Recent Posts
Oh no, that's not the point. It's the fact that he can't make us spend money on stuff, or gain extra gold for other items. Sometimes we're evil, and sometimes we're good. But even more so than that, he wants us to pay for curses to get removed. This helps him price out how much it'll cost for us to make it so it doesn't nerf us.
What does that have to do with the new rules? Curses are still nasty and you need to get them gone. I don't remember any rules to uncurse an item permanently, either.
James Risner
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
spiked gauntlets allow your unarmed strike to not provoke, also in pathfinder you are proficient with unarmed strike and any natural weapon you possess.
Wouldn't help unless they had Simple Weapon Proficiency (Spike is a simple weapon right? Or is it Martial?) If you didn't have Simple/Martial W P you would take the -4 to hit.
Admittedly, that last rellies on a game master going with a certain level of realism. Most people who get lit up by alchemist fire are going to abort their attack and try and put themselves out. This is basically magical napalm we are throwing around. At times, game masters I have played with have required Will saves (or if using them, an action point) to push on while on fire or even to dash through fire.
It does and it doesn't. If the creature's immune to fire, he honestly wouldn't care. I've had DMs that know what you're probably going to do, have all the monsters on the realm get a twittered memo about you and your plans, and then when they face you they're ready to go. One player's even said "Wow, I wish I could get that memo." So do I.
I think the spiked gauntlet would interfere with the drawing arrows and pulling the bow string.
I agree though that a gauntlet (regular) would not. I also would not have a problem with a 'spiked shoe' (knife blade built into the sole sticking forward to kick with) being used. A kick is still an unarmed attack, the spiked boot would make it equivelant to a spiked gauntlet blow. Or the ranger can pick up IUS if he wants to punch.
Easiest of course is the Zen Archer Monk, who just kicks you in the family jewels and then shoots your friend. :)
I think the spiked gauntlet would interfere with the drawing arrows and pulling the bow string.
I agree though that a gauntlet (regular) would not. I also would not have a problem with a 'spiked shoe' (knife blade built into the sole sticking forward to kick with) being used. A kick is still an unarmed attack, the spiked boot would make it equivelant to a spiked gauntlet blow. Or the ranger can pick up IUS if he wants to punch.
Easiest of course is the Zen Archer Monk, who just kicks you in the family jewels and then shoots your friend. :)
Last I checked you use your fingers to grab arrows out of a quiver, and if I were designing a weapon that could be worn while allowing you to do other things like climb a rope, hold a sword or axe or bow, etc. I would put the blades on the BACK of the hand, where they won't be in the way.
Someone mentioned you couldn't do an AoO because it's all happening simultaneously. This is a weak argument. It happens after those bow attacks, you're imagining things, otherwise we would have to break up iterative attacks. Fighter gets one, wizard gets one, fighter gets one with off hand, and second iterative. Aside from that, it's an attack of Opportunity. Somebody did something dumb and you're taking advantage of the situation once per round unless you have special training, combat reflexes. How is punching someone with a spiked gauntlet different than someone with IUS punching someone under the exact same circumstances? It's not.. weak weak argument.
Admittedly, that last rellies on a game master going with a certain level of realism. Most people who get lit up by alchemist fire are going to abort their attack and try and put themselves out. This is basically magical napalm we are throwing around. At times, game masters I have played with have required Will saves (or if using them, an action point) to push on while on fire or even to dash through fire.It does and it doesn't. If the creature's immune to fire, he honestly wouldn't care. I've had DMs that know what you're probably going to do, have all the monsters on the realm get a twittered memo about you and your plans, and then when they face you they're ready to go. One player's even said "Wow, I wish I could get that memo." So do I.Have played under those sorts DMs before...never for long. I usually walked out on those DMs in the middle of the game after a few sessions of that sort of action from them.
Those actually really piss me off. They strike me as way way too competitive about the game and often take a sadistic glee in watching their players fail no matter what they do or how carefully they plan things...because the game master essentially used meta-game knowledge on the monsters' behalf.
If the group just arrived in a location a thousand miles from their usual theatre of operations, the locals are not going to have any clue usually that thier wizard is a extremely competent fire specialist with a rather impressive fire elmental ally....at least not until it is far far too late. A game master automatically countering that because of his knowledge and not the knowledge of the locals strikes me as extremely, especially if it happens regularly.
I've always felt like it's the job of the GM to lose on purpose in a way that makes the game fun and challenging for everyone. A GM who wants to "win" can be difficult to play with. I don't mind a GM metagaming to make a great challenge, but if he knows you like to use the sleep spell and every thing you fight is immune to sleep(not because it has more than 4 HD :), that's when it's a problem.
Have played under those sorts DMs before...never for long. I usually walked out on those DMs in the middle of the game after a few sessions of that sort of action from them.
Those actually really piss me off. They strike me as way way too competitive about the game and often take a sadistic glee in watching their players fail no matter what they do or how carefully they plan things...because the game master essentially used meta-game knowledge on the monsters' behalf.
If the group just arrived in a location a thousand miles from their usual theatre of operations, the locals are not going to have any clue usually that thier wizard is a extremely competent fire specialist with a rather impressive fire elmental ally....at least not until it is far far too late. A game master automatically countering that because of his knowledge and not the knowledge of the locals strikes me as extremely, especially if it happens regularly.
Funniest thing in my last campaign came about because people had characters that were immune to my bad guys attacks.
I'd set up my bad guys ahead of time. Forestkith Goblins. Whenever anyone entered their woods, they attacked them with scouts first, to encourage them to leave. The scouts would set up traps ahead of time by watching which way the people were moving. Then set up some more after they bedded down for the night. Once the traps were set up, they'd stand behind the line of traps and start sniping them with bows. The arrows were tipped with a mixture of poison and diseased fluids from a sick animal (so poisoned + diseased).
Unfortunately, I had in the party :
1 Duerger (immune to poison)
1 Poisondusk Lizardfolk (immune to poison)
1 Woodling Catfolk (immune to disease & poison)
1 Draconic half-giant
1 Centaur
1 Kobold
The scouts put two arrows into each person, starting with the ones sleeping on the ground. Then the centaur charged them and set off a sling trap (giant net that flung him up into the air and 40 feet away). The two goblins ran off after the trap got sprung.
The Centaur almost died from the arrows and sling trap (the goblins both critted him once with the arrows, he failed both his disease and poison check, and took buckets from the sling trap).
