Power Attack is generally considered a good feat because of the reasons listed, and also because there are a lot more ways to pump your attack roll than your damage roll. You will find yourself missing a lot at lower levels, particularly if your DM doesn't understand the encounter building rules, as weirdo referenced above. But more particularly, it seems like your DM doesn't understand the rule that the game is about the players, and they don't want to be dragged around by the DM's superhero :)
The core rulebook has plenty of rules to be effective and have fun. There's some cool stuff not in there, but if you're still getting to know the system, what's good and what's not, it's a decent idea to limit your options. Maybe go Core and APG, but don't just use anything under the SRD sun if you aren't comfortable with what most people consider the "basics."
Um, actually, Cleave isn't a bad feat at all for fighter. You can get yourself a bonus attack in certain situations before your first iterative, then train it out once you actually get iteratives. It's not good throughout your whole career, but you can do worse for the first 5 levels.
But as to your general question, you can check out those guides, and just pay attention to the discussion on the boards. You'll see conflicting information (as you've already seen in this post) but at least get multiple points of view on things.
No one just knows all this stuff instinctively. If people think of it as "common knowledge," that is only because they've been reviewing the resources already mentioned, or they're bringing system mastery over from 3.5 D&D, which can actually trip you up sometimes by assuming there aren't any differences.
Reebo Kesh wrote:
The weapon example seems silly to me. I believe tabletop RPG's should be like playing your way through an epic fantasy series. The story shouldn't be set in stone, but I think what most DM's are looking for at the end of a campaign is a sense that an epic story was achieved and the characters feel like important, momentous heroes. I can't remember the last such series I read where any of the main characters just switched weapon types midstream. The only one I can think of is Mat Cauthon from Wheel of Time using a quarterstaff then switching to the ashendarei (a polearm), but even those weapons were basically used the same way. Drizzt Do'Urden skipped a freaking artifact longsword because he favored his scimitar. Heroes stick with the same weapon.
Although, doesn't seem like you're interested in discussing this, just starting a "get off my lawn" style thread. You ask for everyone's thoughts then don't bother reading them, or if so not responding?
DR is useless?
Let's take DR 10/-.
Doesn't it follow that if that's inconsequential, you think that someone getting an additional +10 to damage on every attack is inconsequential? It's power attack for a fighter at level 12-ish with a two-handed weapon, without taking a to-hit penalty. It's that in reverse. What exactly are you looking for?
The focus on getting critical doesn't make much sense to me. Especially if you're not a 2hd weapon build. Let's say your strength is at most a 14 -- that means with a Kukri or you're looking at 4.5 extra damage on a crit. With say a 4d8 sneak attack you've got 20% bonus damage on a critical. Not worth it at all when you're burning feats and traits to get Kukri proficiency and improved critical. And that's on your main hand - on your off hand you're doing one less damage, if your str is only 12 (very possible) you've lost another point of damage.
wait no one enforces it but you impose it on yourself?
Yeah, it's something called a "rule."
If your group prefers to house rule it out, that's fine, but being incredulous that people are following the rules while not being policed sort of cracks me up. I'm going to hazard a guess you're not the sort of player I want in my group. When I DM, I don't particularly worry about enforcing encumbrance, but that's because I trust my players to follow the rules without my oversight.
There aren't many class skills that really make or break "party face." What it really comes down to is your Charisma and, as you said, your skill points. Even your Charisma only has a huge effect at lower levels. At level 1, the +4 from a 16 charisma instead of an 8 charisma is huge. As you gain levels, how much skill you devote to it begins to far outstrip that bonus from the stats. I mean you don't want a 7, but anybody with a 12-14 charisma isn't going to lag very far behind an 18. The benefit you get from devoting those resources to dex or str is going to help your combat prowess far more than it will hurt your face abilities.
Seriously, if it's a home-brew campaign, this is a non-issue. If you're willing to take on the huge task of running a home-brew campaign, you've signed yourself up for the job of adjusting your material if it's not having the desired effect. "Sometimes I want to have an adamantine door and don't want to come up with an alternate" is just not the job you've volunteered for.
Making stuff valueless (IE the stone door instead of the adamantine) isn't that hard.
The idea that shopkeepers just don't care to buy 20 ever burning torches at a time is completely reasonable.
The ever burning torches losing their magic when they leave their sconce is completely reasonable.
Instead of breaking down each item, keep track of how much money you want them to have, and say "you sell all your stuff and end up with 1800 gp each."
All that said, why not just tell them?
"Look, guys. If you continue to loot every damn piece of scrap metal in the dungeon, it makes me have to do things like make vendors not want to buy it, or make it valueless. Instead of making my life harder, I want you to try and be mindful of only looting the stuff I clearly intend you to loot. One way or another, you're only going to get the money I want you to get -- so let's just make my job easier, huh?"
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I don't know that I agree with this. I don't know for sure that I disagree, either, but I don't think it's crazy to say that mage armor qualifies as armor. The spell doesn't say something like target: "manufactured armor touched" or "light, medium, or heavy armor touched." The text of the mage armor spell gives several indications that it could be considered a form of armor.
