|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Federico Castrovel wrote:
I'm not even that into Frozen, but that was amazing. Bravo!
(Have you seen the "Do you wanna go to Starbucks?" version?)
Displacement grants a 50% miss chance "as if" the target had total concealment; this means that the 50% miss chance is the ONLY similarity to total concealment, and that the target does not actually HAVE total concealment.
What some people seem to think the spell produces is "total concealment, except X". But if that were the case, it would simply say that it grants total concealment and then specify targetability.
But that's not what it says. The only places it even mentions total concealment is when it says "as if" and "unlike actual".
The target explicitly does NOT have total concealment (or any concealment, for that matter). This makes a difference not only for IPS, but also for things like Sneak Attack and Stealth that care about whether or not you have concealment.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I love how I get told to not assume that all players think the same way, and how all GMs *do* think the same way, in the same post. :)
Yeah, Undone's lack of caveats is unfortunate. See also: my recent reply to Scribbling Rambler.
Sometimes I don't know whether it's genuine ignorance of how clauses work in a sentence, or unconsciously believing the sweeping generalizations and not realizing that it shows through in their words.
Either way, this is why explosives are not strictly superior to bullets, in a manner of speaking.
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Perhaps that that single individual might do something disruptive, rather than attributing that attitude to a whole category of people who have no interest in such a goal?
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Really? Because Mike Brock has repeatedly responded to that topic by referencing the reporting system's inability to do a mixed game. That kinda gave me the impression that it is the "driving issue".
If a player with a CORE character is sitting at a mixed table, s/he gets to benefit directly or indirectly from non-CORE content through their interactions with the non-CORE characters at the table. That is not what CORE is about.
Okay, then what is Core "about", that gets interfered with by being on a team with a non-Core PC?
Well, let's be optimistic. There's still a chance for that type of thing to be the exception rather than the rule. Gonna try my best to give the benefit of the doubt. :)
I'll be happy to be proven wrong but I've got a bad feeling about this. Splitting geeks into groups can often split an already small group socially.
I have similar reservations. I mean, mechanically, the idea is fantastic. It addresses multiple issues pretty elegantly.
But on the "people" level... I'm less optimistic. As soon as I finished reading the blog, I was already wondering how this development would interact with existing elements of elitism in the playerbase. As I read through the comments, I pondered whether I should voice my concerns or just quietly hope for the best so I wouldn't risk fueling the very thing I fear.
Then I discovered that it only took 40 minutes for someone to proudly proclaim that the Core Campaign is the place for people who are better roleplayers than those who use more books. It even came straight from a VO.
And no one batted an eye.
You made a throwing weapon whose special power is resolved exactly as though it had been thrown. The only difference is that when you use the blast ability (which you can apparently do as much as you want every day), you still have it in your hand. So... kind of like if you added returning to it, or had it on a blinkback belt.
So, mechanically, you didn't actually even design a new magic weapon. You just took something that already existed and described a different visual.
All in all, the difference between holding and wielding is not very precisely defined. Near as I can tell, the only time you're holding something without wielding it is if you're holding it in such a way that you can't wield it (such as holding a two-handed weapon in one hand). Otherwise, it seems to me that if you're holding a wieldable item in a wieldable manner, then you're also wielding it, automatically.
Oh, so wondering whether "except" is an exception to "goblin-only" or an exception to "legal". Heh, yeah, kind of ambiguous there. I'd wager a guess it's illegal for everyone.
brock, no the other one... wrote:
What about players with paper allergies who use electronic sheets for that reason?
Any rule can have exceptions for disabilities. That should go without saying, so what point are you trying to make?
Unlike the media used for character sheets, real dice versus electronic rollers can actually impact gameplay integrity.
Also unlike the media used for character sheets, a ruling on only allowing "real" dice doesn't force anyone to do extra work or spend extra money compared to what they were doing before (even someone without dice can very easily borrow some, or buy one set once and have it last them for years, coming out to less money per session than having to reprint character sheets).
Therefore, unlike the media used for character sheets, I would be in support of (or at least not opposed to) a requirement to use physical dice.
Using one CRB feat in exactly the manner it was intended is above average?
An 8th-level cleric who dared to put ranks in Sense Motive (or any other characters' class skills that aren't tied to a dump stat) is above average?
