I hope that Paizo completely gets rid of the PF1 version of wands. The whole concept of a 50 charge spell casting item like some sort of super-potion has never sat well with me. Players tend to use healing wands as a crutch way too much because of it.
I would rather see wands as some sort of spell casting focus that alters spells being cast (like metamagic feats), gives bonuses for certain types of spells, or allowing a caster to cast a specific spell fueled by his own slots.
I disagree with the OP. The character has a bonus versus poison. It is not something that has to be activated. If you choose to hold back information that results in a player not being able to utilize an inherent ability, then YOU as a GM need to come up with a solution so that situations such as this do not happen. The only way I can see it is that you have a cheat sheet of the player's situational modifiers that you must reference any time they may come into play.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The example they give in the FAQ when referring to the 'lock down' are for melee weapons as it specifically refers to "using the longsword/mace example". If it was a general statement, then it would have been made outside that context. There is no reference in the faq that calls out thrown missle weapons. Only melee weapons are referred to.
The Quickdraw Feat says "A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow)."
Since Quickdraw is very clearly spelled out, it is pretty obvious that the 'lock down' you are referring to is not supposed to apply to thrown missile weapons. While it would be nice for Paizo to SAY that the FAQ entry is ONLY related to melee weapons, it isn't necessary.
Survey says!Dont be a jerk.
Chess Pwn wrote:
The issue is that you're not making a bull rush attempt, so you don't get the +4 or any other CMB boosting stuff. It's your attack roll against their CMD.
Sorry, you are incorrect. The feat reads:Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see Combat).
The term 'combat maneuver check' refers to the roll and modifiers and not just the die. For instance, by your logic, in order to escape from a grapple, your combat maneuver check would not include modifiers from Improved Grapple.
I run animals pretty realistically. If they're defending a kill, they'll fight for it pretty hard. If they're defending their young, the same thing. But if they're just hunting and things go against them, they retreat after taking a beating from the PCs.
I do this as well. If I expect that a few of the enemies will flee but I wouyld like to keep the encounter challenging, I will add an additional enemy or two. Role-playing the manerisms of animals during an encounter can make things interesting. In fact, sometimes manerisms of an animal to a monster (like making a dragon pounce like a cat or play with it's prey) can be fun too.
Just use Unchained Rogue? Pretty much makes your Rogue a good character and someone who can stand on their own.
I agree for the most part. The only thing I did not care for was that Paizo created the Rogues Edge/Skill Unlock mechanic for the class. It makes it so that in order to do crazy things with a skill, you now have to have this Skill Unlock. I would have preferred that anyone with a really high skill roll to be able to do fantastical things.
I ended up using a modified Unchained Rogue for my game.
Pretty obvious stuff in that link...and none to life hacky...or soul tippy...
There are no rules for either of these, so it is left up to the GM to adjudicate.
1. I would say no. You are trying to circumvent a rule (under Ride) using a different skill that does not have a similar example. Dismounting is a move action normally. Even sliding off the mount to use acrobatics would not be a quick (ie free) action.
2. I would let the character count the horses movement speed for the distance of the jump, but not towards height. However, assuming the character was standing on the horse at the time, I would give the character an additional 5 feet height off of the ground for the overall height of the jump. I think that's fair.
Let's say that the party needs to reach Korvoa ASAP. I would come up with a few encounters that would offer the possibility of speeding up their trip: A fast ship has come to port, a powerful Druid when is known to travel far distances has a grove near by, etc.
If the party needs to get to Korvosa eventually and time is not an issue, offer safer methods such as a caravan, traveling circus, or a group of pilgrams traveling in that direction.
No matter what way you choose to go, introducing small encounters or NPCs is a great way to flesh out the region, culture, etc. Not every situation the party encoutners needs to be a fight. Sometimes it can be a set of skill tests, or just plain role playing.
DM screens are a crutch of the weak. The DM shouldn't hide his or her mighty dice behind a screen. Roll them on the table for everybody to see and fear!
I totally disagree with you. If you feel you HAVE TO roll in from of players, you lack the confidence that your players trust you. Earn and keep player trust and you you can have a fantastic game.
Cerwin, you say that you have a character who is looking for someone strong enough to kill him AND he will always fight to the death...and then you don't show up for the game! If the GM did what you seam to want, your character probably should have been killed during that session. Are you saying that would have made you happier?
Cerwin: "So, how did the session go?"
I think you are being very unreasonable. It's your character. If you want him to be run 'correctly', then be at the game. Don't put that responsibility on anyone else.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
So what? They were made to fit PFS, not home games.
