| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
BBEG: Hahaha...I know all about your plans. Before long you will...
Barbarian: Ha! Now I know you're lying. We never have a plan.
I always interpreted that part to mean you can't hide the rope within the extra dimensional space itself.
Wildshape: Eagle Companion: Polar Bear
I am surprised and ashamed in this community...that no one has yet mentioned how best to optimize the cock versus a succubus in a grapple.
Oh good, this nonsense is rearing its head again.
Know Direction -- worthless if anyone bothers to put a single point in Survival. The case could be made that Survival might not account for finding North when you are in a dungeon or cave system where the traditional methods of divining North from nature do not exist.
It's not all that complicated, really. Your choice of wild shape forms is going to be highly dependent on what kind of stats you have; what kind of druid you decided to be. If you are a caster-focused druid, pick one or two mobile forms like a hawk or air elemental. If you're a melee druid, look at forms that have several natural attacks like a tiger. Start small, and then branch out if you feel inspired to be prepared. It's not hard...you just adjust your stats and write it down in Word or on a notepad or something.
Based on what little information we have, Giantslayer does seem to be a little more like a dungeon runner type AP. But even based on the scraps we have at this point, I was able to glean the following from the teasers: Investigating mysterious deaths, treasures in a forgotten giant tomb, riverboats, orcs (rarely seen thus far), mountains, valleys, ancient temples, frost giant graveknights, allying with a red dragon... There may be (and are, I am sure) people out there who get the same level of enjoyment out of these things that you do from lasers and Cheliax. What I don't understand is the type of schadenfreude that compels one to wish not only that these people will be disappointed with a sub-par adventure path, but also assumes that this is some type of zero sum game, that in order for Paizo to make products that appeal to technophiles, the type of material that traditionalists enjoy must suffer. It's an odd kind of antagonism, and unless it's in jest, I cannot say it is good for the game.
That's an odd sentiment. Why can't both groups have fun?
Alright, this is my new favorite iconic. Wonderful, rich backstory. Thank you Erik!
Hey gang. My group and I got on the subject of touch spells, and, well, long story short there appear to be some discrepancies and general vaguery with the application of touch spells on multiple subjects, and the action cost of applying them. The Combat section of the CRB has this to say about touch spells: "You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. This is also reflected in the action chart, as it says it is a full round action to "Use a touch spell on up to six friends," and that doing so provokes an AoO. The conclusion reached by some at this point was that you could, for example, cast the original Bull's Strength (which normally is limited to "creature touched") on up to 6 friends as a full round action. Additionally, this makes it seem that, if you have a spell that allows multiple targets touched as part of the original spell (such as Water Breathing), the act of casting the spell and applying it to up to 6 allies consumes a full round. Ok, I can work with that I guess. The Magic section of the CRB has this to say about touch spells: "Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action." This raises a couple more issues. This seems to contradict the apparent intent of the Combat section rules. The Magic section seems to say that if you have a spell that normally targets multiple creatures via touch, you can touch up to 6 allies as part of the casting of the spell, which is a standard action. Furthermore, it goes on to say that if the spell allows you to touch over multiple rounds, touching 6 is a full round action. Now, I don't know which spells allow you touch over multiple rounds, but the sheer action cost of that last sentence doesn't jive with what they said just before. Are you meaning to tell me that I can cast a spell and as part of that casting touch 6 people, all as a standard, but doing nothing but touching 6 people is a full round? That doesn't make sense.
To my mind, there are three conflicting interpretations here, and I will try to elucidate them below as clearly as I can. For our purposes, only the first option assumes you can trade up action economy to let you affect multiple allies with a spell that normally is only "creature touched." Here they are: "A spell with a target of "creature touched" can be expanded to include up to 6 allies instead of one, by consuming a full round rather than a standard. Spells that affect multiple targets touched include the touching of those targets as part of the standard action to cast the spell." OR "When casting a spell that allows multiple creatures touched, the act of casting that spell and applying it to up to 6 allies consumes a full round action." OR "When casting a spell that allows multiple creatures touched, the act of casting that spell and applying it to up to 6 allies consumes a standard action, but if you can somehow touch over multiple rounds then the act of touching 6 allies consumes a full round." My personal take is that the first interpretation is too strong, and largely neuters the Communal spell line. Why have it a higher spell level and divide duration, when you can seemingly use just a full round to do the same thing and not divide the duration? So, brave Pathfinders, which is it?
Coming from a fellow GM (and player, when I get the chance), there is little as disheartening and frustrating than to throw the PCs against opponents they have little chance to beat, and then have the GM "graciously" fiat them out of it or pull a deus ex machina. Every once in a while it's ok, but this seems too frequent. There are only two of them, after all. If you want to push their limits, give them a larger number of minions and add to flavor. As a GM who learned the hard way, the whole "be intimidated by my edgy and dangerous gameworld" schtick gets old quickly. And if you have to use fiat to save them, they will (rightly) learn that it doesn't matter how hard they try, daddy GM is going to save them no matter what.
My characters are made memorable by the way they are played, not by text on a sheet.
Unclear until August. Regardless, any argument that posits one spell available to a specific race is ok for balancing a sorc against an arcanist is a non-starter.
This is not the greatest class in the world... This is just a tribute...
Huh. New monk/rogue, eh? Here's hoping for an upgrade...
If it's a singular ideal they're after have them draw power from goodness or the Light or whatever. I adamantly discourage bringing RL religion into the game.
What's this? Parents are (assumed) alive? No dark and angsty past? Well done, Paizo.
