifically states that only dispel magic and erase can magically trigger it. It does not mention greater dispel magic. That means you can only dispel 1 set of runes at a time. The precedent is like spell immunity which makes you immune to 1 specific spell, but not variants of the same spell.

Greater Dispel Magic says it functions like Dispel Magic. You're really grasping at straws here. Also, that line isn't there to explain you can disable Explosive Runes with Dispel Magic, since you could anyway. It's to explain what happens if you fail.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Timtao wrote:

This particular adventure has been a little construct and undead heavy. The player of the rogue PC might well quit!

Just as a side note, the adventure being construct and undead heavy shouldn't be making the rogue want to quit. Both constructs and undead can be hit with sneak attack in Pathfinder.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

If I could change just one thing about the Rogue?

*looks at copy of the Advanced Class Guide*

*scans and prints the pages detailing the Slayer*

*pastes said pages over the Rogue pages in the CRB*

That about does it. :P

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Tabletop RPGs are weird. They're the only genre of gaming on the planet, that I know of, where some people actively oppose balance.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I love this feat because it's so absurd.

I hate this feat because it's so absurd.

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:

GM says: "I regularly have groups with paladins in them."

GM means: "I have lost all will to put even a remotely puzzling ethical dilemma in my campaigns."

Alternately means: "I've decided not to troll my Paladins anymore and just let them play the game." :P

GM says: "The bar maid seems incredibly taken with you."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valian wrote:

- 3/4 BAB classes, except for the rogue, do not really need multiple attacks. Clerics, Druids, wizards etc... they can beef up with spells and special abilities.

Yeah, they do. In Pathfinder, if your plan during a fight is to hit people with sticks or shoot them with arrows, you *need* those extra attacks in order to not be completely useless.

EDIT: Ninja'd by a Ninja

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only damage caused by blowing up 340 spellbooks with Delayed Blast Fireballs is whatever damage the Delayed Blast Fireballs themselves would do. A standard spellbook is not magical on its own, so all blowing it up would result in is a destroyed spellbook.

Even if they were, say, all Blessed Books instead of the standard spellbook, still the only result would be that the books are now ash and the Delayed Blast Fireballs do what they do.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Azten wrote:
I just checked the PRD and it has the line I put in bold.

No it doesn't.

There's an extra "resistance" there that removes the problem.

Still a possible issue with boiling working on the Red Dragon, but none with lava.

I still see it.

I'm looking at that screenshot of the PRD, second paragraph of "Lava Effects", second sentence, says "Immunity or resistance to fire serves an an immunity or resistance to fire, lava, or magma." Unless that's not the part I'm supposed to be looking at, it looks to me like it doesn't say that Fire Resistance 1 will result in total lava immunity.

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Larkspire wrote:
I ignore challenge rating entirely,except for counting up xp...but CR appropriate encounters are almost always a pushover (in my experience).

In case you didn't know, that's actually intentional. A combat of CR = APL is supposed to be fairly easy to deal with. It isn't until you get to about CR = APL + 4 that a fight is truly fair and likely to go either way.

As for the rules that bug me, personally... the whole concept of the "big six" and necessary magic items. Or, more specifically, that the game assumes you have the big six, but never outright states it, nor tells you what the game math assumes you have.

To use a somewhat extreme example, two 10th level parties, one who gets nothing but interesting magic items like Capes of the Montebank and Gloves of Storing and other things like that, and the other gets nothing but the big six, are going to be completely different in terms of capability. But the rules make no indication that that's the case. The closest thing is the suggestions on building PCs after 1st level.

What I prefer is either like 4e D&D where they basically tell you what kind of +s the game math assumes you have at a given level, or like most other RPGs where the game is designed so you don't need magic knick-knacks, they're just a nice bonus.

I love giving out cool magic stuff, I just want the game to tell me either A) We balanced this assuming they have +X gear at Y level or B) We balanced this assuming no magic stuff and anything you give is just a cool bonus.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And, even if you assume that NPCs use the Profession skill for income, that's (assuming they take 10, have it as a class skill, Skill Focus, one rank, and at least a +1 to Wis) still only ~9 gp a week, which is 468 a year. That's about quadruple Abyssian's number, so it'd take him *still* about 13-14 years.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Seriously, Loyalist, what is so hard for you to understand about some people not wanting to get super descriptive about the violence that's being caused?