That's like saying a bicycle is restrictive because it isn't a car. They serve different purposes.
PFS is really no different than the home brew rules that practically every game has. These rules will work for some while others won't.
I used some of the PFS rules and restrictions as a sort of litmus test for what content I felt needed to be reviewed before the game began. It really helped as a starting point and in the end I had a list of things to discuss with the group.
...but making PFS rules a default in Pathfinder....nope, nope, double nope. :)
ugly child wrote:
Any idea whether that range increment is 10ft as for most thrown weapons or 20ft the initial range of the bomb itself?
The range is 20ft with 5 range increments..
Bomb (Su): In addition to magical extracts, alchemists are adept at swiftly mixing various volatile chemicals and infusing them with their magical reserves to create powerful bombs that they can hurl at their enemies.... Thrown bombs have a range of 20 feet and use the Throw Splash Weapon special attack.
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.
I am sorry, but I disagree. In my mind, a character's back story is a cooperative effort by both the GM and Player. I would never give a player carte blanche for creating his character's back story as there would likely be elements that would conflict with my campaign.
For instance, when one of my player's made up a recent character, he wanted him to be the son of a very wealthy merchant whose parents met a terrible demise and the son was left to be raised by an uncle. While that in itself is a very acceptable idea for a back story, it would mean that I would need to incorporate a new wealthy merchant family and company into the history of a city that I had already developed around a story arc (and I really did not want to have to redo that work). Instead, I asked the player if he would be OK with his family being up-and-coming merchants on the brink of making it from lower class into middle class. He was OK with it and in the end, we came up with a nicely defined back story that had some good flavor, intrigue, and a number of unanswered questions as to what happened to his family and his families holdings. He was quite happy with it.
Also, there were several elements of his back story that were explained in one way that I had planned to actually mean something completely different due to information that the character was not aware of. There is nothing wrong with that.
A GM should never feel that he cannot change any aspect of the campaign. That includes anything that the players have created. However, a GM should also consider the ramifications of making changes to aspects of the campaign that player's hold dear as it may upset the player. For example, destroying a player's favorite magic item on a whim is generally a bad idea; but if a story arc leads to the destruction of the favored item by a character's nemesis because of some previous encounter, that may be just fine (as long as destroying the item has more meaning than just destroying the item).
You show the characters from the start that this guy is not to be messed with. The guards are combat-beasts. The PCs are escorted through a well-defended lair where they feel the anti-magic zones, feel the energy from the crackling magic traps, see the sturdy defenses, and hear the cries of those who have slighted the lich. The characters should also be shown a few of the victims of the lich's displeasure (like a Pit Fiend who has conspired against him or a Dark Elf who tried to steal). Show the PCs that the lich has an iron grip and the resources to carry out whatever he wishes. In fact, since he is in his own plane, give him the power to alter existence as he likes. don't even worry about trying to qualify his abilities into spells or abilities. In essence, he can do whatever he likes. Show them that in his domain, he is more than well beyond them.
And then if they press him, decide what the reaction will be; an annoyed stare that inspires nervousness in the guards; or worse. Until you want to have a fight, no matter what they do, always have the lich be cool and collected like the players actions are noting more than a distraction. His power is so complete that they are ants.
I am fairly certain that people think feats like Monkey Grip are cheesy because the feat is too far removed from what they see as being realistic (as opposed to being cheddar flavored).
IMO, Monkey Grip is a good example of one such feat. Funny enough though, evidently the default Monkey Grip did not have enough cheese for some people. If you were to do a search on Google for "Monkey Grip, D&D", you would also find some homebrew variations that scale with BAB that would require an entire warehouse of cheese in order to represent it's cheesiness.
adjective: cheesy; comparative adjective: cheesier; superlative adjective: cheesiest
1. like cheese in taste, smell, or consistency.
I also have to point out...Aid another is a unique mechanic that does not give a huge impact on combat, so why not just allow it? It is true that the option to ready an action for an iterative attack could have unforeseen consequences, but none come to mind at the moment. The thing is that you can always reevaluate it later and change it if needed.
As a GM, I periodically have hold my ground on what I perceive as an important rule. If I am too strict or too wishy washy, I may loose player confidence. Giving way to creative moves by players usually makes the game more fun and strengthens the GM/Player relationship. As Aid Another is such a minor mechanic, I would not use this as a place in which to make a stand.
Spiked chains used to have reach: it's a deliberate nerf from 3.5. Martials can't have nice things, etc.
Paizo just enjoys giving entitled people reasons to whine like small children.
...or...the chain as it was before the change was too good compared to other exotic weapons. The change brought the weapon in line with others.