The kobold and the Centaur, after healing, were sick for days. The woodling druid was fine, as was the half-giant (just couldn't seem to fail a fortitude save), and the poisondusk caught sick too. And the druid wasn't high enough to cast remove disease yet. Nor was the cleric (the half-giant).
The players HATED those two goblins, because they kept sniping them at odd times of the day and night, fire 1 or 2 arrows, reinfect or repoison someone, then fade into the bushes again. Also the traps they kept setting up were a major pain, and slowed them down even more.
I had a ball. :)
MDT,
Encounters like that are enjoyable to me as aplayer. But if someone did that every adventure, always used GM knowledge to counter our tactics, I'd be out the door before you d20 stopped spinning.
Uhm, I didn't use GM knowledge to counter tactics. I picked tactics for two scouts in the woods whose job it was to discourage or kill intruders. They couldn't kill them, so they harassed them trying to get them to leave the forest. I don't think that's using GM knowledge, if you do, I don't know how your GM could ever run any encounter.
They just had to move slow and look for traps. They got most of them, just missed one every once in awhile. And it's very very very hard to counter two snipers. They just wait until you are not looking and then shoot. That's why snipers and gureilla fighters are so hard to track down in real life, they take their time and strike at the worst possible time. That's not me countering their tactics, that's me using the best tactics for the NPC's in a given situation. Remember, I'd already wrote them up as using a mixture of disease/poison long before the players made characters.
Had a GM once who no matter how carefully we scouted the situation (mundanely and magically), no matter how carefully we planned the attack, no matter what spells the casters prepared....the enemy was always ready for every tactic, spell, class ability, race feature we had in the party. I walked out after the third session of that game and never looked back except to think "wow, he sucked as a game master." By the next two seesions everyone had left the game and the only thing he had left was his false sense of superiority ;)
I don't do that, and I don't think I described that. I did have one encounter where the bad guys always knew what the players were going to do, but they figured that out when someone noticed that a wren was always flying overhead (was actually a goblin wizard using polymorph). :) Other than that, I pick the tactics best used for the NPC's in a given situation, based on their knowledge. If they don't know the characters have a wand of fireball, they aren't going to have Resist Element's cast. But, once the PC's fire off a fireball, their wizard will cast Resist Elements because that's the best tactic to use.
Having said that, yeah, I've played under GM's who used unlimited omnisicience before to let all the bad guys know what we were going to do. I quit playing in his games too. Yuck.
MDT, wasnt saying you did that. It was clear you didnt. I am sorry if my response was not as clear as your post i responded to.I was saying *IF* that was soemthign someone did intentionally, I would be out of their game.
Oh, sorry. :) Just had some threads recently where people jump on me for being a bad GM for not agreeing they should get their way all the time in a game. :) So I'm still a little sensative. :)
And I agree, GM's that always have someone canceling your abilities is not fun.
Except there's another problem, one that's been around since 3.0 and the introduction of attacks of opportunity, and that's reach. Try 5' adjusting away from an Ogre or Troll and letting off a volley. Yeah, right.Also, step-up is actually hugely valuable to any melee character, precisely because of how powerful casters are. I honestly would never build a Fighter class character who didn't pick it up in the first 6 levels or so, and can't really see most Paladins going without it either, though there are some who might. (Rangers are a mixed bag of melee vs ranged, and barbarians get their own version of it, so those are hard to call.)
I agree, I imagine most of my NPC's who are pure fighter types (Fighters, Rogues, and Monks) will probably have step-up. Rogues especially will want it to stay in Sneak Attack with Full Attack range. I don't think it's all that important before level 6 (where you get iterative attacks, but it still helps with casters trying to cast without AoO before then), but after 6 (9 with rogues) it's very very important.
The days of cross-class skills, and paying two ranks for one skill point ended with Pathfinder. All skill ranks now cost 1 for 1, whether its a class skill or not.So why have class skills at all?
As for class dipping, it's an option, but you'd be losing out on your final level's awesome finisher ability. Even more so if you'd planned on taking another class, or even a PrC.
For me as DM, I hate dipping. It disrupts balance at 1st to 3rd level. I am thinking about to only allow dual-classing if a minimum of 3rd level is taken, with no greater difference between classes then 2 or 3, thought that this might be a step back to 2nd or 3rd Edition.
great deterrent to engaging an archer in melee....a hulking barbarian friend next to him really hoping you try like the first guy, whose remains the barbarian is covered in....few things say keep away from the archer like "Bloodsoaked Intimidate".
lol I like that. Too bad ours wouldn't do that. He's the guy that charges as soon as possible. He's probably the worst character for dipping. He's practically got his own character sheet just for classes. However, his BAB is absolute crap. At 15th lvl he's only got a +8 because of all the +0 BAB classes he's taken. But he's got more than two limbs to fight with, multiattack, pounce, magic items that can get through most DR, and insane strength to make up for his low attack (thankfully). If he hits you with a full round, you're dead. It doesn't matter what you are. He took out a T-Rex in one round, by himself. Of course, it helped that the warblade was "leading the charge". XD
I hate "memos" as well. They get you killed so fast by your enemies. It's like you're a grade schooler again, playing guns, and that one kid who "comes from the future" is yelling out "blocked it" because of his invisible forcefield. :P The only difference is two can't play that game.
It's not even so much archers though that I'm worried about for ranged vs melee. They have upwards of 60-120 feet worth of play before they can be attacked (unless they're going for Point Blank). It's the players whose character is a gunslinger, and only get 20 feet.
Price the gunslinger pays for looking cool upon cool, kevin. You can look cool or you can get a weapon with decent range.
And for gunslingers it is easy...take the feat in the Campaign Setting...then you can shoot someone point blank and not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Yeah, fair enough. Depending on whether or not you make them exotic weapons or if they're simple (Tome of Secrets) will be the biggest factor though.
@ OP:
I think this was already touched on but Hide in Plain Sight would be a life saver in a situation where the archer finds himself in melee. You wouldn't have to use it all the time. When someone gets up on you it would give you the ability to disappear and relocate then unload on that poor fool. A simple potion of Invisibility for emergencies would do the trick too. If you are at the max distance of your first range increment with your weapon and have some caltrops or such in place it should take an enemy at least two turns to get to you. That gives you plenty of time to move off to a new vantage point.
Also if you are willing to sacrifice your full attack you can use the attack, move/Stealth tactic with HiPS or if you don’t have HiPS you can just load up on Stealth and Snipe from 100+ feet away, in which case the enemy would probably never even know where you were.
