Baphomet

thorin001's page

** Pathfinder Society GM. 1,933 posts (1,934 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 20 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,933 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Luke Styer wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:

The action declared in the case of Ray of Frost doesn't have it's outcome change if the player includes more words than "I cast Ray of Frost at that target."

Where as in the case of Recall Knowledge there are different outcomes that rely not on declaring a different action like declaring Acid Splash would be, but on whether the player said "I Recall Knowledge about that creature," or something like "I Recall Knowledge to figure out <specific detail the player is guessing about the relevance of>."

A centipede swarm has resistances bludgeoning 5, piercing 5, slashing 2. A shortsword deals piercing damage, but has versatile P.

Thus in the case of striking a centipede swarm with a shortsword there are different outcomes that rely not on declaring a different action like declaring a strike with a shortsword or a strike with a hatchet would be, but on whether the player said “I strike with my shortsword” or something like “I strike with my shortsword for slashing damage <which the player is guessing about the relevance of>.”

So, do you allow the player’s successful attack roll to be mitigated by his poor choice not to use the versatile quality of his weapon, or do you instead decide for him that he selected the more effective damage type?

In this case, the player, when he made his successful Recall Knowledge check, realizing his PC has a shortsword wanted to know whether piercing or slashing damage was more effective, but his GM told him about centipede venom instead.

So you are saying that GMs have recall resistance.


Bandw2 wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
You're not be taking away their character's agency, but you are taking away their actual real-life human agency, the freedom to do something they want to do: roll a dice while playing a game.

That's not the definition of "player agency."

Agency is defined thus:

The player has control over their own character's decisions.
Those decisions have consequences within the game world.
The player has enough information to anticipate what those consequences might be before making them.

"Phsyically picking up and rolling some plastic bits" does not fall into any of those definitions. If it was, may I introduce you to a wonderful game called Candy Land where you can pick up and roll all the plastic bits you want! Have fun!

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/71265/what-is-player-agency-and-wha t-is-it-good-for

superstition makes people believe that them not rolling the dice actually effects how likely they are to succeed. to them removing their ability to roll, directly affects their ability to change the outcome.

it is what it is. i still do secret rolls though.

Draco18s wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Let's examine however a different example. Halfling Luck ability triggers when you fail a skill check or saving throw, this one would be a problem because failing a will save could likely be a secret check. And if you don't know you failed, you couldn't use the ability.
That's nothing new. If you're unware that you are the target of a spell and fail a save (say, some form of divination) it doesn't matter who rolls. If the player does, they could say "I'd like to halfling luck and reroll" and the GM might respond with, "you're not aware of anything untoward, so you can't choose to do that."
this assumes that halfling luck is something the character is actually aware of. You can ask them before...

Limited use abilities are all player, not character activated. That means that the player needs to know the context in order to determine if it is worth it.


Loren Pechtel wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

I find that the extra bookkeeping of keeping track of all this sort of valuables and how to convert it into cash is more trouble then it is worth. It also tends to slow down the game dramatically and players ask about if/how literally everything in their environment can be converted to cash.

When I want to add flavor to treasure of an encounter would describe it (a beautiful painting of the Count's grandmother, rumored to have been part fey) but I'd just have the players record it a $500 gp (or whatever) and move on. No bothering with trying to appraise it, or searching for a buyer or anything like that. Insert the flavor when they find it, but after that it is effectively just coins.

Obviously this is just a matter of taste and there isn't necessarily a 'right' way, but I have seen you complain about your party moving 'slowly' before, and I can't imagine that having to figure out if a Minotaur's spleen has any value and where the best market for it might be doesn't contribute to a slower paced game.

I partially agree. Routine items they know the value of. Artwork or the like they know the value of when they get to town (unless they have the skill to figure it out in the field, which I have yet to have happen.) Converting it to money is automatic in town. However, in the meantime it has encumbrance. When it's trade goods or the like they very well might be faced with more loot than they have the ability to haul off.

Is dealing with that fun or are you trying to find a way to cheat the PCs out of their loot?


I will echo Dave's comment that it is not worth the time.


thejeff wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Use a screen and they'll either be the pedant gm book memorizing rules lawyer who's probably ruining the game for at least one other player at the table, or unaware.

Or they can just understand probability and know that the chance that the GM is being a railroading, cheating, nether-orifice is above 95%.

See, anyone can describe people with differing opinions in derogatory terms.

Thats my point. The only way crunching probability works is if you've memorized, or looked up the stats of what you are fighting and tracked hits and misses. Players like that are table poison.

