Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hezzilreen the Cunning

BigDTBone's page

3,562 posts (3,597 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,562 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Atarlost wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

It's quadratic because the options increase linearly (as does the martial) but the power of those options increase geometrically (while the power of martial options increase linearly.)

That was true in TSR D&D. In 3.5 and PF martial power actually increases quadratically as well. The martial hits harder because of stat gain and expected gear and hits more because of iteratives. It's a much shallower quadratic, but it is still a quadratic with a positive multiplier on the x^2 term.

No, the martial options increase as the sum of two lines (the increase of options and the increase in power of those options) while casters power increases as the sum of a line (number of options) and a parabola (power of those options.)

Think about it like this, when is the last time you saw a feat that required +17 BAB, and really encapsulated the type of power a 17th level character should have, vs when is the last time you saw a 9th level spell? Now also keep in mind that if that imaginary feat were to exist that the martial would be stuck with it everyday even if it wasn't helpful in a particular mission. The caster an take their very real, published, and supported 9th level spell slot and fill it with any spell they choose.


Atarlost wrote:

Linear warriors quadratic wizards is a misstatement of the problem. They're both of the same order. Still having lower level spells is analogous to having iteratives. Casters just scale faster. They get several times more spell options than even the fighter gets bonus feats, but it's still linear. If a feat were worth three spells known they'd be even on that front. If combat maneuver math lined up properly martials would also be able to bypass hitpoint attrition, but it doesn't. It fails to line up linearly, though.

A caster isn't worth a martial squared. A caster is usually worth between two and three martials when not absolutely required by some fool putting together an encounter or puzzle that is impossible for any non-caster to solve.

The real problem is that non-casters can't have nice things. Spells are available in larger numbers than even the most generous bonus feats, but are individually better. Save or Whatever spells face saves that only have one stat added to them while combat maneuvers face CMD that has two and size. Martials, except barbarians, must be realistic at level 20. Casters must be fantastic from level 1.

It's quadratic because the options increase linearly (as does the martial) but the power of those options increase geometrically (while the power of martial options increase linearly.)


bookrat wrote:
I thought a quadratic wizard was any wizard who sat on the ground and held his feet and hands up in the air.

No, that's a parabolic wizard. They are easy to mix up. :P


Charon's Little Helper wrote:

As a caveat - it'd arguably be possible with a bow in an indirect sort of way. Get a bow with +1 & +9 worth of special abilities, and have Greater Magic Weapon cast upon the ammo.

I'm not certain whether that combo would be legal.

That's the classic way to do it. GMW for ammo is awesome. Whenever I play an archer I buy a rod of extend lesser and give it to the wizard. "I'll give this to you if you use it on me once a day, the other two charges are yours to use as you see fit."


Skeld wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but you can just skip the update, right?

I use HL much the same way you do: for PC/NPC generation, but not much for combat. I open it every few days, so the updates are incidental for me. When I update the data package, it downloads in 2-3 minutes. When the program updates and reinstalls, it takes less than that.

Perhaps I'd feel more like you do if it updated every time I used it (3-4 times/week). However, I'm very happy to have a well-supported tool that never seems to be more than about 1 month behind the print edition of the game.

-Skeld

Yes, you can skip it, which I do if I just need to get in and print something I already made. If I'm making something new or if I want to mess around with options I want the updates. I just want them to be more streamlined.

An autoupdater tool that runs at 3 am every Tuesday night or something similar. Or if they would just make the data package be incremental would go a long way to making this more bearable. Also, why does the actual program need to be rebuilt every month? Are bug fixes patched directly into the base application?

I just can't think of any other software I run that needs that much updating that often. Even other specialty software I use like Chemdraw (which has updates all the time, but are done incrementally) and cuteftp (which does build patches all the time but downloads them in the background while I use the app and then does the rebuild after I close it) don't cause so much grief.

Anyway. Seems as though I am atypical in this concern.


I use herolab to stat out NPC's for my home games, design monsters, and work on my occasional PC. I don't use the combat manager or really have much of a reason to open the program more than about once every 3-5 weeks.

The problem is, it seems like EVERY TIME I OPEN IT, I have to download the "new" version which is about a 10MB file, then relaunch and download the new data package (Even if I didn't buy anything) which is about a 130MB file.

