Combat was one of the least interesting parts of PS:T so if they'd upgrade it to turn-based and made it more tacticool that'd be great.
RE the OP: The framework (not the 'code of Hammurabi' XD) is shoddy, needs patches in certain places and has various holes which doesn't hold up the entire structure. Why can we not discuss a broken framework?
The question is based on a false dichotomy and is as ridiculous as asking a person whether he would rather have his lungs or his heart working in order.
Sorry, but by that logic according RAW you cannot choose to sit on a chair or do a little dance either. Demanding an opponent is just rules malarkey. Assuming the helpless state to receive a coup-de-grace is as simple as saying "my character willingly accepts the the blow". Committing suicide is well simulated by the coup-de-grace rule, given that you might involuntarily survive due to a Fort save. Mechanically it should be easy to allow 'normal' hits like that as well, but that is not as well-supported by the rules. However, if you are hurting yourself with the intention of triggering some power or gaining an advantage or such nonsense, you are well advised to exercise the GM arbiter role to say NO (even to yourself). I'm thinking of a barbarian that gains rage powers from damage on self, then starts hitting himself to start the battle with powers. Situations such as the turn-undead move as posted above are acceptable.
My dips are always to mechanically fit the concept I had in mind. I mostly use rogue/martial combinations when that happens. I'm a simulationist, and I refuse to let the class name determine the flavour. Levels are an abstraction, that have no direct bearing in the game, only indirectly through the abilities gained. When I take my first multiclass level, my character doesn't suddenly change, it is just to reflect better what he already is. When I am a fighter/rogue of some combination, I am NOT a 'fighter/rogue', I am a warrior who uses some dirty fighting techniques and have some skills in my utility belt. I was that before I took the rogue level. If I take wizard/rogue, I am NOT a 'wizard' who had a sudden interest in 'rogue', I am a nifty spellcaster who dabbles in some skillmonkeying. I was that before I took the rogue level. For me, the classes do not exist in the game world, only the abilities that actually interact with the world. Sometimes the terms for classes and the names ingame to describe stuff overlap, sometimes they conflict. For instance, we happen to have an elven fighter in a party, with archery specialization and decent survival skills. That fighter is constantly referred to as 'the ranger' because that's what his actual role is for us in-character. Similarly, a Sorcerer may be referred to as a 'mage' just as much as a Wizard could be.
Depends on their mass. They are not different from any other mass object, except for when you enter their event horizon.
Worst. Dropzone. Ever. That's why they owe Gandalf a favour.
I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't notice the air going bad, and find it silly to let dice determine if they notice before the crucial point. I also find it hard to believe that room is so tightly isolated that no oxygen can come in from outside. I assume the door was closed again after the mantis ran. Also, unless this is specifically called out as not possible, you can rouse people from sleep by taking a standard action.
0. To not define the woman in any way by her relations with men, but on her own personality. Then apply any of the reasons why strong heroes are strong.
It's like a scripted event in games. Annoying.
I do not see people talking about how bad the action economy and resource management is when the cleric casts these so called save or suck or battlefield controll spells and the enermy does exactly just that, save. Wasted action and wasted spell. That's because we don't annoy the 'healer' camp either with the happenstance that you heal someone and that person botches his action. Not to mention that you can actually fail a healing spell... Two wasted actions for the price of one. RE: Command. It is just lack of imagination that makes anyone think it is a bad spell. Especially the flee/approach command is great. Example: set it up so the target has to run through ally threat ranges, especially if they have Combat Reflexes.
If a creature does 100 damage per round, and it is not close to death yet, it is prudent to do something that changes that situation instead of keeping the status quo. Better yet to use your spells to prevent that situation in the first place. The only exception to that is when you have nothing left but a weak attack (be it a spell or melee/ranged). But that exactly shows that it is not very optimal to heal in combat. It is most optimal to not 'reward' or 'support' dim-witted tanks who stay in 100DPR range anyway. That said, if your tank and cleric are that way for RP reasons, that's fine. The circumstances for which it would be optimal to heal are, however, not as good as reputed in this thread. In almost all of the presented situationed I think "really? You're going to heal with that set of assets?"
See that's what I mean. Why cater to the client base who wants fixes when you can cater to the client base who will defend your product no matter the actual problems.
Write initiative indicators on the breasts.
Schrodinger's Wizard is not a myth: Handy Haversack + Scribe Scroll
It is boring and has some annoying cliches. 1. Guys pining for the 'hot girl' (who is actually pretty ugly) with attention disorder. Girls like that oughta be ditched. 2. Pseudo-geeks who don't actually act like geeks but like mentally deficient people. 3. Constant 'jokes' revolving about stupid decisions.
