Merisiel

Marthkus's page

5,557 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,557 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:

Is the acid flammable? If not, count as water and the elemental will be extinguised.

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?


MrSin wrote:
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"


Avh wrote:
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.


DrDeth wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

Sorry, but it is specificly noted that you can't take 10 on UMD. Again, can not.

Skill Mastery does not let you take 10 in the selected skills. What Skill Mastery does is letting you take 10 in the selected skills if you otherwise could not because of stress and distractions that would normally prevent her from doing so.

UMD
Skill Mastery

Skill Mastery wrote:
The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.
"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?


Anzyr wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
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.

Eh I'm inclined to disagree not on 3.5 vs PF because I don't care to try to look up the 3.5 rules.

But Skill mastery explicitly calls out stress and distress as the things it negates and UMD flat out states it cannot be taken 10 on. A generous reading of the rules might allow you to do it but it's definitely a gray area.

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.

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."


gnomersy wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
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.

Eh I'm inclined to disagree not on 3.5 vs PF because I don't care to try to look up the 3.5 rules.

But Skill mastery explicitly calls out stress and distress as the things it negates and UMD flat out states it cannot be taken 10 on. A generous reading of the rules might allow you to do it but it's definitely a gray area.

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.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Lili wrote:
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.


Anzyr wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
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.


DrDeth wrote:
No, what I am saying is that WBL is just a guideline for 3rd & PF.

Only as much as CR is a guideline.


Ascalaphus wrote:

I think the weird part about THAC0 is it tells you what you need to roll to make a certain DC, while you're not actually aiming for that DC most of the time.

It's like rating your Climb skill To Hit DC 23. You're rarely actually making a DC 23 Climb check, so you're constantly calculating the difference between the actual and the theoretical DC.

The math isn't hard, but it's less straightforward than just adding your bonus to a d20 roll and seeing if that's >= the enemy's real AC. And other than nostalgia I just don't see any reason to do it in such a roundabout way.

It seems more straight forward from a GM perspective to me.

1) Know everyone's THAC0
2) Know monster AC
3) Write THAC0 - AC next to player names
4) Have them roll a d20 for attacks, if the die roll is higher or equal to the number you put next to their names, then they hit.

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.


Anzyr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
MrSin wrote:
You can cast one cantrip once per day, using spell like rules(sorcerer-esque). Okay? Not quiet the same thing.

It's the same as a Commoner who can burn all his resources to be almost as good as a Rogue is one, count 'em ONE of the rogues many, many talents and skills.

The Wizard can use magic, the Commoner can use magic. They are thus equal by BNW's logic.

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.

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.


HangarFlying wrote:
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.


LazarX wrote:
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.


Artanthos wrote:
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.


Artanthos wrote:
Marthkus wrote:


The definitions of "immediate threats and distractions" are not explicit.

Baring being deliberately obtuse, the meaning is clear.

Unless something, other than the skill being used, is forcing the character to act hastily or under highly distracting conditions, take 10 is an option.

Threats the character does not know about are not going to distract the character.

The act of making a skill check is not going to distract the character from making the skill check.

im·me·di·ate

iˈmēdē-it/Submit
adjective
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
THret/Submit
noun
1.
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
"members of her family have received death threats"
synonyms: threatening remark, warning, ultimatum More
LAW
a menace of bodily harm, such as may restrain a person's freedom of action.
2.
a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.
"hurricane damage poses a major threat to many coastal communities"

dis·tract·ing
disˈtraktiNG/Submit
adjective
preventing concentration or diverting attention; disturbing.
"she found his nearness distracting"

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Seems like anything that diverts attention would qualify. You can easily say that all sights and sounds divert attention.

Pretending these definitions are so iron-clad as to only reinforce the way you play the game is ridiculous.


wraithstrike wrote:

I have seen rogues not do these well, and non rogues such as rangers and bard do them well in actual play.

Just like the time you challenged me to build a barbarian that was good(not good as a rogue) with UMD, you assume everyone plays like you do. You did not know I already had barbarian made with UMD and diplomacy however.

I was in that thread, but that was not my challenge.


HangarFlying wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
I didn't say that. Taking ten is a mechanic.

Well, your tone certainly implied as such.

Marthkus wrote:
It's not meant for every instance of skills because it has limitations.

Yes, and those limitations are stated: concentration checks, caster level checks, any time the character is otherwise distracted, the rules specifically call out situations when the mechanic can't be used (take 10 on Swim checks in heavy seas, for example).

In every instance outside of those situations I just stated above, take 10 and take 20 may be used if the player so decides.

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.


HangarFlying wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

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).

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.


Artanthos wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

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.

Ruling made when we was a developer are not suddenly invalidated.

SKR cannot issue new official rulings, but all rulings made when he was a developer remain.

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.


HangarFlying wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

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.

*bertstare*

If any post ever deserved an epic facepalm, this one is it.

