Skeleton Horse

Skeletal Steve's page

156 posts. Alias of Hoplophobia.


1 to 50 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

"The investigator must be able to see the target well
enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach
such a spot. An investigator cannot use studied strike
against a creature with concealment."

I can see that first sentence leading to ALL sorts of trouble. Maybe just keep it simple and no studied strike against concealment.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
ubiquitous wrote:

Is there any chance you can comment on the duration of it?

Mreikon wrote:
As Studied Combat is worded currently, it does nothing without Int of at least 18, because effects that last 1 round end at the beginning of investigator's next turn.
As of right now, this is correct. Don't dump Int, and try not to take Int damage. :)

That's uhm.....hrm.

Talcrion wrote:
I was excited about playing this class before.... now after seeing the changes, The insanely massive nerf studied strike is has made my players completely disregard the class, they won't even consider it at this point. If they want to take away all the physical damage to the point where it's pretty much pointless and make it a skill monkey/caster, don't give abilities that will just become completely pointless by the time you get access to them.

Agreed. Fluff good, implementation bad.

Paul Watson wrote:
And that's it, folks. All 10 gone.

That's awesome of you dude. Glad to see there is still a little of the spirit around these days.

Gotta bring those OP Rogues back down to earth. Ranged sneak attack is breaking my game!

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Skeletal Steve wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
See here.
I don't see anything.

The link works fine for me.

It contains a Vampire monster class.

It is a Pathfinder Compatible version of many of the "Monster Classes" introduced in Savage Species.

Weird. All I get is the google drive upper frame and then "Not Found

Error 404"

blackbloodtroll wrote:
See here.

I don't see anything.

John Stout wrote:

Well the way that I can see it is that either 1) there is a progression which runs over a handful of levels or 2) they just get the template applied.

In my own adventure, I'm planning to run Kingmaker and I'm thinking that if I run the progression then they'll run the characters all the way through. However, if they just get the template applied then their main characters shall take a back seat and they'll play their political puppets/cohorts.

I am running Kingmaker right now, at level 3. I'm wondering if there is some way to apply a balanced vampiric template myself. But just not seeing it for my Dhampir player.

John Stout wrote:
I am considering running an adventure for an all-dhampir party where, at some point, the dhampir will be given the opportunity to turn into full vampires. I've got Blood of the Night but I can't find any real way for me to provide a progression. Should I just apply the vampiric template at the relevant time?

I was just looking into doing something just like that for a Dhampir player in a game of mine. Hadn't really gotten working on it yet, but now that this thread is here, I'll chip in if I think of anything good.

LazarX wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Advanced firearms is a whole other issue, one best left out of a high fantasy setting aside from as a near artifact level rare item, IMHO.

The problem is that a lot of people seemed to have signed on to the class with the expectation they'd be able to replicate Steven King's Roland from the Tower series.

Without revolvers, they're going to fall mighty short of their expectations.

Yeah. They really should play a Wizard instead.

Entilzha wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Thanks again for commenting folks. We will be watching..

We better be careful. Big brother is watching us! ;-)

(FYI: I'm merely attempting a humorous joke, and not attempting to insult nor flame war anyone/anything. If the joke is in bad taste, then I apologize)

Nah, it just conjured the image of a giant red dragon looming over my shoulder as I type with a nametag that says "BIG BROTHER"

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Skeletal Steve,

First of, I hate Obamacare, too. To get that out of the way.

On the personal level, though, I'd encourage you to look on the websites that have the exchange info to see what you qualify for in subsidies, etc. Maybe you already have and it sucks, maybe you don't really need insurance, I don't know. But it seems kind of silly to just throw up your hands and resign yourself to paying the fine if you haven't investigated it yet.

Like I said, though, that's just personal advice. Politically, Obamacare still sucks and is vastly inadequate to meet the real health care needs of the population of this country.

Vive le Galt!

I would get some, yes. But the cost would still be more than paying the penalty which means I pay the penalty, quite simply. Unless I can get an exemption or the cost of the plan is cheaper. It's a tax that I have to try and figure how to pay as little of as possible.

Curious wrote:

Then your employer is on a path towards failure

Business 101 – Organizations that give the minimum pay get the minimum effort. Organizations that are only getting the minimum will eventually lose out to organizations that are getting the maximum. This is why I don’t mind being paid less than some of my direct reports and turn the occasional blind eye when I see my people bending the rules. It is the price I pay for having a team that out performs other teams within my division.
Your company can blame their problems on Obama, liberals or whatever but at the end of the day they will have only their own failure to look after their people to blame.