Herolab servers aren't exactly the fastest on the internet. The 130MB file takes 5-7 minutes. So after launching, downloading, relaunching, and downloading, I'm at at least 10 minutes. It's kind-of a beating for a piece of software I spent over $300+ on to be so freaking PITA to use.

So, fellow hero-lab users, do you have these concerns? Does everyone else use the combat manager and so they open the program all the time and the monthly updates only seem incidental?

Lonewolf Dev guys out there, why oh why cant you set up the data packages as incremental updates instead of data dumps? What can you do to make this process less annoying?

Just as a point of reference, I started typing this post when I was told I needed to download the new version, as I finish it, the data package is about 1/3 finished.


LazarX wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:
LazarX wrote:
It's more permissive DM issues than quadratic spells. Such as DMs letting players use an augmented Con score for Blood Money. When Wizards or other spellcasters go out of control, almost all the time, the blame can be put on the DM.
You blame the DM for the printed material options? Sorry but having to ban large sections of the game to make it playable shows a much larger problem than a permissible DM.

Yes I do. You don't have to "ban large sections" of the material, you simply have to moderate it's abuse.

Blood Money can be moderated by simply limiting it to the player's own natural Con score not counting any augmentations.

Create Demi-Plane moderates itself by the resource cost and TIME it takes to do so. Having adventures with time dependencies takes care of much mischief potential.

Invisibility, Fly, and Haste become much less of a problem with varied encounter and environment design. And remembering that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

That said, I do think that there is such a thing as material that can only be used if players voluntarily decide not to break the system.

Mythic, I'm looking at You!

So your solution is to rewrite problem spells, but that somehow negates them having been problems in the first place. That's some circular logic for you.


Just a Guess wrote:
*is that the right way to say it in English? To become father?

When you use a noun there it needs an indefinite article. "to become a father.

If you used an adjective there instead, you wouldn't need the article. "to become angry" "to become wealthy" etc.


LoneKnave wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Yeah, pretty definitively video games track ammunition, or at least most do. Video game rarely give you unlimited ammunition.

Several do for standard ammo for the basic weapon like Space marine and serious sam HD and I think half life, too. Others let you have so many different weapons that you effectively have unlimited ammo, others have ammo for your active weapon reload over time, at least as a special. Borderlands was one of the latter. Shotguns with that feature had effectively unlimited ammo because the fire rate was only marginally higher than the replenish rate and you sometimes had to stop shooting to switch targets.

And even in classic shooters I rarely ran out of ammo.

It's almost like tracking ammo is usually pointless, since you basically never run out, and even computer games only do it because it's easy for a computer to track one more number.

Shar Tahl wrote:
You do realize Diablo came out long after pen and paper rpgs, and likely long before you were born. My gms tracked resources in the 80s.

I wish Diablo came out before I was born. I wouldn't mind being more than a decade younger...

You do realize I was being sarcastic, right? Tracking or not tracking ammo has nothing to do with what type the game is, tabletop or videogame. There are games doing both on both sides of the fence.

But obviously, since you have been doing it since the 80s it must be the superior method. You couldn't have been doing something silly and pointless for 30 years...

No joke, because it's very unlikely he's been a passive-aggressive asshat on the Internet for more than about 20 years.


Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

This is funny in a sad sort of way.

That exchange sounds like a caricature of actual police you see in stuff like Batman comics and other stuff that like to satire corrupt police.

It would be funny if it were in a comic. It isn't funny because it actually happened to a real person.

Why would something happening to a real person impact the comedic value?

It might be black comedy, but it is sort of an inherently funny scene.

"Two bumbling cops laugh about ignoring probable cause, unaware they're being filmed."

Um seriously? Why would two cop harassing someone (and not even knowing why themselves) be un-funny?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
a monster wearing a robe.

Strangely enough I got the impression he thought he was the hero of the show.

Villains always self-identify as the hero.


Rynjin wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

This is funny in a sad sort of way.

That exchange sounds like a caricature of actual police you see in stuff like Batman comics and other stuff that like to satire corrupt police.

It would be funny if it were in a comic. It isn't funny because it actually happened to a real person.


Mystically Inclined wrote:

Hello!