But your point is wrong. If my AC is 42 and I have been critted 3 times in a row I don't need to know the stats of the critter I am fighting to know that something is not kosher. If the DC for my saves is 36 and not one save in 6 tries has failed I do not need to know the stats of the critters to know that the gods of probability have been defied. If my AC is 10 and all of the bad guys miraculously miss me when I am at 1 hp I do not need to know the stats of the bad guys to notice something is seriously amiss.

But you seem to have completely missed my point in your zeal to be wrong.

More importantly, you're assuming that the GM is fudging basically everything, essentially ignoring the dice. If your GM is that blatant, you'll probably notice, but that's not what anyone in the fudging camp here suggests.

Far more likely, based on that advice, that the GM makes one of those crits a normal hit or just blocks a hit when you're at 1hp to give you a chance to heal or withdraw - push your "luck" and you'll go down.

The more often, the more blatant, the easier it is to notice and the advice is don't do it often or be blatant about it.

The advice is don't do it at all if the table is not okay with it.

If the table is cool with the occasional fudge then your advice is sound.


Ryan Freire wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Use a screen and they'll either be the pedant gm book memorizing rules lawyer who's probably ruining the game for at least one other player at the table, or unaware.

Or they can just understand probability and know that the chance that the GM is being a railroading, cheating, nether-orifice is above 95%.

See, anyone can describe people with differing opinions in derogatory terms.

Thats my point. The only way crunching probability works is if you've memorized, or looked up the stats of what you are fighting and tracked hits and misses. Players like that are table poison.

But your point is wrong. If my AC is 42 and I have been critted 3 times in a row I don't need to know the stats of the critter I am fighting to know that something is not kosher. If the DC for my saves is 36 and not one save in 6 tries has failed I do not need to know the stats of the critters to know that the gods of probability have been defied. If my AC is 10 and all of the bad guys miraculously miss me when I am at 1 hp I do not need to know the stats of the bad guys to notice something is seriously amiss.

But you seem to have completely missed my point in your zeal to be wrong.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Use a screen and they'll either be the pedant gm book memorizing rules lawyer who's probably ruining the game for at least one other player at the table, or unaware.

Or they can just understand probability and know that the chance that the GM is being a railroading, cheating, nether-orifice is above 95%.

See, anyone can describe people with differing opinions in derogatory terms.


Fudging is OK as long as it is OK with the table. It is part of the session zero/social contract. It is not something that the GM should unilaterally decide.


Lots of math is off here. A speed of 125 is 125 feet in 6 seconds, or just over 20 feet per second. And 20 feet per second is just under 14 miles per hour. (mph to fps conversion is 1.5)

You need to move a lot faster than 14 miles per hour for the surface tension of water to hold up under the weight to surface area ratio of a human foot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The obvious answer is: snakes.


Best way is to schmooze your GM into letting you use your best skill as your initiative.


HalifaxDM wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
By RAW it works for a rider and mount, exactly as you appear to have encountered it.

I argue that it does not work with a rider/mount. When mounted a rider and its mount share a space. They do not each have their own space and therefore cannot move through their ally's space or through a space adjacent to their ally's space(i.e. mount) because they share a single space.

I am totally fine with it being used for something other than a withdraw action however.

The feat specifies within reach, not adjacent. Are you claiming that something in your square is not within your reach?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadar Aman wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
For a less ridiculous restriction, what about setting up a campsite, cooking and eating dinner, and removing armor in order to sleep? Won't fatigue affect those?
Based on my own experience with fatigue, yes. I suggest requiring a will save in order to summon the willpower to cook dinner and get undressed. If you fail, you just lie down and sleep.

Based on my own experience with fatigue I can finish the last 10 miles of a forced march.

I can run 3 miles in 23 minutes (3 minutes slower than normal).
I can troubleshoot complex systems, and repair them.
I can stand sentry.


Arachnofiend wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?

To each their own.

Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.
And this kids is what we call a "false equivalency".

No this is what we call Rules as Written.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:

I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?

To each their own.

Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
J. A. wrote:

This is in Ultimate Equipment, p. 361. Each of the creature types has a selection of treasure types associated with it — aberrations have A, B, D, E, dragons have A, B, C, H, I, oozes have A, B, D, etc.

Each of the treasure types is affiliated with a table, but I can't work out how to select which treasure type to use for a particular creature. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to use each of those categories, or just a couple, or...what.

Ignore it.

No really.
It is not complete enough to actually be useful.


If you design a puzzle for the players and have no way for the characters to influence things then you have forfeited all right to b*+@* about metagaming.


Ravingdork wrote:

Looks like belts have a "belt" slot.

These are all the "slots" I've been able to find so far.

- anklets
- armbands
- backpack
- barding (for companion creatures)
- belt
- bracelet (note that slotless bracelets also appear to exist)
- bracers
- circlet
- cloak
- collar (usually, but not always for companion creatures)
- eyepiece
- garment
- gloves
- headwear
- horseshoes (for companion creatures)
- mask
- shoes

Rings, necklaces, amulets, broaches, and other small pieces of jewelry tend to be slotless it would seem.