Assuming that there is an actual labor market. In my area just having a job sets you apart from a lot of people my age. Nobody here has any leverage at all because there hundreds of people willing and able to take the position.

At the lower rung there is a HUGE glut of people fighting for jobs. You may not see it but businesses because of the endemic unemployment have the employee over a barrel. Work harder and faster for less money has been the tune for the last couple of years because there is always somebody there to replace you.

EDIT: And let me be clear. I actually like my employer and my job. It is what it is. I even sympathize with them a little because it was either cut my hours or have to pay a penalty or the cost of upgrading my healthcare plan, would of meant cutting services to the people who come to us.

Scott Betts wrote:

So you acknowledge that your employer did not need to reduce hours in the manner that they did, but that they did so anyway because it was slightly more efficient for them to screw over their employees a year early?

I want to make sure you understand what you're defending, here.

Yes. Of course. They would be stupid not to. I bet they only waited to see how the political and legal challenges to the law shook out, and also to make projections as to exactly how it would affect their margins.

No, you make less actual income because your minimum wage, part-time, benefits-free employer is terrible.

Here's a hilarious thing. It's a public institution.

Here's how you know it's not a "stealth tax": no one in your situation is paying it. You're not paying it, obviously, but more importantly neither is your employer. In fact your employer is (purportedly) cutting your hours to avoid paying it. They're not losing out! They'll just find someone else to give your lost hours to.

It's pretty obvious. I now take home less money and also am forced to pay even a small amount into a state mandated program, or pay a penalty

(Which I will pay, because it's a whole lot cheaper)

And yet many employers have found ways to do both! But I'm glad you've identified for us one of the primary problems with unregulated free-market capitalism.

I don't even want to touch that with a ten foot pole.

I cannot fathom how you can see this situation and imagine that the federal government is doing you harm. Your employer cut your hours so that it could deny you and nearly all of your coworkers health insurance, and it's the government's fault?

Let me say this again. They gave my employer, a POWERFUL FISCAL INCENTIVE TO HAVE ME WORK LESS HOURS. To the tune of a $2,000 penalty or however much the costs would be to upgrade or change our plans to fit whatever is mandated by the exchanges in my state. It's honestly pretty simple.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

That article is outdated. The employer mandate was delayed by a year this past July. Your article is from December of last year.

And no one is talking about the "last possible moment". We're talking about businesses cutting employee hours a year ahead of the point they are supposed to start tracking them.

You can make excuses for the company you work for all you like.

Because they already had a plan in place to meet the original mandate time frame. Why wait for a year and not go ahead with the cuts if you have already identified ways to do them and know that within a year you will have to do it anyways, and can experiment with temporary and part time workers to fill your labor needs instead of expensive full time employees?

And still have plenty of time to deal with the inevitable bits that don't go right at your own pace. So that you can then take the hours cuts national. At the lower end of the workspace there are far more people than there are jobs. There will be even more people now cut back to 20/30 hrs a week that you can choose from other employers to fit your business's needs.

Scott Betts wrote:

By your own admission you make so little that you should pay very little in taxes. Someone making $15,000 annually (same as in the example above) has an estimated total annual federal tax liability of $110. Less than 1% of your income. I also don't know what state you're from, but where I live someone making $15,000 annually faces an annual state tax liability of about $225, or about 1.5% of your income.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

That is the thing, it's a stealth tax. I work less hours and make less actual income already BECAUSE of this. It's a 25% loss of income (More because now overtime is strictly verboten) for which I either have to get a second job to make up for, with the increased transport costs and other costs (uniform, loss of flexibility to attend school, etc) eating up yet more of that income, or simply cut my spending.

I'm not into making excuses. The primary motivation of a business is not to take care of employees, it is to make money. And if within the new parameters of the law the best way to make money is to use as few full time workers as possible and only use part time and seasonal workers for high demand then they will do that, and still reap the benefits of their employees having health insurance. Because they no longer have to offer it to appear as competitive to other jobs providers in the market.