Ruby Rhod wrote:
Agree with Dark Tapestry Oracle.
BTW, crossblooded and wildblooded don't stack.
As others have said, Humans' individual cultures are much more fleshed out than other races.
Also, although this arguably does go into the power gamer niche, I personally often find it hard to swallow a negative. That's because my group rolls stats and I find it hard to put a negative in what was a good stat and make it average, and also to dump a badly rolled 7 in a stat and end up with a 5, even if it's a stat I don't need much.
Of course, that also works with the half-human races. In fact, most of my guys end up being half-orcs it seems like.
Also humans have some cool racial feats and archetypes. So do other races, but you asked why people would play humans.
I see no interaction between those two abilities.
I agree with Cubic Prism on Paladin - though I'd suggest Divine Hunter and Halfling with the favored class bonus to bump LoH. I played that character and he's very powerful and very fun. Plus you can use shield other on your primary melee mates and then heal yourself (and by extension, them) with a swift action LoH. It's kinda like a mini version of the "Oradin" build, but your offense will beat the pants off the Oradin.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
This seems to be a pretty in-depth assumption. Is there somewhere in the rules that says your clothing is considered a part of you? Your belt example is obviously not going to come up often but as a DM I'd certainly rule otherwise.
But regarding the OP, yeah, I would think it'd be hard to find anyone who says it requires skin to ground contact.
You say that you find made up gods uninteresting, but you use these real-world gods in your world. Real world gods are made up, too, you know. And I say that (mostly) not as a snarky atheist, but from most religious people's point of view, every god except their own is made-up.
So what makes a real world made-up god more interesting than a made-up world made-up god?
It is RAW and RAI. Specific trumps general has nothing to do with it. This isn't an exception to the normal rule, it is the normal rule. A secondary attack is, by rule, treated as a primary attack if there aren't any other attacks for it to be secondary to.
Now granted, it would make sense to perhaps have a reference to this rule in the witch's section, but word count is precious.
I feel like there is either too much or too little information here. I don't see the usefulness of breaking down a class to a half page write up. The ideas of each class can be conveyed in a sentence or two, and then if the person is interested, they can just read the relevant text in the CRB or on the PRD.
Agree with the previous poster that noted that many of your rules are specific to your home game. Again it's a bit wordy - you can basically sum it all up in "Don't metagame, DM is the boss, be nice to the game host." Is anyone reading the thing about being clean and smelling nice and changing their hygiene habits?
Sorry, you clearly put some effort into this, but I'm not sure who your audience is. No one who's really brand spanking new to tabletop RPG's is going to get all the way through this thing. On the flip side, anyone who is somewhat experienced is going to be skimming around looking for anything that's useful to them.
I would say definitely not a move action. You're basically using the bookcase to attack the enemy. Why would it be less of an action to push a 100lb+ bookcase at a guy than it is to stab at someone with a knife?
Clearly this isn't going to be specifically called out in the rules. So as you said it's up to the GM. If I were you I'd have asked ahead of time what kind of action he'd put it at.
The DC is debatable, but I would have called it a strength check as well.
Personally, I don't find the game fun when my character doesn't kick ass. I don't have to be the perfectly optimized end-all be-all character, but if I'm rolling a Paladin, I'm damn sure going to be able to work over some evil dragons.
That said, the reason you see more talk about optimization than role-playing on the board is because it makes more sense to ask a question about objective things like mechanics rather than subjective things like backstory. Role-playing should come from within - I'm not going to go on a message board to have other people create my character's personality. But if I have an issue where I want to know what the mechanically best feat is, I'll ask for opinion. It doesn't mean I'll take the best feat every time, but I want to know the ramifications of what I can and can't do.
I think the Rules Questions forum should be split into two separate forums: One where people are really asking for answers to their question, and one where people are only looking for people who agree with them and will totally disregard the opinion, no matter how well sourced or researched, of those who don't agree. Would save some time, I feel like.
When I sit down at your table you can worry about telling me how to play my character. Until then, I'll just keep playing it by the rules. I really don't give two figs what JJ said, since he is self-admitted not a rules guy.
Not sure if this is in response to me, or others, or just a general statement. But if you don't want anyone's input on how to interpret a rule, starting a thread asking for input on the Rules Questions section of the website seems like an interesting move.
And while James is admittedly not a rules guy, like you say, the guy is a high-level designer at Paizo. While his opinion might not be an official ruling, I think it's safe to say that it carries more weight than Joe Schmoe Message Board Poster.
This has been asked several times and the opinions come up decidedly mixed. For my money, eldritch heritage gives you an effective sorcerer level, and the robes raise that level. Personally, I don't think there's much ambiguity, it's pretty straightforward.
There are many spells, for instance, that in their description say "when this spell is cast, the [wizard/cleric/whatever] creates a glowing ball of..." whatever. Are we to interpret that other classes that get the spell on their list don't get to benefit because it's restricted to one class by the description?
There's nothing about Bane to suggest it's precision-based damage. I can't see why it wouldn't be doubled, RAW.
