Search Posts
I guess they are trying to set a precedence for when spells grant feats. This is weird and is not a conclusion that you can draw from the spell or general spellcasting rules. This FAQ is more errata than anything else. I don't expect this FAQ to stand.
Is lava flammable? If not, does it count as water? Would it extinguish a fire elemental? Could you swim through it? Yes I did dig through your post to try to gain insight into the mind of someone who thinks GMs should ignore mechanics and kill players on a whim.
Didn't someone say AoOs were a thing in 2ed too?
Aye, it needs to specifically include giving you the ability to take 10 with ones that don't in some manner. If it only lets you take them while under stress then it does nothing for UMD because it specifically doesn't allow taking 10. "even if" != "if and only if"
It doesn't allow you to take 10 with a skill that doesn't allow take 10. Once again. False. Misreading "even if" as "if and only if" does not make you correct.
"even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so"= flavor text. Not true. That is a rule. Without that part of the line you couldn't take 10 on skills while there are stress or distractions. Skill mastery only let's you take 10. That part of the sentence actually overrides the general rules. Without it, the only point of the ability would be to take 10 on UMD in non-stressful, non-distracting situations.
Do people actually mess with special armor enchantments before getting a +5?
Precisely, the reason I'd allow it in 3.5 is because the Warlock class gets an ability that allows you to take 10 on UMD even when distracted. However, that is not the reason you cannot take 10 on UMD. Thus in order to allow the Warlock class feature to actually do something, I'd allow Rogues Skill Mastery which uses the same language to work on UMD. However, that is 3.5. There is no Warlock to indicate that taking 10 is possible on UMD in PF.Then please kindly stop using the Rogue's ability to use UMD to get X when defending the class. UMD is something any class can do and while yes Rogues get Skill Mastery (in 3.5 I'd rule it works since Warlock uses the same language as Rogues, in PF I would probably not because UMD has its own reason for not being able to take 10 on it that Skill mastery doesn't cover), since that doesn't even occur until level 10 they are not especially good even at UMD. You only have the inverse of that ability in PF. "Unwavering Skill (Ex): You can always take 10 or 20 on class skills, even if threatened or in a hazardous situation. You can't use this ability with skill checks that don't normally allow you to take 10 or take 20."
Then please kindly stop using the Rogue's ability to use UMD to get X when defending the class. UMD is something any class can do and while yes Rogues get Skill Mastery (in 3.5 I'd rule it works since Warlock uses the same language as Rogues, in PF I would probably not because UMD has its own reason for not being able to take 10 on it that Skill mastery doesn't cover), since that doesn't even occur until level 10 they are not especially good even at UMD. Skill mastery's wording also did not change from 3.5. My GM sees no grey area. When I asked him why he responded with, "I read the ability." even after pointing out and explaining the supposed counter arguments. It's not a grey area. It's an area some people get confused about. The staff CL thing is a grey area. Being able to select UMD with skill mastery is not. Misreading "even if" as "if and only if" is also not a grey area. /rant I won't continue this line of discussion.
I want to summon storms and have an animal/animals protect me as i do such things. isn't druid based off CHA?No, druids cast off of Wis. Oh sorry I just assumed OP knew that. Tips for playing a druid: Read the whole class. Some classes you can skim, the druid is not one of them. It's one of the more complicated classes. It uses basically every rule in the game.
Then please kindly stop using the Rogue's ability to use UMD to get X when defending the class. UMD is something any class can do and while yes Rogues get Skill Mastery (in 3.5 I'd rule it works since Warlock uses the same language as Rogues, in PF I would probably not because UMD has its own reason for not being able to take 10 on it that Skill mastery doesn't cover), since that doesn't even occur until level 10 they are not especially good even at UMD. Psst: The wording for UMD is not different from 3.5. At least not in the parts you are referring too. And no, I won't ignore unique things the rogue can do (taking 10 on UMD) when comparing it to other classes. That would be a dishonest comparison.
Try playing the game rolling 3d6 for each stat in order.I played in a game once where the DM asked you to roll stats, in order, after you pick your class. That has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard. Picking the class after the stats makes sense. Picking before is paste-eating levels of dumb.