Because Obamacare does not actually "tax" me does not mean that it does not have a negative effect on my income, and many people like me. It makes people like me who work hard to try and get ahead take another step back, and end up even more dependent on the federal/state government for basic services that before I was able to get by the sweat of my own brow.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
If your employer is doing this any time soon, it is not in response to the employer mandate. That mandate has been delayed and will not go into effect until 2015. He'll have to find some other excuse to blame denying you hours and insurance on. jobs/1785641/

" But to determine whether employees work enough hours on average to receive benefits, employers must track their schedules for three to 12 months prior to 2014 — meaning many are restructuring payrolls now or will do so early next year."

It couldn't be businesses trying to adapt early to the looming penalties, could it? No, businesses are stupid and wait until the last possible moment to shake up your entire workforce. Instead you do a piece at a time, small amounts first to figure out how to do it. Then you do a company wide cut.

Scott Betts wrote:

Without knowing where you're from, a typical American making $15,000 annually can expect to pay $300 a year (a whopping 2% of your income) for health insurance on an ACA exchange. The subsidy will cover the other 90% of your premium costs. If your state expands Medicaid to the 138%-of-poverty-level cap, you will instead be covered by Medicaid, and will only pay the relatively minor out-of-pocket costs associated with that program.

Note that this is not the pricing for basic coverage. This is the pricing for mid-range, "Silver" tier coverage. Basic coverage will be less expensive, and highly comprehensive coverage will be more expensive.

Please, tell us again about how the average Joe will be left holding the bag.

Because as we all know, dollars magically appear out of nowhere to pay for everything. It's all free stuff that I will never have to pay for in taxes levied in another manner to make up for the massive budget shortfall.

thejeff wrote:

But it would have been even more of cost savings, with no hassle of hiring new part timers if they had cut out the insurance years ago.

Also aren't there number of employee limits before they even have to worry about the penalties? We're not talking about a couple part timers, we're talking about adding another 1/3 your current workforce. That's just to keep the hours the same.

I don't know about limits (Although this is a large enough company to go over I would guess). I would surmise that it would allow them to reap the benefits of healthcare for their employees (More time on the job, less turnover, etc) without having to actually pay for it.

Or it could just help them to sleep easier at night knowing they are not "really" ending people's insurance. I have no idea.

thejeff wrote:
Skeletal Steve wrote:

Even if it that is true, My employer is ending health insurance for everybody not of management or above and cutting us all back to less than 30 hours. The lost wages between 40 and 30 hours will end up costing me even more.

Somehow I doubt the subsidy will cover the full amount. Somehow, someway as usual the average joe will be left holding the bag as has been true since before I was born.

Is your employer really doing this? In response to the ACA? Why? Ideological reasons or is really going to cost that much more?

I mean they're spending on the insurance now and now they're going to have to hire more workers, since they're cutting everyone's hours back. What's the business case here?

I could see cutting back the hours to avoid the penalty if the company wasn't already providing insurance.
Was it really cheap/lousy insurance?

It was actually pretty decent. Yes, my employer is doing this. Basically it is easier for them to hire one or two additional part time people to fill in the time gaps. They could continue to pay the additional healthcare cost, or they could simply shift us onto the exchanges by cutting back hours and ending coverage. I imagine that is a huge cost savings to them.

Therefore their employees would still "have" health insurance, just not through them. I imagine I will pay an additional 50 or so dollars a month out of my lowered salary for healthcare. That still makes the 100 dollar yearly penalty much more worthwhile. In the end, yes my "out of pocket" costs are less (provided I get the subsidies) but it will be an actual severe net loss of income.

Getting another part time job would incur inefficiencies in time and transport costs, as well as probably a disincentive in the fact I would receive less subsidies the more I earned. So I'm probably not only going to be out money, but additional time as well.

The more supreme law of the land than Congress is the law of Unintended Consequences.

Even if it that is true, My employer is ending health insurance for everybody not of management or above and cutting us all back to less than 30 hours. The lost wages between 40 and 30 hours will end up costing me even more.

Somehow I doubt the subsidy will cover the full amount. Somehow, someway as usual the average joe will be left holding the bag as has been true since before I was born.

I'll just end up paying the penalty in my state. Buying even the lowest amount per month looks like it would easily take 1/3 of my take home pay or more per month. I'll just eat the penalty like most people. Just more tax I have to pay.

Just wanted to say, I really appreciate the honest and frank discussion of why things would work and why they wouldn't. I wish it was done more!