I decided to tackle DPR today. After doing so, I plugged the same numbers into a DPR calculator and got different numbers. I believe I'm making an error. Would someone mind reviewing my math?

(For Background, this is a level 12 ninja making a full round power attack with haste, an extra attack from ki, and sneak attack added in.)

Full round: 21/21/21/16 (1d10+19+6d6)
Assume CR 14, which means AC 29
In order to hit, I have to roll an 8 (13 for the iterative). That means chance to hit is 65% (40% for iterative).
The weapon is an Elven Curve Blade with the Keen enhancement

Rynjin wrote:

The damage formula is h(d+s)+tchd

h = Chance to hit, expressed in a decimal percentage
d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed
s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is assumed
t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a decimal percentage
c = Critical hit bonus - 1. For example, x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3

h = 0.65

d = 1d10+19 = 5.5 + 19 = 24.5
s = 6d6 = 6*3.5 = 21
t = 0.30 <--threat range of (15-20), at first I thought this was 0.25 but I corrected it later
c = 1

0.65(24.5+21) + (0.30*1*0.65*24.5) = 34.3525
0.40(24.5+21) + (0.30*1*0.40*24.5) = 21.14
34.3525 + 34.3525 + 34.3525 + 21.14 = 124.1975

Which, I am given to understand, means that if I took 1000 full round attacks vs an AC of 29, my average damage would be 124.1975.

...but I plugged the same numbers into BigDTBone's Online DPR Calculator and got a full round DPR of 106.93. Not sure where I've gone wrong.

You put "1" in the crit multiplier field in my calculator, you should put "2"

The calculator is designed for use by people who don't nessicarily have knowledge of the formula, so it expects people to just put in the numbers on the stat block.

When I did this it gave me 124.20 :)


Freehold DM wrote:
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

WT actual F?


No problem!


born_of_fire wrote:

Iain M. Banks has the coolest ship names ever in his Culture series of books. Stuff like "Clear Air Turbulence", "Of Course I Still Love You", "Congenital Optimist", "Unfortunate Conflict of Evidence" and many others.

Ship names

BigDTBone: perhaps you meant The Shylock? (Merchant of Venice)

Indeed, iPhone autocorrect for the lose. :(


Corvino wrote:

How about characters from plays or literature? A fleet named after Shakespeare characters for example. The Cordelia, The Regan and The Poor Tom sounds like a merchant fleet.

Alternatively you could go with variations on vices and virtues. Henry's Wrath, Vainglory or Pride of the Nation for warships, Sweet Charity, The Diligence or The Patient Son for traders.

One option could be to pick a language or myth cycle and go with words and ideas drawn from it. Magic swords - Clarent, Excalibur, Cortana, Joyuese, Durendal, Gram/Balmung/Nothing, Harpe?

I don't think you could have a merchant fleet without The Shylock.


NPC - Fleet Admiral named Jim Henson and all of the ships could be named for muppets.

Name all of them after organic chemistry reactions. The Fischer, The Dielsalder, The Friedelcrafts.


Yuugasa wrote:

Having once spent 4 months in jail because I was held in contempt of court for not providing an eye witness testimony of a crime I didn't even witness I'll agree jail sucks alot, especially if you aren't used to that kind of thing(what with not being a criminal).

Also, turns out good lawyers are important, like, really important.

If you don't have the money for a good lawyer when dealing with the court system(even if you are not the one on trial) you are totally screwed(well maybe not if you are white, I wouldn't know)

Even if you are white having a good lawyer helps. This is compounded with not being poor helps.


The idea that endless ammunition is worth +2 bonus is crazy. That means that property is costing you a minimum of 16,000 gp. For 16kgp you can buy a type 4 bag of holding, 2 efficient quivers, and 2400 durable arrows.

Also, you still have the ability to have someone cast GMW on your arrows.


Our group played Skulls and Shakles last summer and before the end we had changed ships twice. The captain's name was Cicero, and so naturally the first ship was called The Senate, this set the theme and the other two ships were The Cameral, and The Grand Parliment.

So, we are getting ready to start another sea-bound adventure and I am looking to solicit ideas for another fleet whose names are based on a theme. Any ideas?

thanks!


Brox RedGloves wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:

Houserule I didn't get a chance to use yet: Track quivers instead of arrows.