But what about PANTS!?

There is nothing in the rules that keeps items locked into the listed forms. So a cloak of X could easily be an earring of X.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Looks like belts have a "belt" slot.

But what about PANTS!?

This came up during the playtest and there was an overwhelming majority that wanted to keep Pathfinder the Pantsless Roleplaying System.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously the best condition to inflict is "dead".


Bandw2 wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Let's actually examine the different language between editions, shall we?

PF1 says the following:

PF1 Knowledge Skills wrote:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

So...that's really pretty clear that it's one piece of info, plus another one per five to exceed the DC by.

Now, let's look at PF2:

PF2 Creature Identification wrote:
A character who successfully identifies a creature learns one of its best-known attributes—such as a troll’s regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes. On a critical success, the character also learns something subtler, like a demon’s weakness or the trigger for one of the creature’s reactions.

Beyond only getting more info on a crit (rather than for every 5 points), and making more explicit that the initial piece should be fundamental to the creature (but potentially really useful...like both regeneration and weakness on a Troll), that actually reads almost identically in terms of what you get.

Frankly, I cannot see any logic to thinking the second of those two paragraphs is more restrictive than the first in the way this thread is complaining about. I am confused and befuddled why anyone would think that the success conditions referred to in those two paragraphs had notably different results.

The fact that it takes an action to know anything at all is what makes it more restrictive. According to the rules you cannot
...

So no recall check is needed for common critters. Good to know.


Captain Morgan wrote:
I would definitely assume breaking your tools and needing to start over resets the process.

Why? If you have already cut the red wire how does it reattach when you flub cutting the blue wire?


swoosh wrote:

So basically "What if our GM is a terrible person who thinks the role of GM exists only to make our lives as players miserable"?

No amount of rules are going to save you from that.

True, but the rules seem to support that view. So an otherwise cooperative GM might come across as antagonistic because that is what the rules tell him to do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nope. Nor is there likely to ever be one.


Arakasius wrote:
If your DM is not telling you enough information to tell between a cat and a dog than you need a new DM. On cases where you need to make a check the fact that recall knowledge takes an action makes me much more likely to give you useful knowledge than in PF1 where battles began with every PC making a knowledge check on every odd monster.

"You see a medium sized mammalian quadruped."


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Let's actually examine the different language between editions, shall we?

PF1 says the following:

PF1 Knowledge Skills wrote:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

So...that's really pretty clear that it's one piece of info, plus another one per five to exceed the DC by.

Now, let's look at PF2:

PF2 Creature Identification wrote:
A character who successfully identifies a creature learns one of its best-known attributes—such as a troll’s regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes. On a critical success, the character also learns something subtler, like a demon’s weakness or the trigger for one of the creature’s reactions.

Beyond only getting more info on a crit (rather than for every 5 points), and making more explicit that the initial piece should be fundamental to the creature (but potentially really useful...like both regeneration and weakness on a Troll), that actually reads almost identically in terms of what you get.

Frankly, I cannot see any logic to thinking the second of those two paragraphs is more restrictive than the first in the way this thread is complaining about. I am confused and befuddled why anyone would think that the success conditions referred to in those two paragraphs had notably different results.

The fact that it takes an action to know anything at all is what makes it more restrictive. According to the rules you cannot differentiate between a dog, cat, or dire bear without a check. You cannot tell if the people approaching you are city guard or bandits because it takes an action to make the recall check to identify the uniforms.

Then you get to the part where you can get multiple bits of information on a decent roll as opposed to only a single piece of info except on a critical success. And the crit only gives you some nebulous additional info that is even less defined than what you get on a success.

Then there are the secret checks.

And finally there is the misinformation on a failed check.

All told it really comes across as being miserly with the information is the way things are supposed to be done.


Introducing Gee Mander the goblin wizard.

He is from a noble goblin family in Irrisen and probably the world's dumbest wizard with an Int of 12. But he is really sneaky and amazingly scary.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Bulk is just as easy to ignore as encumbrance.

And if you are an alchemist it is mandatory that you ignore it.


No sneak attack with spells unless you take the 4th level rogue class feat.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can see Asmodeus's restrictions: There is only one right way to worship him. This is very fitting for him.

But why can there not be CG followers of Gorum?


Is 'warfare lore' a valid skill to use for initiative?


But, is something that is your class feature and that uses your actions to function really a separate creature?

1/5

Mimo Tomblebur wrote:

I hope the "Speak Local Language" spell from Heroes of the Streets returns soon. That was a favorite on mine in 1E. Alternatively, the return of "Voluminous Vocabulary" from Ultimate Intrigue would be welcome.