LazarX wrote:
Skeletal Steve wrote:
LazarX wrote:
There might be such a thing as a Congressman who works in good faith. There might even be such a thing as a Congressman who's not utterly beholden to people who don't answer to the public. It's one of those concepts that's interesting to contemplate... like absolute zero.
How about an individual?

Individuals don't count. Individuals don't have the influence, and more importantly, the money to make things happen on their own, when we're talking about issues on this scale.

Lets get to brass tacks. If you're the individual, I'm not going to condemm you for having a difference of opinion in this issue. I'm sufficiently old school enough in my politics to do so.

Fair enough. Instead of all of this, it would of been much easier to simply cut taxes for households/individuals under certain amounts or offer a tax credit specifically for purchasing whatever insurance an individual deemed fit.

Tie them to a certain percentage of a basic healthcare plan and be done with it. If there is not enough tax to be credited, a person is then given a credit. Credits are also issued for children. Problem solved. People make their own choices of plan and the government is involved only in a minor way in determining the percentage covered.

Instead you have a massive government bureaucracy that is indeed confusing and sometimes contradictory that is missing/pushing back it's own deadlines but yet still will enforce compliance penalties on citizens.

In all honesty, Obamacare was a massive strategic error on the part of the Obama administration. He spent a good deal of his political capital and mandate on getting it through. Instead of putting Republicans in a position of opposing tax credits/breaks for middle class and low income families, he put them in the favorable position of opposing massive government spending, program creation, etc.

LazarX wrote:
There might be such a thing as a Congressman who works in good faith. There might even be such a thing as a Congressman who's not utterly beholden to people who don't answer to the public. It's one of those concepts that's interesting to contemplate... like absolute zero.

How about an individual?

Okay. Let me ask this a different way. Is it possible for a person to disagree in good faith with this bill, and actively work to repeal it. Or does everybody who work against in your eyes have a nefarious motive or is just poorly informed?

Snorter wrote:

Remember this scene from 'Mulan'?

<China falls to the barbarian invaders.>

The End.

Yes, that was my favorite part of the movie as well.

Join me for some fermented milk, as we praise the Khan.

LazarX wrote:

Save that it doesn't always work that way. We've got cases of Congressmen going strongly anti-abortion, anti-gun control, and anti-gay marriage even though the majority of their polled constitutents indicate a preference otherwise.

Maybe. If they feel like personally they can get away with it. It's a calculated risk to vote on anything one way or another. If your bet is that Obamacare is going to blow up (Seemingly a good bet) then having a record that you can point back to of voting against it is a good thing. If your opponent in the next election can go AND HE VOTED FOR OBAMACARE with a black and white image of your face and bloody red lettering across the screen and Obamacare is seen to be a gigantic failure, then you are in deep, deep trouble.

Gun Control, Abortion, and others are issues that are divisive, and already known percentages. A Representative can make a judgement of the risk of going against majority will versus the dollars he might get in support from interested parties. Obamacare is a Win/Lose proposition. If you are a moderate/conservative Democrat or liberal/moderate Republican you might be in some serious trouble. It's holding a hand grenade and pulling the pin and then squeezing tight and hoping it does not go off in your hands.

thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Of course they're looking to kill it. But much of the reason is because they've attached it to "Obama", for whom their hate has no bounds in logic. They may very well might have cheered it on if it was called "Bushcare" or "Reagancare" instead. After all the original blueprint for this could be found in the Heritage Foundation, which is not exactly the most liberal or socialist group in the neighborhood, and Mitch Rommney pretty much set up a version of Obamacare in his state.

Well it was originally proposed, if I understand the chain of events correctly in a successful attempt to block better healthcare proposals.

And they want to kill it partly because "Obama", but also partly because if it does get entrenched they know people will like it and it'll be much harder to get rid of. Look how much trouble it's been to kill Medicare or Social Security. Much easier to kill the new government program before people realize it actually helps them.

Plus, yet more evidence that big government can actually help. It took 40 years to even start pushing back on the New Deal. This isn't as big a deal, but it's still going to hurt Republicans.

If they really thought it would be a horrible failure, they'd let it go, having made their token efforts to stop it and then tie it to Obama and the Democrats for a generation.