Why would a swarm attack a grenade in the first place? I can only see them attacking something that they can eat such as plant or animal material...and even if a portion of it was made up of such material, I cannot see it blowing up when they ate it.
I think that you just wanted something 'cool' to happen. Sadly, what you think may be 'cool' is sometimes not cool when it does not make sense to one or more players.
You cannot shift twice as a full round action (shift and withdraw comes close though)
If I recall correctly, 'Shift' is something from D&D 4th edition. In Pathfinder, it is called a 5-foot step.
The first time I heard a player say 'shift' in one of my games, I had no idea what he was talking about. :)
It depends on the swift action. Several swift actions are things that require significantly more effort that moving. Casting a quickened spell, activating a blessing or domain power, entering a combat style, and talking all require focus & concentration, and should not be possible while projectile vomiting.
Well, the condition already disallows spell casting, so quickened spells are already restricted.
The question you need to ask yourself is 'do mechanics of wear and tear on items add additional fun for you and your players?'
Most people will say 'No'. Just the bookkeeping alone is a big turn-off. Consider how much people like tracking encumbrance. Now add another similar mechanism on top of that. You will not make a lot of friends.
In my opinion, wear and tear mechanics can be OK for adventures/campaigns where items are scarce such as survival games; but even then, I would rather keep the system easy as possible where new items may already be sub-par when found instead of actually tracking wear done by the PCs.
Be kind to your players. Don't introduce this sort of mechanic to your game.
No, Outsiders are not immune to sleep. If they were, the outsider type would explicitly state it. What the outsider type does say is is that they do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish).
To further support the above, look at the details for the undead type. It states that undead do not need to sleep and are immune to sleep effects.
I would seriously suggest not having your son play with your main group.
As a PFS GM, I usually have to simplify the game a bit when younger players join. While I and most players are OK with this occasionally, as a long term setup, I would not care for it.
Having young minds means that more complex story lines, puzzles, and role-play situations would need to be simplified...so those players looking for more of a challenge would be out of luck.
I suggest that you keep your game with your son as-is.
Although, if your son is mature, you might consider having him at the table as a young NPC for an role-play situation or two to add a little flavor and to see how he does.
Honestly, I am not surprised by this FAQ. This is exactly the way that I handled it with my group. It just makes the most sense when you consider the improvised weapons rules.
So, can one use a Tower Shield as an improvised weapon?
Sadly, this will probably require a different FAQ as some people will not be able to come to terms with it without 'official word'.
Given that a Tower shield weights 45 lbs and the closest largest melee weapon is the 15 lb two-handed Orc Double Axe, I cannot see it being effective. Best case, the only way I can see a tower shield being used is to charge straight at someone using it (and I would still apply improvised weapon penalties).
First, he is a poor GM if he TELLS you how he will make future encounters more difficult as this takes away from the story.
Second, he is a poor GM if he skews future encounters on the failings of past encounters as this sets up a GM vs Player atmosphere (which is generally not good).
Third, he is a poor GM if his response to the player is "I will do what I want" and "don't be a baby". That is pretty arrogant and disrespectful to the player.
If the players are aware ahead of time that they will be in a 'dragon-fighting' campaign, then (of course) they will tailor their characters towards fighting dragons. Players who invest themselves towards that end should not be penalized when their characters are effective.
Of course, it is also OK for a GM to throw in a curve-ball by setting an encounter that the party is not optimized to handle, but those should be less common or the GM should give the players hints on what they may face so that they have some opportunity to prepare or react.
As for the original question, I do think that your GM is handling it the whole thing poorly. As for what you can do now, I suggest that you prepare yourself for a possible loss. You may want to consider taking a defensive stance to upcoming encounters or trying to use other elements to your advantage such as choosing the battlefield (perhaps laying a trap for the dragon) or enlisting NPC help. If the GM is unwilling to let you use creative measures to make the fight easier, you may need to consider dropping out of the game. After all, why play in a game that frustrates you instead of being fun?
Lord Vukodlak wrote:
This is the over-arching answer right here.
It has been stated many times in the forums that Paizo cannot define every little thing in Pathfinder. If they did, the Core rulebook would become a set of encyclopedias...and even then, they still could not define everything.
Take 10 is defined to a certain degree and from there, it is up to the players to decide what is a reasonable use for the rules. there will be different groups that have slightly different interpretations. The right answer for jimibones83 (OP) is to discuss it with his GM. Hopefully they come to a conclusion that they are both happy with.
Side note: I would also feel comfortable using this mindset in PFS.