I also like the Spiked Gauntlet/Poison or Caltrops/Poison ideas a lot. There were some posts saying that Spiked Gauntlets would probably interfere with the bow string or drawing arrows but remember there are no rules saying this and the Spiked Gauntlet does not have to look like it is described in the equipment section of the PHB or PFCRB. I would say they shouldn't interfere with archery any more than Bracers or anything else that might go on your forearms, which also do not interfere by the rules. As for the feel/look of your archer if you don't like the idea of them wearing metal gloves with spikes, then don’t make the Spiked Gauntlet metal. Make it more of a Ninja like glove (Heavy Fabrics and Leather) with the spikes on the knuckles or on the back of the hand.
Cheap, disposable, brutally effective especially when poisoned (if alignment and class allow).
To my knowledge Class and Alignment have nothing to do with whether or not you may use poisoned weapons. Any class can use poison but not all classes get the Poison Use ability so most would always suffer the 5% chance of poisoning themselves. The only two classes that get Poison Use (that I am aware of) are Assassin and Ninja. True, Assassins must be evil but using Poisons has nothing to do with being evil and Ninjas do not have an alignment restriction. If you never want to take Assassin or Ninja to get Poison Use but still don’t want to risk poisoning yourself (and if the book is available in your game) take the Poison Master feat from Drow of the Underdark. It has no alignment prerequisite (in fact I don’t think it has any prerequisite at all) and it allows you to apply poisons as a free (or swift) action without the chance of poisoning yourself.
I know poisons have typically been associated with evil but there is nothing to my knowledge in the rules that say that. I don’t see how using any contact or injury poisons in battle would be any more nefarious than using weapon enchantments that deal extra damage. There are situations in which poisoning someone with ingested or inhaled poison might be rather nefarious but that is a question of how you are using the poison and why rather than the fact that you are using poisons. Even the use of inhaled and ingested poisons isn’t inherently evil. Take Wesley in the Princess Bride for example: He challenges a man to a battle of wits the result of which was his enemy dying from ingested poison. Was that an evil act, I don’t believe so.
@ The Meta-Game knowledge debate:
I have never really had to deal with a DM who used meta-game knowledge to create a world of monsters and NPCs who knew exactly how to defeat the party at every turn. I would definitely not put up with such non-sense. My current DM does a good job of having most enemies stick to their own tactics; some tactics are harder on us than others. There are, however, certain scenarios where the enemies will be prepared for you. We were for a short time plagued by another adventuring/mercenary party who we encountered multiple times and who had been following us and observing us and our typical tactics. When they ambushed us for their final assault they knew our tricks and it turned out to be a very brutal life or death fight but we came out on top and never heard from them, or their organization, again. Most enemies in the local area might be somewhat familiar with us due to reputation and word on the street (That is of course if such information is available to them random monsters in the wilderness or even roving bands of ogres and such would have no such knowledge). Some enemies, like a thieves’ guild, have a network of contacts to gain slightly more detailed information about us, but only that once have we come across anyone who is truly prepared for everything we do and it was a special case of people who had been following us and preparing for the battle. I tend to run my games and bad guys in a similar fashion.
Well, there are some restrictions for poison:
Poison is not evil, but many consider it dishonourable, a coward's weapon.
I agree that it has negative judgments attached to it but that doesn't always make them correct judgments. Is the young woman, battered every day by her husband a coward for poisoning his food one day? Would she be any more/less a coward to Coup de Grace him in his sleep? Or perhaps it is perfectly legal for her husband to beat her and as such she should simply do nothing to defend herself and accept her lot in life.
For most people I would say poisons are one of those "equalizers" IE: You may be tough now but wait until you have a little of this stuff running through you. It is right up a Rogues alley as well as probably Bards. I would say that many Ranger types and Barbarians would not hesitate to use it. Druids would certainly use it as most poisons are a natural thing found in the environment and are neither good nor evil (and they get the Poison spell). Some mercenary Fighter concepts would use poisons but most would probably not use it due to the rigidity of their training and a personal dedication to defeating foes with martial prowess rather than sneaky tactics. Some Clerics would probably use it as they also get the Poison spell but I would imagine that most Clerics of a Lawful or Good god would probably shy away from the practice. I could see LN or LE Monks using it but probably not LG. The reason I think probably most Lawful Good characters might not use it is that Poison is probably one of those things that is illegal in most large civilizations and at the very least looked down on by the law.
In fact, the paladin's code forbids the use of poison.
That is a good point and I had overlooked that fact. But it is also important to note that a Paladin's code goes above and beyond what is expected even of other Lawful Good characters.
MDT, wasnt saying you did that. It was clear you didnt. I am sorry if my response was not as clear as your post i responded to.I was saying *IF* that was soemthign someone did intentionally, I would be out of their game.
Oh, sorry. :) Just had some threads recently where people jump on me for being a bad GM for not agreeing they should get their way all the time in a game. :) So I'm still a little sensative. :)
And I agree, GM's that always have someone canceling your abilities is not fun.
LMAO!
I agree that it has negative judgments attached to it but that doesn't always make them correct judgments. Is the young woman, battered every day by her husband a coward for poisoning his food one day?
Well, yeah.
It might be the only way for her to get back at him (let's just assume she couldn't just go and tell the guard, or a local Paladin of Serenrae or someone like that), but it's still cowardly. She's not standing up to him.
Would she be any more/less a coward to Coup de Grace him in his sleep?
That's craven, too. Doesn't mean they're both honourable choices.
Or perhaps it is perfectly legal for her husband to beat her and as such she should simply do nothing to defend herself and accept her lot in life.
Well, either that, or the world is not digital. Maybe this is not some computer game where you have to click on one of two choices to decide your action.
As I said: There are certainly other ways to resolve this. Go to the authorities.
And one very, very, very, very, very important thing:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
So the guy next door ran over my dog so I just rape his daughter to get back at him? Obviously not.
Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, so does murder as a solution to battery.
For most people I would say poisons are one of those "equalizers" IE: You may be tough now but wait until you have a little of this stuff running through you.
Is it fair? Maybe.
Is it honourable? No.
Is acting dishonourably against someone who is dishonourable himself an honourable act? No, it is dishonourable itself. Acting honourably at all times is honourable.
I understand that this might not always give you a chance of "winning". It might be necessary, for the "greater good", to fight fire with fire.
But for one fact, all this makes no difference: Honour is honour, and dishonour is dishonour.
It is right up a Rogues alley as well as probably Bards. I would say that many Ranger types and Barbarians would not hesitate to use it.
Of course.
I might add that the rogue is the poster child of the "I don't give a rat's ass about honour" crowd.
And the rest isn't exactly prime Lawful material, either.