Except of course there is the slightest sliver of possibility that they are responding to the push from their constituency to oppose the plan and are worried if they are not seen as staunch opponents to such an unpopular and confusing plan they will be voted out of office for somebody more suitably representative?

You know, representative government and all that.

Rynjin wrote:

Today is a day full of stupid and unnecessary changes

It's like the devs of my favorite games are teaming up to stomp me in the nuts

There were others?

To me it's not the change in undead's just turning a viable and interesting archetype into something that is not only incredibly boring, but is actually hot steaming garbage to play before 11th level.

That is the REAL problem here.

Welp. Back to being a Battle or Metal oracle.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Eventually we will all have a single personal digital device that does everything our phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, iPods, etc do. I may not live to see it, but that day is coming. And I think I will live to see it.

Hoi chummer, don'tcha gotta commlink already?

Gently handled MetaLink for only a hundred nuyen.

Almost no blood on it.

Jiggy wrote:
Skeletal Steve wrote:

I would at least think Natural Attacks should probably work. I mean...I can cast a spell with one and and claw you with the other. They probably take less 'concentration' to use while casting a spell than a 1 handed weapon anyways.

But that is a completely different topic.

Last I heard, you can do that.

Yeah. I deleted that comment right before you replied because I realized that it was wrong and that it only forbade things like a Bite and a Tail Slap and such.

Kazaan wrote:
Really now? I call BS on that.

Whoa dude. Pump the brakes. I complimented you in the other thread discussing this just a little while ago for being reasonable and calm.

Now you're making me look like a fool. Even more than I already am.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

So, in the interest of having the rules be less confusing, we're going to make some changes to recent rulings and see how it plays out.

I can't say how happy this makes me. I'm always for simplicity and consistency unless it absolutely breaks the game and a more complicated solution is necessary. The less I have to flip to the FAQ to explain to a future player why X does not work the way he thinks it does is a good thing.

Kazaan wrote:

Full Attack =/= Full Attack Action.

If this were true, then the following would also be true:

This is actually the clearest, most reasonable explanation of what is going on, and manages to not belittle or insult the intelligence of anybody who disagrees. Thank you Kazaan.

I would however, point out that Charging Pounce was specifically pointed out not to be hampered by the Slow spell here:

Which we know is the opposite of Haste.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Maybe reading the rules will help you?

Maybe perhaps being less condescending would help you? Just saying.

This is getting wildly off topic. But you are indeed correct about Feint not being a combat maneuver. I mentioned it more for the fact that it makes the most sense to be substituted for an attack, but is not. But yet something like a trip attempt, can be.

A Dirty Trick can not, but a Trip or Disarm or Sunder can be substituted as an attack. So a Haste would generate an additional Trip, Disarm or Sunder, but not a Dirty Trick or even a Feint (Which seems like the best use of being able to move faster than your opponent and feint one way before stabbing the other with something like Haste)

Back on point. I understand that per Spell Combat, haste would generate nothing despite it being a full round action "much like the two weapon fighting rules" The point is that it is unnecessarily confusing. The whole thing is.

Also, please note that if this ruling is correct, than the Hasted Assault Arcana and the inclusion of Haste itself on the Magus List seems rather strange. sted-assault

EDIT: Also this seems to directly contradict James Jacobs. Which is not impossible as he is the creative director. estions-Here#25619

Nefreet wrote:
Incorrect again, that was legitimate advice.

Oh. I am sure it was. I really am.

On topic the simplest solution to end some of the confusion around the Magus is to simply make Spell Combat a Full Attack Action and be done with it.

Nefreet wrote:
Your examples are riddled with inaccuracies, so I will assume you are new to Pathfinder. Take some time to read through the Core Rulebook, and the FAQs, and come back in a few months. I doubt you'll have any troubles if you approach the rules with an open mind, and don't argue incessantly when people try to explain them to you.

Ad hominem, eh? Cute.

Nefreet wrote:
Yet everyone else does it just fine...

Apparently not. As there are more than a few people in this thread who disagree with this ruling on the same point about it being a strange exception to the general rule.

Nefreet wrote:
These are specifically not attacks

Combat Maneuvers are Attacks? I thought they were combat maneuvers. So if they are attacks, could I Feint as an attack as part of a full attack action? Clearly I can't, as that is only pointed out to work with special maneuvers that are equal to attacks.