The fact that both of these spells existed in 1E indicated an understanding by the designers that communication needed to be made easier, I wonder what happened to make them take it in the opposite direction.

Not a chance. There was a determined effort to reduce the ability to communicate, so unless the person driving that bus leaves Paizo abilities that increase the ability to communicate will not see the light of day.

The obvious answer to why is that mysteries are the new preferred style of story. Divinization, and especially communication, got the nerfhammer hard. Apparently too many people found that their intricate plot was undone by a simple detect magic or detect evil.


Long live the goblinmander!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In practice a nat 20 is a success. For it not to be you would have to critically fail on a nat 20, because a nat 20 boosts the success category by 1 step.


Kyrone wrote:

Imperial Sorcerer laughing because they have at least expert in ALL the skills.

Remember that DC's depends of the task, climbing a tree with low branches will always be DC10, doesn't matter if you are lvl 1 or lvl 20 for that per example.

Not how it will turn out in practice. They said that in the playtest, but all DCs automatically scaled. If you are climbing a tree a 20th level it will be a 20th level tree.


You can do some really crazy stuff with this by level 9.
Go slayer for 6 levels and then horizon walker for 3. Take astral plane for your terrain dominance. This gives you DDoor 3+wis mod times a day as an SLA. Take dimensional agility or you 9th level feat and then retrain to get the other feats in the chain so that you can flank with yourself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way it reads is this:

There is a kobold attempting to ambush the party. The DC to spot the kobold is X. But since only one person needs to spot the kobold and everyone gets a check the DC is X+5.

So somehow the kobold got sneakier because lots of people were looking for it.


You would think that after the confusion this question engendered in the last edition that it would be made clear here. Alas this is not so. Between the leap action and the athletic rules I get at least 2 answers.


Slamy Mcbiteo wrote:

Well I think it is up to the GM...nothing in the rules that I could find specifically limit reactions vs Unnoticed or Undetected attacks. Even Flat-footed does not stop the use of reactions. So I think it might be a GM decision.

There is nothing saying that a character does not gain the benefits of his action, so it must be a GM decision? By that token it must be a GM decision if the character can hit a bad guy; after all the rules are perfectly clear that he can but it is not what the GM wants.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
xellos wrote:
For example, a character has their shield raised during combat. The character is struck by an invisible attacker. Can the character use the Shield Block reaction?
By RAW, yes they can. It would not be unreasonable for a GM to rule otherwise, however, depending on the situation.

This is the rules forum, so the GM would be wrong to just make up a rule robbing a character the benefit of his action.


MrCharisma wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
Derklord wrote:
For completeness, heres the actual rule: "Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells." CRB pg. 216f
So, if an evil wizard cast Charm Monster, Dominate Monster or Suggestion on me, I cannot pretend to be enchanted, but if she cast Mass Charm Monster or Mass Suggestion on me, I can pretend to be enchanted?
Correct.

Incorrect. Both of those spells are targeted, it is just that they have multiple targets.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that this method of multiclassing is an effective method of deterring multiclassing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Goblins were crossbred with skittermanders.


Same thing. Your reach is 2 squares. Don't let the range in feet confuse you.


With the FAQ you threaten all squares that are exactly 2 squares away from you, even if it would normally be 15'. So, yes, you threaten 15' on the diagonals with a reach weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
McDaygo wrote:
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Question: you say you want realism, but what is realistic about trained soldiers, because that's what pcs are, freezing up in terror at known quantities of their world?

Some Soldiers absolutely freeze in the heat of the moment especially in high stress moments. Hell I feel I know a fair amount about animals and don’t fear them from a distance; However if I am swimming and a big shark happens to be near me that is a complete different scenario. That is 100 percent realistic.

Yes Pathfinder is heroic Fantasy but there is nothing wrong with not wanting an easy game. A dispute I had with a player (as a player not the GM) is they said we as players are supposed to win; I said I disagree, we are supposed to attempt to overcome but with no real chance at failure then it isn’t fun.

Rookies freeze, veterans do not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The CRB answers that question: 10 X spell level X caster level gp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
joefro wrote:


Wanted to play a paladin going in and can't believe the dice rolled so well in favor.

If I'm rolling dice for stats, let alone having to keep the order, I NEVER have ANY clue what I want to play until I see the stats. Way too much chance the dice will dictate otherwise.

Obviously, if this works for your group great. But I'm in the group that would loathe this with a fiery passion. I really don't necessarily want to play a summoner and/or druid every game :-)

Then play a hunter. :P


Slyme wrote:
According to this FAQ you can only crit on things that deal hit point damage. So no crit's on ability points, levels, etc.

What you linked says no such thing.

1 to 50 of 1,933 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>