Druids would certainly use it as most poisons are a natural thing found in the environment and are neither good nor evil (and they get the Poison spell).
In the same vein, druids aren't known for caring too much about other concepts humanoids care about, like honour. Nature doesn't know honour. Nature just is.
Some mercenary Fighter concepts would use poisons but most would probably not use it due to the rigidity of their training and a personal dedication to defeating foes with martial prowess rather than sneaky tactics.
I disagree. For me, the fighter class is completely devoid of inherent "flavour" or alignment preferences. The honourable knight is as much a typical fighter as the underhanded street thug.
Some Clerics would probably use it as they also get the Poison spell but I would imagine that most Clerics of a Lawful or Good god would probably shy away from the practice.
As I said: Good or evil doesn't really have that much to do with it. While LG will probably shy away from it, CG won't necessarily do so. They don't care too much about honourable conduct. They have their own codes. They care about fairness more than what is "right and proper"
Fair enough, I did not make my point as well as I had intended to and by the rules of the game I am aware that poison is widely understood to be a less than honorable tactic. That said, none of that had anything to do with my point.
.
My point was twofold:
1) Honor is in the eye of the beholder and just because something is viewed as honorable or dishonorable in the eyes of many doesn't make it so. In some countries it is honorable to kill your daughter for being with a man you have not chosen for her. If you would argue that murdering someone who beats you daily is absurd I would argue that the above situation, while both honorable and perfectly legal in some societies, is equally, if not far more, absurd.
2) Just because something is legal doesn't make it right and likewise just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. Slavery for instance: Absolutely legal and perfectly acceptable to almost every major civilization in our world's past, but does that make it right?
.
I realize that most of us don't play a D&D game that is based 100% on the true methods and nature of our past societies. And so honor killings, slavery, and beating your wife (who, let’s face it in most ancient societies was just another slave) are only legal in countries that are primarily dominated by Evil like Thay of Faerun. But do not forget that all of these things were absolutely legal and perfectly morally acceptable in most ancient cultures. Cultures most of us today do not view as Evil so much as uncivilized. Moreover the local Paladin in such a society would rush to defend these actions as they are both legal and honorable in his culture. Most of the ideals that we put on medieval fantasy are ideals that many medieval people did not have. Most of what we perceive to be legal/illegal or honorable/dishonorable is only in our own imaginations and the collective moral view of our particular society. Luckily in D&D we have a rigid alignment system and you can look at a particular action and say, "That is WRONG and EVIL!" regardless of whether or not the person doing it looks back at you and says, "No, it is perfectly legal and in fact quite honorable in my country."
But that goes back to my original post. Poison is not restricted by alignment or class (except Paladin) and therefore is perfectly acceptable to use for most characters. Any other personal judgments you put on it are just that, personal judgments.
.
I don't understand why you took issue with my statement about Fighters, perhaps you misunderstood me.
I disagree. For me, the fighter class is completely devoid of inherent "flavour" or alignment preferences. The honourable knight is as much a typical fighter as the underhanded street thug.
I agree. That is why I said some mercenary concepts would use it while most other concepts probably would not. Obviously the Chaotic X mercenary probably wouldn’t hesitate to use poison. But the Knight probably would not use it due to the rigidity of his training and his personal code.
.
While I do understand perfectly well that in game terms it is a less than honest/honorable tactic, I don’t see anything realistically different between using poison on your weapons and enchanting an extra 2d6 worth of elemental damage on your weapon. I certainly don't see anything anymore dishonorable about using poison on a weapon than it is to gang up with your entire party on one foe (which happens all the time in adventures and it perfectly acceptable). For instance: The last boss fight of a dungeon. This guy is big and bad and you had to fight through a lot of henchmen to get to him. At the beginning of the battle he is tearing up your party apart and it is all the Cleric/Paladin can do to keep everyone up. But by what measure is this, an honorable fight? It's a free for all on the big nasty guy, you have the Wizard/Sorcerer blasting him, the Fighter hacking him, the Rogue stabbing his kidneys, the Paladin smiting the living crap out of him, the Cleric healing/buffing everyone so they can do it even better, etc. . . And all this is not only perfectly acceptable but it would be absurd not to do it at most gaming tables. Game wise, no party is just going to sit back and let the Paladin handle it by himself. But tell me this, in what culture is ganging up on one guy, just because he is bigger and meaner than you are, considered an "honorable" act? Seems to me to be on about the same level as, oh say, a frail young woman poisoning a man who beats her daily because she knows she would never win in a fair fight.
.
Once again I would say: “Poison is not restricted by alignment or class (except Paladin) and therefore is perfectly acceptable to use for most characters. Any other personal judgments you put on it are just that, personal judgments.”
So the guy next door ran over my dog so I just rape his daughter to get back at him? Obviously not.Not even if she's smoking hot yet really stubborn? ;) lmao
So you know about my Paladin of Calistria concept I've been thinking about?
1) Honor is in the eye of the beholder and just because something is viewed as honorable or dishonorable in the eyes of many doesn't make it so. In some countries it is honorable to kill your daughter for being with a man you have not chosen for her. If you would argue that murdering someone who beats you daily is absurd I would argue that the above situation, while both honorable and perfectly legal in some societies, is equally, if not far more, absurd.
I'm not saying that murdering someone who beats you daily. I might even agree that he had it coming. Being the chaotic type myself, I wouldn't hold it against her.
And what he does is definitely dishonourable.
What I'm saying is that poisoning someone like him is still dishonourable.
2) Just because something is legal doesn't make it right and likewise just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. Slavery for instance: Absolutely legal and perfectly acceptable to almost every major civilization in our world's past, but does that make it right?
I agree: Legal and right are two different things.
But honourable is a third thing, independent of the other two.
Slavery: Can be legal (well, everything can be legal depending on the law), might even be right. Can be honourable.
Moreover the local Paladin in such a society would rush to defend these actions as they are both legal and honorable in his culture.
They're still evil, so the Paladin must oppose them.
Luckily in D&D we have a rigid alignment system and you can look at a particular action and say, "That is WRONG and EVIL!" regardless of whether or not the person doing it looks back at you and says, "No, it is perfectly legal and in fact quite honorable in my country."
Yes, that's good, isn't it.
Because many a villain considers himself good and honourable.
"Every day mankind comes closer to its self destruction. I'm not destroying the world; I'm merely saving it."
But that goes back to my original post. Poison is not restricted by alignment or class (except Paladin) and therefore is perfectly acceptable to use for most characters. Any other personal judgments you put on it are just that, personal judgments.