Some exceptions to the Full Attack action benefit from Haste, (Trip, Sunder, etc) others arbitrarily do not. (Spell Combat) But use language that do "Much like two weapon fighting"

It's a confusing, nonsensical mess. It needs to be brought in line with how Full Attacks are handled everywhere else. I can't even try to imagine explaining this to a player.

Nefreet wrote:
Sunder, Disarm, and Trip can always be made in place of a melee attack, even a Hasted one.

"This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."

So a spell in Spell Combat is much like a Two Weapon Fighter subbing out his offhand attack for one of those combat maneuvers, right? These are specifically not attacks, but yet you can use them with the Full Attack/Full Round Action.

seebs wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

When a Monk uses Flurry of Blows, he is making a full attack. All he is doing is attacking. Nothing else.

When a Ranger uses two weapons, he is making a full attack. All he is doing is attacking. Nothing else.

When a Magus uses Spell Combat, he is casting a spell and attacking. By it's very definition, that is not performing a full attack action.

One of these things is not like the others.

This continues to not answer my questions:

#1: Is there any other circumstance in the entire game in which you make iterative attacks, but your action is not a full attack?
#2: Is there any distinction between making all your iterative attacks, and "a full attack", other than the extra attack from haste?

#3: What happens if a character decides to attempt a Combat Maneuver, such as Sunder, with the extra Hasted action?

Artanthos wrote:
seebs wrote:

To put it another way: Can you identify any other circumstance in PF where you get to make a full set of iterative attacks, but your action is not considered "a full attack"? I can't. And I would hesitate to introduce the special concept of "a thing which lets you make a full set of iterative attacks, but is not a full attack action", without some kind of compelling argument that, without such a thing, the game would be broken.

To the best of my knowledge, "using spell combat" is the only instance in PF of a circumstance where (1) you get extra attacks based on BAB, (2) you do not get an additional attack if hasted.

Thus the lack of consistency in the rules, resulting in much confusion.

YES. Again, it's not the matter of understanding WHAT the ruling is, it is the WHY. Why is there a rules exception here? Does this benefit the game somehow? Every exception from the base ruleset is yet another thing that has to be remembered or ponderously looked up when there is confusion at the game table.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:

What part of "unmodified, unadulterated Full-Attack" is not getting through to people here? How can you, with a straight face, claim that an unmodified Full Attack includes the bonus attack when modified by Haste?

Then, there are those who claim that the presence of 3 sources of a Haste bonus available to a Magus means that they must be able to use Haste in conjunction with Spell Combat. That predicates on the idea that Magus is and ought to be played as a one-trick pony. Does that mean that Magus should have nothing but Touch Spells as well so that all his spells work with Spellstrike? Does that mean that a Sorcerer with the Efreeti bloodline must only learn Fire spells? Does that mean that a Monk should gain Pounce so that he can combine Fast Movement with Flurry of Blows? Does that mean that a 2-h Fighter is not permitted to take TWF feats and be a "switch hitter" between 2-h and dual-wielded weapons? A Magus also gets increased move speed from Haste... I guess that means Spell Combat should be made a Standard Action so the Magus can also benefit from enhanced Move Speed when he uses SC. After all, Magus is prohibited from making a normal Full-Attack. See my confusion?

No. But I can see your condescension.

Artanthos wrote:

All the confusion and discontent around Spell Combat and the resulting FAQ's could be easily solved with one minor errata.

Errata full-round to full-attack. The class ability becomes consistent with how every similar ability functions.

Yes. Please try to keep things as consistent as possible.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It was, quite frankly, clear enough before, and it's crystal clear now. The only logical reason I can find for people competent enough to operate a computer well enough to post these questions and statements claiming the issue is "confusing" and "unclear" and "contradictory" is that they are doing it deliberately in an attempt to exploit features in the rules to their benefit.

Spell Combat allows you to make as many attacks with your designated weapon as you could make with a single weapon in an unmodified, unadulterated full-attack. Haste is a non-issue. If you cast Bladed Dash, the spell specifically gives its own attack (or several attacks in the case of Greater Bladed Dash) and that is its own issue. But regarding the normal allowance of attacks, it goes by the normal, un-fooled-around-with full-attack. Not rocket science. Not brain surgery. Simple.

First of all. I'm a GM. I have never played a Magus. Secondly, assuming that my confusion about how a class works comes from some nefarious place about exploiting the rules is pretty insulting.