If you roll a 1 on an attack roll using an arrow, it was your last arrow from that quiver.

So wait a sec...if I pull an arrow out of a freshly filled quiver, and then roll a 1, does that mean I dump all the other arrows out and find a new quiver? That seems kinda stupid.

No, it's just an abstraction (like combat already is.) Similarly it works in the reverse, you could roll 117 attacks (same odds as rolling back to back 1's) without rolling a 1 and never have to change your quiver.

...And ninja'd


Do a barrel roll!

It is dangerous to go alone, take this.

Hey! listen!

Our princess is in another castle.

Haduken!

You need to construct more pylons.

Imma gonna win!

All your base are belong to us.

First Blood!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Interesting idea. Makes verification more difficult as you have to verify ALL of the players characters to ensure they don't have more than one Summoner with a date between the announcement and Z date.

No you don't, you just use the same system currently in use to keep people from cheating; you trust them not to.


There is another way to stop the rush and still provide a window; allow only 1.

Option X will be removed on Z date.
You can continue to play all of your X's even after Z date.
Between today and Z date you may make only one X.


Rynjin wrote:
The media are there doing their job.

That's questionable at best.

But how many folks are being stopped from going to work by this curfew? How many business closed early or otherwise had to change hours because of the curfew? In short, what the hell does doing your job have to do with it? There's a curfew? Your ass should not be out here. I don't care if you have a damn camera.


Rynjin wrote:

Man, can you IMAGINE how much people would b~~+@ if the media were sent off too?

You already have people spinning conspiracy theories about how the curfew only exists to shut down protests. Throw some jet fuel on that fire with "Oh my god! The government is censoring the media! Let me quote some passages from 1984 in horror!"

I agree it would make things worse (for city officials) if media were included in the curfew; however, let's not delude ourselves by declaring it a "blanket" curfew, or suggesting that the police are incapable of making distinctions about who goes to jail in a situation and who doesn't.


Rynjin wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I think the protection of other people's property (and welfare, though as of YET nobody has been hurt) is more important than you being able to continue protesting all through the night.

I certainly think it's a better alternative than coming in with teargas and billy clubs to arrest large groups of people at once.

You disagree.

You're being disingenuous.

In all cases that I've seen, riots form from protests AFTER police are called in in riot gear. They escalate. Sure, maybe there's some excess littering or traffic is inconvenienced or even a rare car bashed up, but it doesn't warrant ESCALATING the situation with police violence.

Except there was no (reported, to cover all the bases) police violence from the riot police, before or after they showed up, that I know of.

And "they called in the police, we should riot!" sounds like a flimsy excuse to me. If the police merely showing up instigates theft and property destruction, the place was already set to blow.

meatrace wrote:
You'll note that the curfew doesn't just affect protesters. You're abridging individuals' rights because of what someone else has done. Unacceptable.

Yes. That is generally what happens when a large group of people does something and would like to continue doing something.

If you cannot identify and single out every individual rioter, then a blanket curfew is a good idea.

If the police hadn't done it you know there'd be just as many people (maybe even you same people) sitting here griping about how the police aren't doing anything to contain the situation.

It clearly wasn't a blanket curfew however, as the media were permitted to remain.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
OldSmith wrote:
For my two cents worth I always figured those that where bothered by the need to track ammunition etc. where really trying to take the "role playing" out of a "Role Playing Game". Tracking ammo and deciding which gear to bring etc. is all part of the fun and challenge otherwise it just becomes a video game without the graphics

In my experience it takes the accounting out of my role playing so I have more time to roleplay.

That said, I don't really bother as a GM past 3rd level, or if they take ranks in craft:arrows then I don't bother at all. Anything after efficient quivers and durable arrows come into play and it is really just a number on a page.

As a player, I always put a rank or two in craft, get an efficient quiver and a handy haversack to fill with arrows, and get durable arrows as soon as possible.

That way I don't have to obsess over accounting for my 1/20th gp pointed sticks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaunt wrote:

What about the hammer, pitons, and caltrops?

My guess is that most people assume the GM will kill the pack beast the instant it leaves the party's sight for a second, or will make it run off a cliff or into a pit trap the first time it gets scared.