But I'm always right!
I still say poison isn't honourable. Maybe not unlawful, but lawful characters don't have to be honourable, and chaotic characters don't have to be dishonourable.
I don't understand why you took issue with my statement about Fighters
You said that most fighters wouldn't use poison because the class breeds a non-poisoner's mindset.
I disagree. As I said: Fighters are completely devoid of flavour. They're as vanilla as it gets.
Which means you can use any flavour you want.
If you would argue that murdering someone who beats you daily is absurd I would argue that the above situation, while both honorable and perfectly legal in some societies, is equally, if not far more, absurd.
I'm not saying that murdering someone who beats you daily *(is absurd)*.
*(I inserted this because it seemed from the way you quoted me and your sentence structure you intended to put it in there and mistyped)*
You are correct, you didn’t call it “absurd” you called it “ridiculous.”
So the guy next door ran over my dog so I just rape his daughter to get back at him? Obviously not.
Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, so does murder as a solution to battery.
What I'm saying is that poisoning someone like him is still dishonourable.
I respect your opinion and readily admit that it is not considered honorable in most cultures. But you have never the less failed to prove your point. There are no rules that say it is dishonorable for “everyone” nor cultural guidelines in the campaign world that make it dishonorable in one civilization vs. another. And you have failed to argue against my point which wasn’t that poisoning “couldn’t” be considered a dishonorable act but that rather “Honor is in the eye of the beholder.” What is honorable for one person/culture is absolutely abhorrent for another person/culture. The Samurai for example: They would commit ritual suicide if they were bested in combat. By the standard of almost any other culture that would be considered to be at least cowardly if not sinful. The “honor killing” of your daughter is another thing that is legal and honorable, even righteous, in some cultures. But by any other standard is absolutely disgusting and evil. In some cultures it was considered dishonest and a sign of sinister intent to be born left handed.
You say poison is dishonorable but what about the numerous Indian tribes that used poison tipped darts or arrows to hunt with? Are they dishonorable by nature? Perhaps they are simply too uncivilized to know about honor? Or maybe they just have a very different view of what honor is and poison isn’t considered wrong in their eyes. The fact is that many Indian cultures were more civilized than many medieval European cultures and they derived their sense of morality and honor from observing nature and natural law.
So for you to just lay down a blanket statement that says poisoning is dishonorable is probably not accurate even in terms of the game and I would say it’s just your Personal Judgment. Again “Honor is in the eye of the beholder” and the only place a character specific view of honor is spelled out is with the Paladin (and even that isn’t spelled out very clearly). They put using poisons right next to lying and cheating, which would lead me to believe that it is not the “using of poison” that is dishonorable but “how the poison is employed” that could be dishonorable. Poison on the blade is just another method of maiming and killing your opponent, no different than elemental enchantments. Poison in the food of someone you intend to assassinate without taking the blame for killing him yourself, that is probably more along the lines of what a Paladin would consider dishonorable.
But honourable is a third thing, independent of the other two.
Actually honor codes are usually based on upholding the highest standards of your cultures laws, morality, and beliefs. So, I would say that honor has a great deal to do with what is considered Law and Good in any given culture.
Slavery: Can be legal (well, everything can be legal depending on the law), might even be right. Can be honourable.
I am not sure how you intend to say that enslaving someone could be an honorable thing but poisoning someone could not. And your next sentence, in answer to my comment about honor killing, slavery, etcetera seems to be contradicting what you are saying above. If it is lawful, right and honorable I don't see how you could say it is still evil and a Paladin would fight against it:
They're still evil, so the Paladin must oppose them.
Actually in your quote before this one it seems you don’t necessarily think slavery is an evil act. Really, slavery in and of itself is never specified as evil to my knowledge in the rules, nor does the Paladin code specifically forbid it. The actions you take toward your slaves may or may not be evil. But let’s not forget that a Paladin’s code also forces him to respect legitimate authority and in a culture where slavery is legal and the slaves are not being mistreated he would be in fact obligated to defend the practice. In the case of honor killings: in that culture the young woman has in fact broken the law of her people, for which the punishment is death, she has also dishonored her family and the father has the legal right to kill her as punishment for her crime and to regain his families honor. So, a Paladin of that country would in fact have no issue with this action taking place, unless you consider executing someone for their willful crimes an Evil act. On the other hand, a Paladin of another country might attack that man on sight and give his life to defend that young woman.
Luckily in D&D we have a rigid alignment system and you can look at a particular action and say, "That is WRONG and EVIL!" regardless of whether or not the person doing it looks back at you and says, "No, it is perfectly legal and in fact quite honorable in my country."
Yes, that's good, isn't it.
Notice, however, Poison is far from evil and only considered to be dishonorable by a Paladin, which I might add does not make it dishonorable for “everyone” it just means that in his mind and in his code it is considered dishonorable for him.
Because many a villain considers himself good and honourable.
Actually many evil men are honorable by your universal standards. In fact some evil men might be considered far more honorable than the Good aligned party members by universal standards.
But I'm always right!
Yeah this seems to be the cornerstone of your argument. And hey, for “you” your opinion is correct because honor is not a universal system (not even in the game to my knowledge), it is a personal code based largely on the dominant laws, moral standing, and ideals of a particular civilization/organization. Your view of what is honorable may be wildly different from someone else’s view.
You said that most fighters wouldn't use poison because the class breeds a non-poisoner's mindset.
I see how you would take it this way but that’s not what I said or meant:
Some mercenary Fighter concepts would use poisons but most would probably not use it due to the rigidity of their training and a personal dedication to defeating foes with martial prowess rather than sneaky tactics.
I didn’t say anything about their class breeding anything; I was talking about “Fighter concepts.” Alright I have bolded things that I intended to emphasize. The word MOST goes back to the phrase Fighter concepts. And I stand by what I said. Most concepts, of a character portrayed by the Fighter class, would likely not use poison. Why do I say this?
None of these Fighter types (Concepts) would likely embrace poison use:
1) Fencer or Musketeer
2) Medieval Knight or Crusader
3) Spartan warrior (A fine example of someone who would think the ritual suicide of a Samurai to be complete cowardice.)
4) Roman soldier
5) Conquistador
6) Samurai (For whome defeat is dishonor and the only way to regain honor is taking one's own life.)
Whereas these likely would:
1) Mercenary/Thug
2) Buccaneer/Pirate
3) Any less civilized warriors (probably better represented by the Barbarian class)
4) Evil Warlord – probably could fall under Mercenary/Thug though.