No, what I am saying is that WBL is just a guideline for 3rd & PF. Only as much as CR is a guideline.
It seems more straight forward from a GM perspective to me. 1) Know everyone's THAC0
The players wouldn't need to do math. It's all done GM-side, which sounds faster to me. Assuming there wasn't a million and one mechanics that changed AC and THAC0.
Actually that's Marthkus' logic. BNW is pointing out the flaws in your "I can use UMD argument." which... you yourself evidently don't believe. So... that's interesting to note.You can cast one cantrip once per day, using spell like rules(sorcerer-esque). Okay? Not quiet the same thing. Did I ever say that? Is calling UMD useful the same thing as saying it's as good as a wizard? Now a rogue with Bruce Wayne money could be as good as a wizard.
Other than the GM being a jerk and saying no. Huh. So this is that player entitlement thing I keep hearing about. No. Vague definitions are not fixed mechanics. Telling your GM that he or she is a jerk for interpreting those vague definitions differently than you makes you the jerk.
Eventually however, you'll get to a point where some lack of knowledge betrays you, and you're now dealing with a close friend, relative, or lieutenant of your disguise target. Then it becomes an opposed BLUFF check instead. There's no taking 20 on that. Some people here think you can take 10 on that bluff check and the guard can take 10 on the sense motive.
The only thing diverting attention here is somebody being deliberately obtuse. Oh no the GM has to interpret something so fundamental to the game! There might be table variation! How will my experiences be valid for forum references!? The horror... Would clear rules be nice? Yep. Would they be so nice that I am willing to pretend that the rules are clear and lie to myself about it? No.
im·me·di·ate iˈmēdē-it/Submitadjective adjective: immediate 1. occurring or done at once; instant. "the authorities took no immediate action" synonyms: instant, instantaneous, swift, prompt, fast, speedy, rapid, brisk, quick, expeditious; More antonyms: delayed, gradual relating to or existing at the present time. "the immediate concern was how to avoid taxes" synonyms: current, present, existing, actual; More antonyms: past, future 2. nearest in time, relationship, or rank. "a funeral with only the immediate family in attendance" synonyms: recent, not long past, just gone, latest More antonyms: remote nearest or next to in space. "roads in the immediate vicinity of the port" synonyms: nearest, near, close, closest, next-door; More antonyms: distant (of a relation or action) without an intervening medium or agency; direct. "coronary thrombosis was the immediate cause of death" synonyms: direct, primary More antonyms: indirect 3. PHILOSOPHY (of knowledge or reaction) gained or shown without reasoning; intuitive. threat
dis·tract·ing
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pretending these definitions are so iron-clad as to only reinforce the way you play the game is ridiculous.
I was in that thread, but that was not my challenge.
I didn't say that. Taking ten is a mechanic. If the GM decides you mean. The definitions of "immediate threats and distractions" are not explicit. Pretending they are is a reaching claim at best.
Yay, you don't prefer the take-10 mechanic. Good for you. That doesn't invalidate the fact that the rule does exist, and that it's an option for players to use. And if they do use it, it doesn't somehow become a wholly different game. I didn't say that. Taking ten is a mechanic. It's not meant for every instance of skills because it has limitations.
Except no one can know those rulings were made by a dev unless someone tells them about it. There is no longer proper documentation. I even looked through his threads and some of them still have a rules dev title next to them. If Paizo wanted his old rulings to be from a rules dev they could have left that indication. They did not do that.
Oh do explain why.
There is a difference between mundane and realistic. There is also a difference between makings sense and being realistic. I do want rogues and fighters to be mundane and make sense.
Thanks to the Downtime rules, one can become a lich with as little as 60,000gp. With the right traits, one can craft the phylactery for as little as 48,000gp.Sorry but there is more to becoming a lich than just creating a phylactery. It's not just paying your GP and BAM you're a lich. I doesn't have to be, but that doesn't mean it can't be. Trying to claim RAW on that would be silly.
To be fair, the second button has an average payout of $50 million. That honestly seems to be the better button to pick. I would take the 1 million every time.