Pretty much this. Too many times have people played with jerk DM's who think it's hilarious to mess with players like this. Basically, if you bought something to deal with your low STR score aside from a belt of STR, then be prepared to lose it in the most inopportune manner and spend at least 20% of your face time with the DM arguing about how the kobolds knew exactly what rucksack had the alchemists fire, what's the AC to hit a rucksack attended by a pony, what do you mean there are no called shots in pathfinder?, what do you mean I can't sunder at range?, the pony is a perfectly valid target and way more interesting to the Kobold than the raging barbarian that just full-rounded his face, you're just a cheese-eating munchkin trying to get away with stat dumping and not having to realize the down side, take your Limburger and go home, in 2nd Ed there were rules against arguing with the DM, yeah there was too; you had to DM after he rage quit...

Wow, that went further than I intended, clearly I have some baggage...


7 people marked this as a favorite.
logan grayble wrote:
I'm about to play an archer character for the first time in my group's next campaign. Although I'm a little unsure of the best way to keep track of my character's stock of arrows. When it comes to special arrows like Bane or Dragon-Slaying, then it makes sense to track them individually. But to people who have DMed archer players in the past, did you make them track all their mundane ammunition as well? Or did you just assume they had enough mundane arrows with the each day?

Buy a giant bowl and put it on the table. Go to a candy store and buy m&ms sorted by color. Assign each arrow type a color. Count out the correct number of "arrows" and dump them in your bowl. As you use them, eat them.

Arrow tracking achieved!


Exactly as good as an alchemists fire.

As for the second question, have the player take ranks in craft: glass and then he can make his own glass beads filled with lamp oil. The two of you can come up with a rule for how effective they would be.


Komoda wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Ddoor is a 4th level spell that has a limited number of uses in a day. Reposition is a combat maneuver. Also ddoor costs the caster the rest of their turn and puts them adjacent to the baddie, while reposition allows the support person their move action (and they don't have caster/squishy requirements as front liners.)

So essentially, there's a lot different.

DDoor can transport multiple people at once, can cross walls, change elevation, span chasms, travel substantial distances, and does NOT put the caster adjacent to the baddy (in fact, it can put the melee buddy directly in between them).

A version of that which can only move one person within arm's reach through an unobstructed path to another space within arm's reach should absolutely be a lot easier to do.

I'm just having a hard time with during combat while my guard is up that I will allow a particular attack to land but still maintain all of my other defenses for all other attacks this round.

I think that is what's being missed is that a combat maneuver is an attack, it isn't your ally incidentally touching you as part of a spell, it is a violent use of force that physically moves you 5ft from where you were no matter your balance, momentum, or body position.

You mean like healing or teleport or any other touch spell that one of your friends might do that you automatically allow them to touch you for on any given round?

Any helpful touch spell is usually an automatic touch as long as the target lets them. Why would maneuvers be any different?

For the exact reasons I put in the post you quoted, and because of the special rule allowing ally spell touches quoted by Jiggy.


Cuuniyevo wrote:

There is no specific or general rule pertaining to using combat maneuvers on allies, as far as I know. The combat maneuver rules are intended to be used on enemies, obviously, but there is no logical reason why they couldn't work on an ally. There are numerous examples that could be given of pushing/pulling people out of harm's way or grabbing someone who's about to fall off of something. If you saw someone being electrocuted by touching a stick to an electric fence, wouldn't you try to use "sunder" on the stick with another stick? If your friend was about to inadvertently drink something that they were allergic to or that had long-since expired, wouldn't you try to "disarm" them? I don't think you should have to spend a feat or more on performing such simple actions in a slightly different context than the game rules assume.

How about this as a compromise: You may voluntarily lower your CMD to the base of 10 and rolling a 1 auto-fails, with the possibility of one or the other of you being staggered for 1 round?

You're right there are no rules specific to combat maneuvers vs allies, so the general rule that you have to hit CMD of the affected character.


Jiggy wrote:
CRB, Combat chapter, Touch Spells In Combat wrote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

That seems like a specific rule that implies a general rule that works as the opposite.


Jiggy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

I'm just having a hard time with during combat while my guard is up that I will allow a particular attack to land but still maintain all of my other defenses for all other attacks this round.