I am sure there are other examples of both concepts that would and would not use poisons but by far I would think that the majority of Fighter concepts would not use them due to “training” and/or “personal code.”
I noticed that you completely ignored my closing argument:
. . . I don’t see anything realistically different between using poison on your weapons and enchanting an extra 2d6 worth of elemental damage on your weapon. I certainly don't see anything anymore dishonorable about using poison on a weapon than it is to gang up with your entire party on one foe (which happens all the time in adventures and it perfectly acceptable). For instance: The last boss fight of a dungeon. This guy is big and bad and you had to fight through a lot of henchmen to get to him. At the beginning of the battle he is tearing up your party apart and it is all the Cleric/Paladin can do to keep everyone up. But by what measure is this, an honorable fight? It's a free for all on the big nasty guy, you have the Wizard/Sorcerer blasting him, the Fighter hacking him, the Rogue stabbing his kidneys, the Paladin smiting the living crap out of him, the Cleric healing/buffing everyone so they can do it even better, etc. . . And all this is not only perfectly acceptable but it would be absurd not to do it at most gaming tables. Game wise, no party is just going to sit back and let the Paladin handle it by himself. But tell me this, in what culture is ganging up on one guy, just because he is bigger and meaner than you are, considered an "honorable" act? Seems to me to be on about the same level as, oh say, a frail young woman poisoning a man who beats her daily because she knows she would never win in a fair fight.
And now I would leave you with one final bit of opinion to read and contemplate. I found this on another forum:
It may come across smarmy, perhaps a bit sarcastic. That is not directed at the board or its readers. It's really directed more toward my playing groups, based on our numerous discussions (ahem, arguments) about this very topic. So it's slightly tongue-in-cheek and uses quite a bit of hyperbole to make my point.
Hopefully, agree or disagree, you'll enjoy the read and maybe rethink your position on poison. Common arguments heard for why poison is evil:
1) It's evil by its very nature
2) It gives the user an unfair advantage
3) It's sole purpose is to impair and injure another being
4) Poison use lacks honor or dignity
5) It requires pre-meditation of violent action and full knowledge of the possible effects
6) It's cowardly and detaches the victim from the aggressor
And now for my rationale debunking each argument.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1) It's evil by its very nature
This is easy for me to rationalize out of game and in game. Spiders, scorpions, snakes, wasps and itty bitty dart frogs are not evil. They all use poison to live, thrive and survive. Whether it's a defense mechanism or a hunting tool, poison is commonplace in the natural world. In strict game terms, these creatures are of neutral alignment, not evil. If poison and its use were truly evil, animals with natural poison abilities would be classified as evil.
If someone makes the counter argument that an animal/insect lacks the intelligence and self-awareness to understand the ramifications of its actions, that's great. Please, go ahead and make that argument. It goes a long way toward adding weight to most of my other points about poison. That alone virtually makes my argument that the use of poison can't possibly be evil.
This counter argument offers an insight that the poison itself is not the evil, but it's the understanding poison's impact and accepting those consequences that are the factor that make its use evil. I'll cover that shortly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2) Poison gives the user an unfair advantage
Combat, encounters and Dungeons & Dragons in general are all about facing unfair advantages and equalizing them. One could argue that a pure Fighter or Barbarian has an unfair advantage in melee combat over a Sorcerer or Wizard, but that doesn't make the Fighter or Barbarian evil by default. The fact that some classes can use magic items or cast spells is an unfair advantage over ones that can't. A monster that has damage resistance to certain weapons is unfair to warriors. A creature with spell immunity is unfair to casters.
I strongly disagree with the argument that using poison gives the poison user an unfair advantage. On the contrary, poison is an equal opportunity tool. In strictly game terms, each class has different strengths and weaknesses. In the strongest stereotypical comparison possible, one could assert that "Strong Physical Combat/Weak Magic Ability" sits on one end and "Weak Physical Combat/High Magic Ability" sits on the other end of this theoretical spectrum.
The further you are to one end of the spectrum or the other, the more you need to expend in terms of class and role resources to get better at your opposite. This is usually done by spending skill points, feats or selecting new class levels. However, with poison, everyone has roughly the same access.
Since only a select few prestige classes have any poison related skills or abilities, poison crafting abilities are available to anyone. Doses of poison are fairly affordable and come in a wide variety of forms, offering a lot of flexibility to the end user, and there are no imposed class restrictions on being able to purchase or use poison (such as buying a wand of fireballs having no appreciable benefit to a pure fighter).
The fact that poison is so accessible to so many characters, classes and roles makes it a universal equalizer. It doesn't matter if you have bulging muscles or a bulging medulla -- anyone can use poison and use it effectively with a little bit of practice and applied resources. That sounds pretty darn fair to me!
So which is the greater unfairness?
- A tool available to anyone, safely useable with a modicum of training (ie, doses of poison, requiring a few cross-class skill points and some money)
- A tool requiring a restricted subset of the populace to expend time, training and resources to use properly (ie, a suit of heavy armor for Wizards [requiring feats/suffering drawbacks] or a Staff of Healing for a Barbarian [requiring acquisition of different class levels/abilities]).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3) It's sole purpose is to impair/injure/maim/kill another being
This may have been the most absurd argument one of my players made while I was DMing. And even as a player in another campaign (where I was playing a lawful good cleric that used poison arrows - which *everyone* lobbied morally against), I heard this quite a bit. This is completely irrelevant. Granted, it's also completely true. But still irrelevant. In fact, in the words of Bubbles from the Powerpuff Girls, "Well... Duh!"
Why is it irrelevant? Well, look at everything else in D&D that is built for the same purpose that no one is concerned about morally. Let's start with the list of weapons. Battleaxe has the word "battle" in it for a reason. Longswords, bows, axes, maces, the list of weapons is quite extensive. Aside from a few items that see double duty as farming or hunting tools, all these are built to impair/injure/maim/kill. And I don't think anyone can argue that a standard shortsword is evil in and of itself.
Earlier, you'll recall the counter argument that it's all about the impact and acceptance of consequence. Well, that counter argument completely unravels when you compare poison to other tools that impair/injure/maim/kill.
Compared to most weapons, poison has a very, very small chance of actually killing its victim. Only poisons that inflict Con damage can technically kill a victim outright. Most poisons apply condition modifiers or ability penalties. Poisons have no critical range, no critical multiplier. Poisons do not rely on the skills, abilities and feats of the user to augment their effectiveness. Poisons don't do "damage" in terms of hit points. Poisons do not scale in power or magnitude as the user gains experience. Poisons cannot be "stacked" with external effects to improve their effectiveness like magic weapons.