Dosn't Haste give an extra attack specifically when you use the Full Attack Action? So if Spell Combat is a "unmodified" Full Attack then you should get the extra attack from Haste, right? But the Devs are saying no. See the confusion?

Wow...this class. Is the most confusing thing of all time. I'm so glad none of my players are using it.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I implemented this rule:

If you wish to play a non-core race you must roll a d 20. 1-12 you must play a core race. 13-17 you may play a featured race or a core race. 18-20 you may play an uncommon race, featured race, or core race. This die roll must be made in front of me.
This is to keep players in line with predominant races of Golarion. It offers a chance to play a race that is more rare without having everyone play a rare race.

I just don't understand this. At all.

"On a 1-10, you can play a core class, on a 11-17, you can play a base class, on an 18-20 you can play an alternate class. Sure hope none of you were planning on being a Ninja! Also, roll for your stats, starting gold, race, background, religion, favorite color and food, height, weight...wait, guys...why are you leaving? .......Guys?"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Not really. What I do is I decide which area I want, choose available races based on that, and decide which splatbooks I want to apply for my campaign. Works wonderfully. Other campaign settings are far worse about this.
Why can't you modify slightly the list of available races to include what your players want to play? I mean, you don't need the region to have catfolk and gripplis and strix and samsarans and vishkanya and vanara etc. You just need the region to have catfolk.
And if one wants to play a catfolk, one a grippli, one a strix, one a samsaran, one a vishkanya, and one a vanara?

Say "Fantastic!" and you can't wait for how they build a fun an entertaining story together.

claymade wrote:
Aranna wrote:
An all Goblin group is one of the very few exceptions to the three type rule. By making everyone Goblins the GM has in effect made them the humans of his game and removed two and in some cases even three of the main reasons to play an unusual race.

But, but, but! To channel my inner humans-are-all-you-need advocate, "if all they're doing is just making goblins the humans of the game, then why didn't they just use humans for that purpose to begin with?"

Well, I'll also answer my inner humans-are-all-you-need advocate's question, because it's an obvious answer. Because it wouldn't work. How do you roleplay, with only human characters, creatures who are part of an established society, continuing through multiple generations, where the communal mentality is consistently that of a 6 year old human (and a rabid, demented, pyromaniac 6 year old human at that) but the physical capacity is still enough to be a threat to fully grown humans? Playing as a human would not plausibly allow them the kind of character, or the kind of experience, that they wanted when they asked the GM to run an all-goblin campaign.

So then, my question then becomes, if you have PCs asking the GM to run an all-goblin AP really does form an "exception" to this supposed rule...

...then why would you ever assume, if one of those players later on asked to be a goblin naturally in a mixed party, that they now had to be doing it according to that rule? As opposed to the same reasons they thought running an all-goblin AP would be fun to do? Why are the alternate reasons suddenly not plausible options anymore?

I don't think that players asking to play an all-goblin party is an "exception" to an overarching rule. I think it's a demonstration that there can be more going on in players' race choice than such a rule would suggest.

Two of my all Monster Party Kingmaker group are Goblins. No joke. One of a high sadistic intelligence (Witch) and the other as a Cavalier, struggling to be a paragon or good and justice but more often than not failing. It's quite entertaining.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Kirth: That was a cheap shot. Let us say the elf werecat whatever weighed in at around lvl 6. The others are playing a gritty, medieval campaign based strongly on Earth history. They are at a level where Catgirl matches them power wise. Is it okay? Or are you saying that because it is pathfinder, you can't go for gritty, historical or the like?

1. If the group as a whole wanted a gritty, historical game, I'd recommend a system other than Pathfinder. It's not that you can't try and make it work -- but the system itself isn't meant for that, and I'm not sure I'd be able to make it work past 4th level or so, to be honest (much less 6th).

2. If the group as a whole wanted a fantasy setting, then I see no problem with your fantasy catgirl, assuming you're following the same rules they are and not getting free templates and gear.

3. If the group as a whole for some reason all vetoed magic items being described as "cybernetics," I'd ask the one player to respect majority wishes and tone down the description. But I wouldn't unilaterally take it upon myself to ban the idea because it threatened "my" campaign, because it's ALL of our campaign.

How cool would a sweet Magi-Tech "Cybernetic" arm be? Pretty freaking sweet.

1 to 50 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>