I think that is what's being missed is that a combat maneuver is an attack, it isn't your ally incidentally touching you as part of a spell, it is a violent use of force that physically moves you 5ft from where you were no matter your balance, momentum, or body position.

Delivering a touch spell is every bit as much an attack as a CMB check is, yet the target doesn't have to do anything special to let it auto-hit without a roll; simply being an ally is enough. Heck, even your deflection bonuses will let it through.

Saying that the act of reaching my hand toward my ally is either an auto-success or a full-on CMB check depending on what I plan to do with my hand afterwards is just ridiculous.

Do you have a rule cite that says an ally doesn't have to land a touch attack to affect you with a touch spell in combat?


blashimov wrote:
Probably about 12th, or 8th when compared to a high optimization level.

Yeah, I would agree with this. A total generalist, with off-combat feats, and absolutely no magic gear or long term spells up; would find a challenge in an 8th level tricked out, highly optimized specialist.

The 20th level guy would probably still win though, just because of hit points.

12 BAB, and 3 weapon training. Maybe +1 AC from DEX.

Vs 3 from STR (optimized) 3 from STR (item) 3 from magic weapon, 2 from WF/GWF, 2 from dueling gloves. And VS AC +3 from magic armor.

So the 8th level guy is actually 5% more likely to land his attack.

EDIT: Ooh, I forgot, if the 20th level guy has a masterwork weapon then they are even to hit. The 8th level guy is doing more damage per hit, but 20th level guy has the extra iteratives.


Jiggy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Ddoor is a 4th level spell that has a limited number of uses in a day. Reposition is a combat maneuver. Also ddoor costs the caster the rest of their turn and puts them adjacent to the baddie, while reposition allows the support person their move action (and they don't have caster/squishy requirements as front liners.)

So essentially, there's a lot different.

DDoor can transport multiple people at once, can cross walls, change elevation, span chasms, travel substantial distances, and does NOT put the caster adjacent to the baddy (in fact, it can put the melee buddy directly in between them).

A version of that which can only move one person within arm's reach through an unobstructed path to another space within arm's reach should absolutely be a lot easier to do.

I'm just having a hard time with during combat while my guard is up that I will allow a particular attack to land but still maintain all of my other defenses for all other attacks this round.

I think that is what's being missed is that a combat maneuver is an attack, it isn't your ally incidentally touching you as part of a spell, it is a violent use of force that physically moves you 5ft from where you were no matter your balance, momentum, or body position.


Mr. Cleaver, how did you get your special smurf avatar?


LazarX wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Owly wrote:

Think about this for a second:

DM:"The creature is trying to grab you."

PC:"I will let it grab me."

DM:"It grabs you."

There is no conflict, so there is no contest. At best, I may allow an intelligent assailant to sense motive to figure out the PC is trying to maneuver in close using the assailant's action. But since the player isn't using his Maneuver Defense in Combat, there's no need for the creature to roll against his CMD.

This came up the other night in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Players were trying to get Cindermaw to swallow them, and Cindermaw WANTED to swallow them. Why roll? Does it build tension?

As for bullrushing an ally, I see no difficulty unless the ally is blinded for some reason and can't see who is tackling him. It makes perfect dramatic sense that an ally could knock someone out of the way of danger if they had an action ready.

Yeah, that senario isn't the issue. It's this one.

Player: I reposition John 5 ft that way.
John: I let him!
DM: ok
John: I 5ft shift and full attack!
DM: doh!

As long as imitative isn't violated, and the rules for re-positioning are being fully observed, that's not a problem.

Right, and so the discussion is whether or not voluntarily dropping your CMD guard for one attack is "within the rules."


thorin001 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Owly wrote:

Think about this for a second:

DM:"The creature is trying to grab you."

PC:"I will let it grab me."

DM:"It grabs you."

There is no conflict, so there is no contest. At best, I may allow an intelligent assailant to sense motive to figure out the PC is trying to maneuver in close using the assailant's action. But since the player isn't using his Maneuver Defense in Combat, there's no need for the creature to roll against his CMD.

This came up the other night in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Players were trying to get Cindermaw to swallow them, and Cindermaw WANTED to swallow them. Why roll? Does it build tension?