I've seen someone describe their love for "D&D" is because it is a game where agency meets chance. Liberally letting people take 10 guts that aspect of the game. The complaint of non-heroic is why I don't like low levels. I want to be more than my d20 roll, but I don't want to do that by removing it from the game, and if I do (like with skill mastery) I want that to be a powerful mechanic that I had to work for (like suffering 10 levels of rogue).
His post doesn't say rules dev next to it anymore. So what he says cannot be taken as from a rules dev. Some of his post still do have the "rules dev" title by them. I won't assume that isn't on purpose. That doesn't invalidate his reasoning, but SKR quotes are not Word-of-God for RAW.
Roll a commoner instead with animal ally and boon companion. If you are going to build your character to not use class features, then you might as well not have them. At least this way everyone knows up front that you are going for gimmick build. There are ways to do what you want and be effective, just not with that stat array.
Current Favorite Rogue Build:
Focused Study Human Rogue || 10 18 14 14 10 14 || Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand, Stealth ||5|| Bluff,Use Magic Device, Perception||3|| Secondary Skills(4); Climb, Diplomacy, Disguise, Linguistics(max -1), Swim(1 rank)
Traits: Resilient(+1 fort saves), Indomitable Faith(+1 Will) 1 |Deceitful, Skill Focus(Bluff) 2 |Finesse Rogue 3 |Combat Expertise 4 |Combat Trick(Improved Feint) 5 |Skill Focus(UMD) 6 |Bleeding Attack 7 |Combat Reflexes 8 |Fast Stealth, Skill Focus(Stealth) 9 |Quick Draw 10|Skill Mastery(Bluff, UMD, Stealth, Disguise, Acrobatics) 11|Greater Feint 12|Opportunist 13|Extra Rogue Talent(Crippling Strike) 14|Hard Minded 15|Great Fortitude 16|Skill Mastery(Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand, Climb, Linguistics), Skill Focus(Acrobatics) 17|Iron Will 18|Black Market Connections 19|Skill Focus(Diplomacy) 20|Rumormonger He should probably just play a slayer though. A rogue can be a soul crushing experience for new players or old players or anyone who doesn't want to jump through hoops to be useful.
I keep hearing of some interesting mechanics, but what I don't hear about is the problems with 2e that are the reason people aren't playing it anymore. It can't be just because it's a "dead system". Many people still play 3.5. What were the problems?
I consider the lich powers just something you get for spending the money. In PF there is no LA, so I wouldn't have the lich fall behind in levels either. In 3.5 there were "paying off" LA rules, and the lower level you were the more xp you got, so eventually you would end up the same level as the rest of the party.
On the upside, he brought soda. A true team player.
*yawn* Rolling for stats worked in 2e because the game was designed to handle it. It doesn't work in 3.X. The only time I have seen it work is were the rolling for stats yields such a high average that each stat is only different levels of good. Try playing the game rolling 3d6 for each stat in order. If you want to be "hardcore" then go all in. None of this "my groups better than point buyers. We have CHANCE in our creation. Oh we roll 2d6+8 for each stat." *also clearly a flame-bait post*
1) There is table variation among some of the rules which naturally increases how much something is talked about. 2) There is confusion about "having the options to" and "having to" when it comes to using UMD. 3) Some people want to give the option no value because anyone can do it, while ignoring that spell casters get far less out of the investment.
When you use the staff instead of the wizard and the wizard then cast another spell, is that not something? The party is like "we need to nova", being able to burn those resources faster is being helpful.It is incredibly little. You could just as easily be a full WBL peasant carrying around staves for the wizard, or better yet another wizard with their own blasty stick. A barbarian pulling out his bow for that one range combat encounter is not worthless because the ranger could fire the bow better.
If your argument is so shallow that all you can do is laugh at other posters and assume their inexperience, don't bother. Can we agree that I haven't done that? I've gotten mad at rogue defenders for doing that.
Guys, trying to reason is not working and has not been working for a while. The only choice is to ignore. I get the feeling that Anarchy is looking for an argument, not a discussion. If you aren't contributing don't comment. You may disagree with his points, but your comments are harassment and bullying. There is little reason to try to persuade everyone to join your cyber bullying idea of giving this guy the cold shoulder.