A 1st-level CRB class feature that's worse than just succeeding on your Perception check in the first place is above average?
With all due respect, I don't think your assessments are valid.
Heh, you're the second person to mention that BOL mixup. Isn't it funny how people can get used to how they typically use something, to the point that they start to think it's what the rules mandate?
Okay, maybe I'm the only one who finds that utterly fascinating. I blame my psychology background.
Honestly, I try not to think about all my gear on my characters. I don't really like the aesthetics that get produced by imagining what the character would really look like by mid to high levels. One of the things I like about PFS is that loot/gear is handled off-stage so I can more easily just use it as the "other XP track" that it basically is in 3.X/Pathfinder and kind of just look the other way when it comes to the actual items themselves. :/
I really had a thing for that shortsword that gave you a bonus to ID monsters if you looked at their reflections in the blade as a move action. Sure, technically it was a skill bonus in a can, but it was evocative and different, clean and elegant, and was a refreshing change of pace from the parade of "I have to be uber and cost 150k to be superstar" that pervades the contest. It made me smile, and I would totally put it in any game where one of my players was a shortsword user.
Lady Firedove wrote:
This was one of my favorite items! It was one of the few which, when I saw it, I immediately had to tell my wife about how cool it was. Sad that it didn't make it. :(Nitpicks: Stats scream mithral, but it's not...? Also, at that price point, I'd really like a slightly higher armor bonus, even just 1 more point, for all those attacks that aren't AoOs.
With those thoughts in mind, I'm gonna cross my fingers that your item finds its way into a future Paizo product. (It's happened before!) :D
Raven Leather! That was one of my favorite armors! Awesome visual, good utility. If I had to guess why it didn't make it, maybe because the thing it does isn't very "armor-y"? Like, maybe it would have been better as a cloak or shirt or other slotted wondrous item (had that been legal). I liked it though. :)
Note that I'm NOT saying that the player gets to ignore the shovel. I'm saying that when the problem is discovered the solution should be to assume it is a player mistake and allow it to be rectified. I think my solution definitely falls within the scope of RAW.
Or to perhaps put it another way, enforcing the rules doesn't have to involve a "gotcha!" moment, such as being stuck with a prepared spell that you can't actually cast.
When a player corrects a GM on a point of rules, nobody would gripe at having them say, "Oh, then I guess X would have happened back there instead of Y," (within reason), so when a GM corrects a player on a point of rules, the GM shouldn't have an issue with the player saying, "Oh, sorry, I guess my character would have bought that shovel; I'll mark down the 10gp," (within reason, accounting for experience/past behavior, etc).
as for alignment, I'd coin Dash as CG (doesn't think the rules apply to him. Uses powers against her sister in a "no powers!" zone/game/houserules, consciously pushes boundaries to see how far he can go before getting caught).
I'd call him CN, actually. Same rationale on the Chaos, but does he really act good? The only people he ever directly fights for are his own family ("DON'T TOUCH MY SISTER!"), but it doesn't take a good alignment to defend your family. Everything else he does is all about just flexing his awesomeness and stroking his own ego (the thumbtacks, the "I'm so awesome" laugh when he discovers he can run on water, the smug face in the foot race at the end). He's "The Dash", and The Dash likes. ;)
Okay, the player definitely should have had their chronicles/ITS with them. Bad on them for that.
But if the cold weather gear was important enough to check chronicles for, you should have done that before the game, not during it. I'm also really curious why a character already having cold weather gear makes you so suspicious in the first place.
I don't recognize most of the Top 32 items; bad luck voting I guess. But I encountered this one early on and liked it, largely because I felt it addressed an issue with the Pathfinder game: theoretically, SR is a cool special ability that someone would want to get, but the game's heavy reliance on friendly magic throughout most levels makes it actually detrimental to have SR as a PC. Your item helps address that flaw in the system, and in a way that makes sense (your item name really made a big difference there). Well done, and congrats!
This is starting to feel a lot like the old "If detect magic's identification of schools includes 'illusion' then you're letting a cantrip invalidate see invisibility!" nonsense.
You say that a tactic available to commoners shouldn't make a trained professional look like an imbecile? I say that someone who can't deal with a guy doing nothing but waiting to jump out of the way is an imbecile.