I, for one, welcome our new Arcanist overlords.
I view the "stock" monsters as more of a general guideline than "run as written." My own personal guideline is that if a monster has less than around 6 INT or so, I don't bother adding class levels. Anything higher than that is fair game, though, because that puts it at the general area a PC with a -2 INT racial stat could dump to. Unless a monster is super-specific (try saying that 10 times fast), I view the stock monsters as "commoners" of their society. Even the most primitive of societies have warriors, adepts, and experts in various areas. Heck, even many animal species have them as well, like ants (well maybe not adepts, but still)! I also view monster treasure as fair game to be used. Nobody is just going to be hauling around a bunch of coins naked. So add a level of warrior on that troll! Give him a Large longspear, chainmail, and Power Attack! :)
Although, at this rate I might need to hire...some additional staff. *puts on sunglasses*
That's an understandable reaction after running the gauntlet of puns. Don't worry though, I'll get these saps whipped into shape in no time.
Alright, let's spearhead this project before we get a barrage of questions, and hope it doesn't get axed.
Now, now, Kudaku. Those kinds of jokes are often a double-edge sword. I think it would be best if we just bury the hatchet.
Moreover, there is this quote from the Magic chapter. "The divine energy of the spell that the cure or inflict spell substitutes for is converted into the cure or inflict spell as if that spell had been prepared all along."
I will repeat my disclaimer of holding off final judgment until I see the finished version. However. Let's compare the Swashbuckler and Warpriest for a moment in terms of rough power levels. One one hand you have a d10 full BAB chassis that counts as fighter when selecting feats, that has a pool ability that is laughably easy to refill. It's not particularly hard to regain your panache with a class that gives you Improved Crit at level 5 and encourages you to use a rapier. To add to that, the vast majority of the SB abilites are "on" as long as you keep a point in the pool. Our group has had a SB since the playtest opened, and he has run out of Panache maybe...twice. On the other hand, you have a MAD d8 3/4 BAB class that is supposed to be the divine personification of war yet cannot qualify for fighter feats like the SB and Brawler can. His Fervor pool not only cannot be replenished over the course of a dungeon, for example, he cannot even get it back via resting for 8 hours. He is limited to getting it back at the same time of day. I cannot even begin to count the number of times I have run out of Fervor. The most recent nerf to the BAB aspect of Sacred Weapon now cuts into Power Attack as well. I dunno. I think that I wouldn't be as worried about the Sacred Weapon thing if I had some sort of acknowledgment of how quickly Fervor runs out (especially when you spend 2 points for a substandard Channel, or some of the other problems that were raised in the playtest. I still want to be excited about this class but I can't help but feel a sinking feeling. We shall see in August, I suppose.
On a side note, I would love to see illustrations of young Quinn/young Ezren. Sort of a TBT, if you will.
I wonder how differently things would have panned out if the thread was "Help, the DM is countering my illusionist wizard with a cantrip!"
6) most missions aren't time sensitive. And if I did start making everything time sensitive then they will start to resent me baca use they say I am punishing them for using detect magic.
The only problem here is that, IIRC, the PC who insisted on healing the dieing NPC was NE and probably wouldn't give a poop. Healing is resource preservation. If you're part of a team (extrapolated to mean army in this case), you heal your soldiers because you spent a great deal of resources to feed and train them, and you don't want them to go to waste. Good characters heal because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside. Neutral/Evil characters heal to protect investments.
I recommend banning the players, because they are typically unbalanced and really could have used some extra playtest time.
I do not seek or avoid character deaths. If they happen they happen. But for those looking to avoid deaths, use hero points. It's a good way to sort have a "get out of jail free" card without having to play the npcs like softies.
In before "Stormwind Fallacy!!"
A fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard walk into a bar. You would have thought they would have passed their Perception roll.
It is within the GM's right to ban anything as long as that limitation is clear with the players. The player in question acted like a petulant child, and should be regarded as no great loss to your (or anyone else's) table. Game on.
Some rifles and a whole bunch of fireballs later the Elves were decimated and the dwarves stood for another day.So, with 10% of the elves dead, why didn't the other 90% still storm in and kill the dwarves? LOL +1 to you, sir.
Thank you for your service.
Agreement?! No, I need 4 more posts!! NOOOOOOO
Yes, feed the thread. Feeeeeed it. *drawing closer to 1k posts*
Wow, this is astonishing. I had no idea Tail Terror inspired so much passion and enthusiasm. If there was only some way we could harness this energy for something productive.
"Oh no, our corner case has been defeated. Let's search for an even more outlandish corner case!"
He needs to multiclass monk for the saves. : P
Here's how I would handle the situation. Me: Hey GM, I've got some high rolls on the stats. I don't want you to think I was cheating, so I am willing to re-roll if I have to. This will go over a lot better than just showing up on gameday and claiming the stats, because it will establish good will between you and the GM and let him come in on your side if the other players accuse you of anything. Best case, GM says "Nah, I trust you, and we all knew rolling gets skewed results." Then you get to have your cake and eat it too. "Worst" case, GM says "Yeah, I think it would be best if you re-rolled." You can still get high rolls. I do have to say, though, that this whole situation could have been avoided if everyone had rolled their stats in the open for the GM. Then there would be no question. I recommend this approach in the future!
The floating +2 has been one of the best things Pathfinder has done.
You keep using that argument, I do not think it means what you think it means.
You strengthen your tail. A strengthened nonexistent tail is nonexistent.
It abuses my sanity. :P
|