As for bullrushing an ally, I see no difficulty unless the ally is blinded for some reason and can't see who is tackling him. It makes perfect dramatic sense that an ally could knock someone out of the way of danger if they had an action ready.

Yeah, that senario isn't the issue. It's this one.

Player: I reposition John 5 ft that way.
John: I let him!
DM: ok
John: I 5ft shift and full attack!
DM: doh!

Generally not a big deal as it is still maintaining action economy. How is this different from one character D-Dooring another character into full attack range?

Ddoor is a 4th level spell that has a limited number of uses in a day. Reposition is a combat maneuver. Also ddoor costs the caster the rest of their turn and puts them adjacent to the baddie, while reposition allows the support person their move action (and they don't have caster/squishy requirements as front liners.)

So essentially, there's a lot different.


Owly wrote:

Think about this for a second:

DM:"The creature is trying to grab you."

PC:"I will let it grab me."

DM:"It grabs you."

There is no conflict, so there is no contest. At best, I may allow an intelligent assailant to sense motive to figure out the PC is trying to maneuver in close using the assailant's action. But since the player isn't using his Maneuver Defense in Combat, there's no need for the creature to roll against his CMD.

This came up the other night in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Players were trying to get Cindermaw to swallow them, and Cindermaw WANTED to swallow them. Why roll? Does it build tension?

As for bullrushing an ally, I see no difficulty unless the ally is blinded for some reason and can't see who is tackling him. It makes perfect dramatic sense that an ally could knock someone out of the way of danger if they had an action ready.

Yeah, that senario isn't the issue. It's this one.

Player: I reposition John 5 ft that way.
John: I let him!
DM: ok
John: I 5ft shift and full attack!
DM: doh!


thaX wrote:

There is also the fact that the legalization of Marijuana (Federal, not state) would add the benefit of having Hemp be used to produce paper, something that can be grown and used in a crop within a year. Though I doubt that the federal side of that would be down the road, it is coming.

"Dead Tree" is a term used as a environmental imperative that simply isn't there. Much like the whole "global warming" scam.

When PF Ver2 does come out, it will most likely use the same book format as the previous PF Core Rulebook did, as 3rd edition did before that, as the previous incarnations did before, and as the currently produced games are done now.

Much to do about nothing.

"Dead tree," isn't analogous to global warming, because "dead tree" is a term that ignorant hipsters use and global warming is a real thing that is going to screw the entire planet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Koshimo wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
When a mystical source of unknown morality and power (aka, the DM) grants you the boon of a wish, you should do the only sensible thing and wish for a single copper piece, preferably tarnished.
and that copper piece is cursed and immediately no save kills anyone who touches it

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When a mystical source of unknown morality and power (aka, the DM) grants you the boon of a wish, you should do the only sensible thing and wish for a single copper piece, preferably tarnished.


I would be more worried about reposition abuse than bull rush/ grapple.


Protoman wrote:

Page 8 of Unchained.

Quote:
These classes can be used alongside their original counterparts (although individual characters must use one version or the other exclusively)

Well, that settles that.


Ckorik wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
VMC core monk with unchained monk to get more ki.

You can't multiclass unchained and chained versions of the same class. They are both monks.

Is that spelled out clearly in unchained, because they seem pretty seperate to me.

As clearly as anything in a book of optional rules...

it says 'this system is meant to replace normal multiclassing however if you use the two together a VMC class should not be allowed to take actual levels in the class that is being used as the VMC.

So if you use the optional rule - it would be another optional rule to use the old system with it side by side - and of course at that point the GM should feel free to do what they want regarding the mix/match - because once you are using two optional rules to multiclassing... what's a third?

I wasn't suggesting that you use the old multiclassing system. I suggest that you build an unchained monk and then VMC a core monk.

So, the question on a rules front is, "using traditional multiclassing, can I take some levels in a core class and then some levels in its unchained counterpart?"

Or even more simply, "Are unchained classes descrete from their core counterparts, or are they intended to fully replace core classes in a given campaign?"


Imbicatus wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
VMC core monk with unchained monk to get more ki.

You can't multiclass unchained and chained versions of the same class. They are both monks.

Is that spelled out clearly in unchained, because they seem pretty seperate to me.


VMC core monk with unchained monk to get more ki.

1 to 50 of 3,562 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.