Oh do explain why.


wraithstrike wrote:

I have skipped a few post but the limits on realism also affects fighters, and it is not just GM's but players. Tome of Battle is being made fun of or discounted not because it was broken, but people saw the abilities as "too magical", but it gave the fighting classes options. They still did not compare to magic, but it was a lot better than "I hit things". Barbarians get some semi-magical affects now, but I think Paizo is playing it safe with doing that for the non-magical melee types because even when such abilities come up in "improve the fighter/rogue" threads, the "it is not realistic" argument always comes up. If we allow it Paizo will give it to us.

TLDR: The problem is here is not the people making the games but other gamers. We have to be more accepting of melee types being able to do special things.

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.


shallowsoul wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:


I can't understand why people have a downer on PB. Do people just like rolling dice?

I'm reminded of a pic I saw online the other day. Two buttons, one labelled 'You win $1 million', the other '50% chance of winning $100 million'.

It's a gambler's thrill, essentially, and not something everybody is susceptible to.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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).


Gauss wrote:

There is no rule against taking 10 for an opposed check. You can take 10 anytime you are not in immediate danger (such as in combat) or rushed. Stealth vs Perception are both situations you can take 10 in.

Example:
I am cautiously stealthing through a forest so I take 10. In this case Take 10 is because I am taking care to not step on the odd twig etc. (Which would be the result of a low roll.)

The guard is an active guard and is spending a move action every round to scan his surroundings.
He is Taking 10 on his perception checks (taking care to specifically scan the surroundings without skipping over peices but not taking extra time to do so..that would be Take 20).

Both are able to take 10 and it really becomes a matter of who's skill level is greater.

Here is SKR's guidance regarding Take 10 (back when he was a Developer)

In short, he said if they are not in combat or distracted let them take 10.

As an aside, I think some GMs have a problem with take 10 because in their minds it reduces the risk of failure. Im really not sure where they get this.
Perhaps it is because Take 10 removes the element of: "you rolled badly and you are now in a situation where you could have done it carefully but you are going to be screwed, sucks to be you".
Perhaps some GMs want you to have the possibility for a "bad luck" fail while the design of the system is that if you can do something cautiously why should "bad luck" fails come into it?

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.


Lili wrote:

Starting gold 150

Spending gold on cur elight wound potions

Race Changling

Animal companion medium cat

Stats:
10 str
10 dex
8 con
10 int
10 wis
20 cha

Reasoning. I want to be able to exetremely easily to tame animals and handle animals and ride animals very easily and using charm power should help me do this over anything.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
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*


N. Jolly wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Sure, but I was talking about page one of the Advice "Guide to the Class Guides" where Ogres is the one one there.

UMD is a tiny part of a rogues skill list. 1/8th.

Use BZ's links, they're way better. And my guide is updated pass Ultimate Magic, which seems like a point in my favor.

And If it's such a small part, why is it such a large topic of conversation of the Rogue's versatility. Neither other class that's being compared has to keep talking about their UMD because they have actual refreshing magic which works just as well, if not better in most situations.

Again, this isn't about hating the Rogue, it's about getting them on the same level as everyone else.

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.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
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.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.


Adam B. 135 wrote:
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.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

More than half. How many campaigns reach 20? How many even hit ten? You're laying it on so thick for that ONE ability that the character may as well be useless before then.

You know who else can use a magic staff of fiery infernos? The wizard. YOu know who else can use the staff of healing? The cleric. Your ability to do both? Completely irrelevant if both are standing next to you.

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.


N. Jolly wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
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.


proftobe wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
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-.


WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
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.
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.

The all day factor is important to play style, but is of less important to effectiveness.


WWWW wrote:
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.


WWWW wrote:

Eh, it really doesn't outline the difference in play that well to me. All I've got is that the rogue can burn not refreshing gold in cases where other characters can use refreshing resources.

Well, now that I think about it, there is one other possible thing that occurs. That the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, is also matched or out performed by the paladin, and thus the other classes by analogy, due to the fact that they use daily resources. Normally I would assume that this would supposedly be balanced out by the fact that the fighter, and thus the rogue by analogy, can go all day long, but you seemed to dismiss the all day factor earlier. However that second point does not seem like a point in favor of fighters, and thus the rogue by analogy, so I am not sure if that is what you mean.

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.


WWWW wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
WWWW wrote:
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.
Now picture a Paladin. Paladin has to use smite or spells to keep up with the fighter and his weapon training with gloves of dueling.

The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
The fighter uses potions to heal.

They both play differently.

Right, so before I start considering your analogy, in what way does it not apply so that I know what parts to ignore.

For example I could take that analogy to mean that the difference is between daily refreshing resources and burning gold on consumables, which would match the previous examples of extracts versus burning gold on consumables. However that may not be what you meant.

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.


WWWW wrote:
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.
Now picture a Paladin. Paladin has to use smite or spells to keep up with the fighter and his weapon training with gloves of dueling.

The paladin uses lay on hands to heal.
The fighter uses potions to heal.

They both play differently.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
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!
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.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Common ground is: when the GM says "we are playing pathfinder" what can you safely assume the rules are?

1 to 50 of 5,557 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>