On the other hand, spells and weapons inflict hit point damage, have multipliers, and can be augmented by character feats/abilities and progression. Aside from a few other cases (massive damage, save or die spells, Con reduced to zero, drowning, etc), the only way you can die is if reduced to -10 hit points. Therefore, a great sword wielded two handed by a raging barbarian or a maximized fireball cast by a high level wizard both have much better chances of killing a victim than poison.
In fact, the counter argument about intent and acceptance of consequences would seem to indicate that weapons with higher critical ranges and critical multipliers are "more evil" than weapons that simply crit on a 20 and do x2 damage... After all, they increase the overall damage output of a player, which increases the impair/injure/maim/kill aspect of the weapon. And most people are fully aware of how lethal a particular weapon is. Heck, lots of players I've played with like to brag about it -- "Remember when I crit'ed that Ogre with my Flail for 48 damage and dropped him in one blow - that was wicked!"
If the only argument is the impair/injure/maim/kill factor, poison would be among the most "good" options out there, while direct damage spells and weapons with increased critical range or critical multipliers would be far more "evil".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You're still reading this? Fabulous. I've only got a bit more to ramble on about.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4) Poison use lacks honor or dignity
I could possibly see this argument in certain, specific, singular and extremely rare instances. Which I'll mention in a bit. Granted, defining honor and dignity is as sticky a subject as morality and evil in a roleplaying game. However, more often than not, I think poison holds up just fine to honor and dignity.
Which of the following deaths is the most honorable? The most dignified?
- Bursting into flame and being burned alive by a powerful fireball
- Being decapitated by a vorpal sword
- Falling into unconciousness and dying a painless death after swallowing some powerful poison
- Being riddled with dozens of arrows from several rapid firing rangers with you as their favored enemy
- Having your body cleaved limb from limb by a dual axe wielding barbarian
- Having your throat slit by a rogue sneaking up behind you
Death by weapon or spell can be far messier, ignoble and ruthless than death or impairment by poison.
And how "honorable" does one have to be to rationalize his behavior? If honor is fighting with "all cards on the table" to make things as equal as possible, then strategy and tactics suffer. While it may vary based on the mood, flavor and setting of a campaign, all of these decisions make sound tactical sense, but may not be honorable:
- Flanking an opponent to gain an advantage (Your opponent is distracted - you dishonorable cur!)
- Striking from behind cover (Your opponent cannot meet you face to face - you disreputable lout!)
- The use of any ranged weapons (You lack honor by detaching yourself from your consequences!)
- The use of any buff spells (You dishonor yourself by not relying solely on your own natural ability!)
- Fighting a foe weaker than yourself, even if outnumbered (How dare you prey upon the weak - you wretched knave!)
- Setting an ambush (You dare not face me directly and openly? How dastardly!)
I will completely grant that poison may fall outside some lines of conduct for certain societal groups, cultures or religions. But codes of conduct are not always tied to the worldview's definition of morality.
Codes of conduct are usually specialized guidelines and imposed ideals to help maintain a sense of order, structure or service within a particular community or sect. If a code of conduct prohibits the use of poison, and someone swearing to uphold that code uses poison, that is an instance where the use of poison lacks honor and dignity.
However, this would also be the case if the Code of Conduct forbade the use of edged weapons. Or wearing the color green. Or eating dairy products. So yes, in this case, using poison could be seen as dishonorable as eating some cheddar.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5) It requires pre-meditation of violent action and full knowledge of the possible effects
This argument is completely true. In fact, this isn't even an argument. It's a fact. However, the previous statements about the impair/injure/maim/kill factor of a tool and the honor/dignity factor of employing a tool address this issue fairly well.
Weaponsmiths know what they're doing. They make weapons. To kill other people with. In fact, to make the best weapons - those of masterwork quality or featuring wider critical ranges or greater critical multipliers - someone spent a lot of time thinking long and hard about how to maximize carnage.
The best refutation of this specifically worded argument, though, has got to be the creation of magic items. Not only do you need to invest time, money and other resources into crafting a magic item, you also need to devote XP - a bit of your collective knowledge, experience and essence.
Taken out of any specific game context, which of the following is more evil?
Option A) An alchemist who takes inert chemicals or naturally occuring toxins and combines them in a way that will dramatically impede the reactions of a creature (inflicting Dexterity/Strength damage or paralysis). After days and days of hard work, he has created several doses of poison.
Option B) A mage who is willing to part with a portion of his soul, the very essence of his being, to create a wand of Empowered Lightning Bolt. After days and days of hard work, he has created a tool to inflict massive electrical damage to multiple targets 50 times.
Those who don't find Option B to be more evil (especially in a context-free comparison) are most likely the very wizards busily crafting said wands of destruction.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6) It's cowardly and detaches the victim from the aggressor
This one's hard to address. Why? Perhaps it's because I tend to play physically underwhelming characters who simply can't stand toe-to-toe with melee characters. Perhaps because cowardly is such an emotionally charged word. Cowardly? I prefer "Clever". Detached? Sure, I can see that... but why is detachment a bad thing?
As a high level fighter, if you find yourself forced into a combat situation against a dangerous, armed opponent, would you prefer to meet your opponent naked and weaponless, or fully armed and armored with your tools of the trade? Well, if choosing fully armed and armored is cowardly, then I guess using poison could be, too.
When my character's survival is at stake (as it usually is), I like to use every possible advantage to ensure that survival. Weapons, armor, spells, magic items, tactics, planning, teamwork. Poison is simply another tool to add to that list. It's foolish to ignore any resource at your disposal. If you desperately need a screwdriver to complete a given task, use the darn screwdriver - don't limit yourself to only using a hammer or saw.
Poison use can certainly be detached. It can be slipped into a drink, coated on an arrowhead, sprinkled on some food, or fumes blown into a room. But a long range sniping archer shooting you from 200 feet away in total darkness with complete cover is pretty detached, too. So is a wizard casting a spell at long range. Heck, by the time a Wizard is powerful enough to cast meteor swarm (9th level spell, 17th level caster), he can cast it from 1,080 feet away (that's 216 squares - or 9 full rounds of all out running by a standard, unencumbered human). That's pretty damned detached, too.