I'm only saying that "if you haven't traveled at least one square, you haven't spent/committed to an action yet" is what thundercade says, not what the rules say.
This is the rules forum.
The rules say that an AoO is "resolved" before the triggering event is "resolved". Taken at face value, this means that "resolving" is the only part of the triggering action that is left undone until after the AoO. Adding the idea that it not only hasn't resolved yet, but ALSO hasn't even STARTED yet, is adding one's own inventions to the rules.
Additions to make your game run smoother have their own forum, and figuring out what the rules themselves actually say has this forum.
Let's examine this. So you say you dislike actions that only work in a turn-based system and don't make sense in real-time combat.
Now let's look at a couple of things. If you take damage while casting a spell, you have to make a concentration check or lose the spell. Now, if I hit you with an AoO or readied action on your turn when you cast, you have to make a check. But if I attack you on my turn, even if I full-attack and/or crit you, even if I'm the last person to act before your turn, then you can just step back and cast without a care in the world.
That really only works in a turn-based system and makes no sense in real-time combat where those two situations would be nearly identical. Yet I don't see this among your list of gripes.
Magic circle against evil (and similar spells) make a little bubble for the party to sit in. In real-time, you could all be walking along at a normal pace at the same time, staying within the bubble; but in a turn-based combat system, suddenly it's nearly impossible for the party to stay in the bubble while moving around, making such spells nearly worthless for their intended purpose.
Though I've seen complaints about this, I've never seen you (or any other GM) ask whether they're allowed to overrule the "metagamey" nature of being unable to stay in the radius and try to make it work more like real-time.
I could list more examples, but let's stop there for now. The point is, there are a LOT of situations where things work differently in Pathfinder's turn-based combat system than they would in real-time. And yet, I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of them are things that either never occurred to you, or simply don't bother you at all, or at least don't bother you enough to come on the boards and ask for permission to overrule the rules.
If I'm correct in that guess, then that would mean that what you dislike about the tactics you mentioned is something other than the fact that they only work in a turn-based system. If that was what bothered you, you'd be bothered by a bunch of other things, yet (presumably) you're not (at least not to the same degree).
So if it's not truly the "turn-based versus real-time" issue that makes your examples so unsavory to you, then what might it be? I would advise dedicating a little time to determining the answer to that question.
If you misidentify the problem, you'll never find a satisfactory solution. But if you can nail down what it is that's really bothering you, then you stand a much better chance of finding a happy ending. :)
Read it again; it says no such thing.
The swarm rules give disintegrate as an example of a single-target spell to which swarms are immune, and that spell is exactly the type you describe: has an "effect" of "ray" and no "target" line.
And besides that, every ranged attack has a target.
Andrew Christian wrote:
I agree.I just think that reading the scenario blurb should be enough, at least for the really common triggers (like suicide, rape, or child abuse). Someone who wants to know if the scenario they're planning to play has a scene that could be a trigger shouldn't have to know someone who has played it and that they're comfortable revealing their trigger to (those triggers tend to come with LOADS of shame, even for an innocent victim).
If they go and read the scenario blurb (in the privacy of their own home) and see that it's a scenario about (say) escorting an archaeologist to another city to appraise an artifact and negotiate a price, it's not reasonable to expect them to double-check whether a storyline like that might randomly include walking in on a father beating his child bloody (or whatever). (If it was a scenario about the horrors of human trafficking and someone had a sex-related trigger, that's another story.)
So even if not "labels", something in the product description that would at least prompt the idea that this scenario might contain a trigger and warrants further investigation would be a good step. Requiring someone who's already a victim to have to do at least semi-public research about every single scenario just to keep from getting hurt more, well, that's outside the realm of "due diligence".
Andrew Christian wrote:
I didn't get all offended and yell at the theatre, the producers, the distributers, etc.
You also didn't start shaking uncontrollably and screaming and sobbing as visions of your own past trauma flooded your mind, causing you to need to be carried out of the theater, and then having to spend some extra sessions with the therapist before you could bring yourself to even let your wife hug you again three weeks later.
Triggers and preferences are not the same thing.
EDIT: Wow, I type slow. :/