I and my group don't personally dive into the blood drenching and guts spilling sort of descriptions, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't flatout call our games childish.

The level of condescension and "one true way-ism" you're displaying right now is absolutely astounding to me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking over it, it seems this would favor SAD classes even more than standard point buy already does. Just as an example, let me post a Monk and a Wizard using Standard PB and Your PB (assuming I understand your method correctly; my understanding is that it costs one per point over 10, 16 = 6 pts, 14 = 4 pts, etc.).

Normal Monk:

STR 15 (7)
DEX 14 (5)
CON 14 (5)
INT 10
WIS 15 (7)
CHA 7 (-4)

Your Monk:

STR 16 (6)
DEX 14 (4)
CON 15 (5)
INT 10
WIS 16 (6)
CHA 8 (-1)

Normal Wizard:

STR 10
DEX 12 (2)
CON 14 (5)
INT 18 (17)
WIS 10
CHA 7 (-4)

Your Wizard:

STR 10
DEX 14 (4)
CON 18 (8)
INT 18 (8)
WIS 10
CHA 10

At least to me, it looks like the wizard gets an even bigger boost than a monk does with this method. If my conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of how it works, I apologize for the faulty analysis. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
justmebd wrote:

4. The person who wrote the final encounter was probably determined via Thunderdome. Tell me it was Thunderdome.

Even here on the Paizo boards it seems that we can't get beyond Thunderdome. :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like so many other threads, I find myself understanding what Scott says and why he says it, but being completely turned off by *how* he says it (whether I disagree or not). :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see why not. The feat doesn't say the claws have any effect other than "you have them, they hurt this much." So go nuts with the Wolverine claws if you want to. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
EldonG wrote:

Take a look throughout APs. It's not always can be higher or lower. Did you get the point, though? 20 is very reasonable, come mid levels...and you simply cannot make it with a low Int. You're quite challenged if it's a 12...and that's very low level. That's thinking on your feet...being able to reason out something you don't know by rote.

Why would that be? Because the character is unintelligent...dull...stupid....take your pick. Again, I've played stupid characters...and I play them as stupid characters. That can be a blast...but they don't make elaborate plans...and are likely to foul them up if someone makes one for them.

Uh, no. A 20 on an ability check isn't "very reasonable" at any point except for characters that hyper focus in it. Heck, even the smartest human alive (Starting Int 20 +5 Levels +5 Tomes +6 headband = 36 = +13 mod) has a 35% chance of failing that DC 20 ability check to think on their feet.

And I see you failed to note that any Int check just to "think on their feet" makes characters that are at the peak of standard human learning (20 or so) are only 25% more likely to be able to "think on their feet" than the average man, and only 35% more likely than this "dullard" you're talking about. So setting this DC to "think on your feet" doesn't always stop the dullard while making the genius guaranteed to succeed, simply because of how small a range the numbers provide.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

settle into the waiting room... with my iPad and Baldur's Gate.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa. Hold up. Are you telling me that I can play Baldur's Gate on iPad? If you are, this is possibly the greatest news I've heard all week.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

More specifically, Mister Lion, go here.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Johnico wrote:

This AP is looking to have so much concentrated awesome that I squeed when the dots started to connect.

You hear that Paizo? You made a 6'3'', 250 lb. man squee.

Dammit Paizo, you made me do it again!

Seriously, though, I love the direction this is going. This is going to be SO AWESOME.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could Quicken the spells. It'll either make them take up slots 4 levels higher or tens of thousands of gold in metamagic rods though.

On the other hand, casting Mage Armor ahead of time isn't usually a big problem, what with it lasting 1 hour/level, but I can see the issue with the Shield.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, this confirmed it. This is the campaign I'm running after my online group finishes Runelords or my current one finishes Council of Thieves. I don't care if we already have a schedule set up involving Kingmaker and Way of the Wicked, this is happening. This AP is looking to have so much concentrated awesome that I squeed when the dots started to connect.

You hear that Paizo? You made a 6'3'', 250 lb. man squee.

1 to 50 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>