I find that mid levels take the longest. Early levels tend to be quicker in groups that don't really like them. Late levels take longer, but fewer campaigns get there. When you use the staff instead of the wizard and the wizard then cast another spell, is that not something? The party is like "we need to nova", being able to burn those resources faster is being helpful.
The bread and butter is skill mastery which other classes have to use resources to compensate for the lack of.Something I have to ask here; is Skill Mastery the only thing for the Rogue to hang their hat on? An ability they don't have for half their careers? Since that and UMD seem to be your biggest sticking points. It also comes online when Int casters get really close to surpassing the rogue in skill points (my builds are only 12 per level). It's also the point when you need to start getting a sneak attack every round. Little things like fast stealth are also important, but I consider 7-9 to be the toughest area for the rogue.
So in other words for your rogue to work it requires two fairly important 'grey areas." I wont say you're wrong on the CL and UMD. I will say that everyone I've ever played with disagrees(as well as a number of people posting on this forum). So just to humor us how would your rogue+ comparison operate IF we were right? Nothing particularly changes. The UMD is a side thing. The bread and butter is skill mastery which other classes have to use resources to compensate for the lack of. They aren't playing like that rogue then. They still aren't a rogue with more options. Without their resources they are a rogue-. They have to use them to be as effective or more effective attempting the same play style. But since they are managing those resources, they don't have the same play style. I still probably would not play a rogue where such a thing did not work. The rogue builds I have come with a running list of potential "grey area" as in "GM ruling" things to talk about. Any one of those working a different way (like if people can take 10 on stealth when sneaking past guards while not having skill mastery), then rogue is not in a decent enough place in that campaign to be worth playing in my eyes. My biggest complaint with the rogue is that you can just barely get them to work at a satisfactory level. Which is a shame, since their play style is fairly fun.
A tool that you don't use doesn't affect your playstyle. Cool, but if you don't use those tools you are a rogue-.
Are we still ignoring the all day factor? If we are then is it just that rogues take less bookkeeping? It looks to me like it boils down to that from the transferable points of the analogy I outlined but perhaps there is some other factor I am missing.If there is anything else that you mean by the analogy I'm not catching onto it so you're probably going to have to point it out to me.If you understand how those two classes play differently then you know why these two classes play differently. The all day factor is important to play style, but is of less important to effectiveness.
If there is anything else that you mean by the analogy I'm not catching onto it so you're probably going to have to point it out to me. If you understand how those two classes play differently then you know why these two classes play differently.
If you really don't get what I am saying, then you are stating that you think Paladins and fighters play the same way, but the paladin just does it better.
Sorry, but despite my rereading I still do not understand the specifics of one style versus the other. I am afraid that my questions must remain the same, as I can not really discuss the differences between two things when I do not actually know how they are different. Yes so for that the UMD comes with other advantages that isn't always wasting gold. For example using the wizards staves for him doesn't burn any gold, since staves are renewable. Using the items that drop that no one else can use doesn't explicitly use up resources either. It allow the party to use those resources when they couldn't. The analogy doesn't completely apply because it is too simple to fully express everything, but should outline the fundamental difference in play.
Sorry, but despite my rereading I still do not understand the specifics of one style versus the other. I am afraid that my questions must remain the same, as I can not really discuss the differences between two things when I do not actually know how they are different. I'll try to draw an analogy that doesn't completely apply. Picture a fighter. Weapon training doesn't require resources to use.
The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
They both play differently.
I'm talking about homebrewing rules for when there are no rules. You called it bad design. If you don't mean it, don't say it.Oh, so it's bad design to not have a rule for every little detail in the game?No one said that either. Cut it out! The GM making a ruling is not homebrew. The GM making up mechanics would be homebrew. Both are the actual rules of the game, but most of us are talking about the PF general rules. No one actually plays general pathfinder though. They play their GM's game which happens to resemble pathfinder.
Common ground is: when the GM says "we are playing pathfinder" what can you safely assume the rules are?
|