I think this argument speaks more to a perception problem. If you can't do as well as I can in melee without assistance, then your assistance must be a sign of cowardice/weakness/evil. If you can't climb/sneak/jump/spot as well as I can without assistance, that must be a sign of cowardice/weakness/evil.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
One last pure in game/mechanic reason why poison is not evil:
The spell poison (Clr 4, Drd 3) is a Necromancy spell. We know that Necromancy by itself is not evil, as there are several useful applications of Necromancy that inflict no harm or hardship -- astral projection, clone, gentle repose, etc. Further, if the spell poison were evil, it would have the evil descriptor attached to it, such as Create Undead, Animate Dead, Eyebite or Protection from Good.
If poison (the spell) is not evil, and it tangibly creates poison (the substance) that even a Lawful Good cleric could apply without repercussion (based on spell selection limitations or descriptors), then how could non magical poison or its application be evil?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, in conclusion, poison and its use can't possibly be evil the way I see it. If you still think that using poison is evil even after all this, then you must also accept, to a degree, some of the following:
Initial Concession Premise: (Choose one)
A. Animals/insects using poison are evil, not neutral
B. Animals/insects using poison are not evil because they lack the intelligence and self-awareness to understand the ramifications
Additional concessions:
A. Using weapons with crit ranges greater than 20 and multipliers greater than x2 is evil
B. Spells which impart ability penalties are evil (bestow curse, ray of enfeeblement, feeblemind)
C. Spells which impart condition modifiers are evil (sleep, color spray, waves of exhaustion, entangle)
D. Spells which inflict direct damage are evil
E. Creating magic items that have the ability to inflict damage is evil
F. The use of strategy to gain a tactical advantage in combat is evil
G. Selecting feats, earning class abilities or purchasing equipment which improves your damage output is evil
H. Selling weapons, spells or equipment which can inflict damage is evil
I. Killing an opponent by any means, regardless of circumstance or tool used, is evil
*pant*
*pant*
Ok, I'm finally done. And if you're still not 100% convinced whether or not using poison is evil, I have a foolproof, guaranteed way to find out.
Ask your DM.
Well, what do you think, sirs?
Much of his post has to do with poison not being Evil rather than whether or not it is honorable but he does have a section on it's use being perfectly acceptable by standards of honor and has a few other very good points that go along with our little debate. I tend to agree with “most” of the ideas presented in this post but would probably add a few thoughts if I were to write it myself.
Most of this debate is utterly pointless to the OP which did not ask anything about honorable vs. not universally considered honorable tactics.
::While I enjoy this debate, I also apologize for the Thread-Jacking::
There is a feat called Shadow Blade in the Bo9S that allows you to add Dex Bonus as a bonus to damage. You have to have at least one Shadow Hand stance and maneuver to qualify IIRC. It is also only applied with the favored weapons of the Shadow Hand School: short sword, dagger, and a couple others.
I also believe there was another feat in some 3.5 materials that allowed use of Dex bonus to damage. It might have been in a Dragon Magazine. It could have been part of a specific PrC though I'm not sure.
I had a thought for the OP:
Boots of Levitate.
Boots of Teleportation.
Boots of Flying.Something along those lines would go a long way in not getting hit. Especially the levitate and fly ones, just rain down destruction from above.
Flying is great outdoors, less so when there are 10' ceilings. Then suddenly levitation and flying isn't very exciting. Overall a good idea though but with some limitations. We've been doing a dungeon crawl for the last couple months so I've been thinking about that.
Edit: This is a great suggestion overall not trying to pan the idea.
I had a thought for the OP:
Boots of Levitate.
Boots of Teleportation.
Boots of Flying.Something along those lines would go a long way in not getting hit. Especially the levitate and fly ones, just rain down destruction from above.
Another thought, less expensive, but more limited would be slippers of spider climbing. More useful in a dungeon but still limited to what you have for an environment.
"Spider Archer Spider archer! Does whatever a spider archer does!"
Yeah I didn't really consider dungeon crawls with low ceilings. I think it could still help though. You levitate up until you are laying flat on your back on the ceiling. Then you are safe from all but the really tall enemies or the ones with reach weapons. (Actually I don’t think that would work. If you go into 3D combat in a 10 foot high corridor you would count as being in the 5' square adjacent/above your enemy, so they could still hit you. But they might not be as apt to try. Or the DM might not realize that. If it's higher than 10' you're good.)
Actually you could look into a Shadow Cloak from the Magic Item Compendium (it came out before that also I think in one of the Complete books) or there is always a Cloak of Displacement. It's not a guarantee but with a decent AC and a miss chance it would be a serious pain in the butt to hit you.
Admittedly, that last rellies on a game master going with a certain level of realism. Most people who get lit up by alchemist fire are going to abort their attack and try and put themselves out. This is basically magical napalm we are throwing around. At times, game masters I have played with have required Will saves (or if using them, an action point) to push on while on fire or even to dash through fire.It does and it doesn't. If the creature's immune to fire, he honestly wouldn't care. I've had DMs that know what you're probably going to do, have all the monsters on the realm get a twittered memo about you and your plans, and then when they face you they're ready to go. One player's even said "Wow, I wish I could get that memo." So do I.
Wouldn't it be easier to keep a one-handed melee weapon that you're proficient with in a *Glove of Storing* in your right hand? If you're right handed you're holding the bow with your left hand anyway and drawing arrows and the bowwstring with your right. The PRPG RAW for Glove of Storing State: "...storing or retreiving the item is a free action..." So draw after you fire your last arrow, and store before you fire your first...then you'll always threaten.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, step-up is actually hugely valuable to any melee character, precisely because of how powerful casters are. I honestly would never build a Fighter class character who didn't pick it up in the first 6 levels or so, and can't really see most Paladins going without it either, though there are some who might. (Rangers are a mixed bag of melee vs ranged, and barbarians get their own version of it, so those are hard to call.)
Dedicated Archer / Mage killer? I used an elf Arcane Archer imbuing arrows with Silence, Slow, Stinking Cloud, and Entangle to slow down those pesky ranged attackers...my favorite, Black Tentacles adjacent to them. That sure buys time for the melee combatants to close!
Dedicated Archer / Mage killer? I used an elf Arcane Archer imbuing arrows with Silence, Slow, Stinking Cloud, and Entangle to slow down those pesky ranged attackers...my favorite, Black Tentacles adjacent to them. That sure buys time for the melee combatants to close!
Also, step-up is actually hugely valuable to any melee character, precisely because of how powerful casters are. I honestly would never build a Fighter class character who didn't pick it up in the first 6 levels or so, and can't really see most Paladins going without it either, though there are some who might. (Rangers are a mixed bag of melee vs ranged, and barbarians get their own version of it, so those are hard to call.)
How did you get silence, entangle, and black tentacles on the same character?