Though for your character, as others have said, you do not have the greater bane ability yet, so you wouldn't get this benefit. Per James Jacobs, and the most straightforward reading of the rules. They're different class features. The fact that they are similar does not change that. Sorry to keep playing after you took your ball and went home.
Those I know in the gay community, both "influential" and rank and file LGBT folks, prefer "gay" to "homosexual." Homosexual is ok as an adjective, just not as a noun. Much like the difference between black as in "black people" and saying like "mostly blacks go to that club."
Of course, that could be regional, or even just those I'm exposed to who have an opinion.
By the way, Rynjin, you talk about people being offended "for" other people. I think one of the really dumb ideas that our society has is that you're not allowed to be offended unless you're a member of the group in question. I think every bigot (to be clear, I'm not including you in this category) weakens and cheapens the value of life and society as a whole.
The thread ASKED if it was offensive. General consensus seems to be that it isn't. What is wrong with that? Someone else making sure they aren't offending people in some way infringes on your life?
By the way, calling someone "a homosexual" is generally considered offensive these days. Bear in mind that if you don't have a lot of gay friends, no one expects you to know this ahead of time, and I'm not calling you out or anything, just an FYI.
Double standards are only bad if you conflate "equal" with "equitable." Equal means you treat everyone the same. Equitable means you give everyone the same level of consideration. Giving a proper amount of consideration to everyone doesn't necessarily mean that you treat them all the same. Black people aren't being hurtful and insensitive when using the n-word. Other groups are. (These are generalizations, of course, and there are white people who could use the word to good effect in, say, a scholarly piece*, or a stand-up comedy act, and there are black people who don't buy in to the idea that there's ever a good time to use the word.)
*See The Student As N****r, written by Jerry Farber, who I was lucky enough to study under in school.
It's not about worrying that everything you do might be offensive. That is PC taken too far. It's about changing your behavior (or not) when you know for a fact that it's offensive.
This thread could get ugly, so I want this to be as non-inflammatory as possible. But the 1st amendment gives freedom of speech; it doesn't say that anyone has to sit there and hear your speech and not respond if it offends them.
As a straight white male, I'm the quintessential "playing life on easy mode" guy. I try to be as supportive as I can be to the LGBT community and my wife is black, if that gives you an idea as to my position on racial prejudice. But like anyone, I'm occasionally going to say something that comes off as insensitive. For instance, I was speaking with someone a few years ago who is a pre-op trans male, and I used a term that he found insensitive (I can't remember, I think it was "tranny"). I was told it's not the preferred term, and I stopped. That was the end of it. He knew I wasn't trying to be offensive, and he didn't jump all over me about it, and I tried to delete it from my vocabulary.
I do think that if someone tells you something offends them, you should endeavor to stop. That's not political correctness, it's common courtesy. Unless you think for some reason you should still use the term, at which point it has nothing to do with political correctness; you're just a jerk. (not you, but the generic you.)
I would strongly disagree, the greensting slayer gains the sneak attack ability and always has it. That's like saying that since a rogue isn't flanking he can use any ability or feat based off having sneak attack. I'd check with your dm, not a message board...
But he doesn't always have it -- he's got it only if he spends an arcane pool point.
Agree with Zahmahkibo this doesn't fly.
I have nothing to contribute to the mechanical side of this debate. Instead, I'd like the be the pedantic jerk who corrects everyone's grammar online.
That's not what "begging the question" is. Begging the question is an informal logical fallacy that means you're using your statement itself as proof for your statement. Like saying "that guy can't play basketball because he has no game."
What a dumb, offensive thing to say.
First: who cares? A good amount of artistic expression throughout history has come with the aid of mind-altering substances. What do I care where the idea comes from, if I like it? Unless you're talking about hardcore drug addiction, which isn't a joking matter.
I understand you're just being tongue-in-cheek, but this crap isn't funny.
That's like complaining about books not being released at a pace you like and making a post saying "What's with the delays? Are the Paizo writers dealing with terminal cancer?"
Inquisitor would be my first suggestion. But if she doesn't like the inquisitor, maybe the alchemist? I think there is an archetype that replaces the bomb with sneak attack.
Yeah Vivisectionist/Chirurgeon alchemist is the best rogue/healer in the game. Inquisitor is a divine/rogue hybrid in many ways, but not much of a healer, overall.
I agree that the rules as written is 100% clear, but I think that the rules forum can be about RAI vs RAW as well.
It certainly is circumstantial, and quite flimsy. But I think that not many rage powers fit an archetype as closely as moment of clarity fits this one. Notice that even the next rage power in the same line as moment of clarity (perfect clarity) is one of the recommended rage powers. Moment of clarity would be a huge oversight.
I don't have my answer - I have someone completely ignoring my question. I'd think that reading my post would indicate that the obvious reading of the skill was one I had considered. It wouldn't be the first time an archetype was poorly written. My contention (or at least suggestion; I'm not sure I'm 100% behind it) is that the archetype as intended should read that you can use mental skills and abilities.
Given that I'd already outlined that I understood that reading of the ability, quoting it back to me isn't particularly helpful. I appreciate your time, but would you care to actually comment on either of my points?