I tried to be civil, I got answered with sarcastic attacks and fallacies. If you'd actually bothered to look at my first posts in this thread you'd see that. Yeah sorry if I'm unkind about being responded with repetitious fallacies and implications that I'm an idiot for thinking naturals cannot compete with supernaturals. Those who replied to me, OP, Kirth and memorax in this way have in no way shown to really understand the OP's or our issues, or even our proposed solutions. Look how hard Kirth's suggestion got smacked, as if he just suggested to give Fighters infinite Time Stop or something.
Oberoni called. He wants to let you all know the devs won't be fixing anything.
My personal aversion for PF clerics is twofold; the mechanics are relatively boring and the fluff is limiting. 1a. Mechanics. The class doesn't provide a lot of customization. You pick two domains (powers of which are relatively limited compared to your spell list), choose caster/archer/melee and that's sort of it. You're pretty much bound by that build from then on. You don't get to choose much else. That's why the first thing I did in my houserules is to give them 'blessings' each two levels, which work like rogue talents. They also served the purpose of deleting the paladin class, so you can build a 'paladin' cleric instead. 1b. The spells. You have access to all spells, all the time. And some of them are plain awesome while others are quite meh. There are a few standard spell selections and the domains don't give enough uniqueness. Your spells are for the most part pretty straightforward, unlike a wizard who can use a great variety of spells to do creative stuff (and who needs to be creative). One of the possible fixes of the top of my head (just thinking of this right now): make them spontaneous casters with only access to domain spells. In return they get all the domains belonging to their deity. 'Rebalance' all deities to give 5-6 domains. 1c. The power. Clerics are rather... good at everything they want to do in character without trying. You never really specialize or do something unique. You don't have significant weaknesses that you need to keep in mind. 2a. The fluff. Having a set pantheon means choosing between a limiting amount of ways to play your cleric. There are difference in followers of the same deity but overall since the faiths and domains are predetermined the RP is partly predetermined. 2b. The game gives no incentive for actually RPing the religion aspect. Almost all cleric players in my experience (me included) casually mention they pray or worship when asked what they are doing, but otherwise their religion plays no significant role beyond the ethical decisions the group makes. What makes religious characters from fiction great is all the little superstitions, phrases they use (by Thor's hairy testicles!) and the little traditions they have (quick prayers to some deity if some transgression is made). But at the table that is actually quite hard to convey. Point is, there are no consequences for only casually acting religious. You're functionally just a wizard with armour and a different spell list, and you can swing a sword or shoot a bow with the right build.
I've repeated the same argument over and over and it is being ignored consistently with people using the same arguments I've debunked ten times now. I'm outta here. :P
It says 'Attack' not 'attack' so it references the Attack action aka the standard attack. Reading is hard.
The whole bases behind the still and current disagreements are that the first line of Manyshot sounds like the commanding style (When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows) and that when making a normal attack it, functionally, hasn't been defined as any form of known action until after the first attack. The way those two interact is... well...they don't. If the first attack is neither a standard or full round action (since it has yet to be defined), Manyshot's condition of "When making a full-attack action with a bow" won't be filled until after the attack that would have benefited. Not at all. And the reason there seems to be this confusion is because of muddled language (as exampled in the bolded part). Once again I will apply logic so we can look at a few steps of the action system, how they flow and what role Manyshot plays. Choosing between [Attack] and [Full Attack]:
1B make one unmodified attack
Steps A and B are still options, steps B are just a liberty the designers have given. Manyshot states that it functions on a full attack. Since it does not state it functions on [Attack] but only [Full Attack] we follow series A, thus the passage about 'deciding between an Attack and a Full Attack' does not even come into play. There is no confusion, inconsistency or problem whatsoever as long as we avoid muddled language like 'is no action' and 'upgrade your attack' and 'opt out of a full attack'. None of these things are implied by the rules, they only serve to confuse everyone as evidenced by this thread (even those who agree with me have fallen into that trap). All of the premises above are in the book, literally. I have merely formulated them in a systematic way. Now for something which is not covered by these premises and their logical conclusions: TWF, rapid shot, haste etc. either make your standard Attack worse or on par. Thus, as James Jacobs alluded to in the linked post earlier, only a hardnose GM will disallow the decision between [Attack] and [Full Attack] after the first attack. Indeed, that would be rules lawyering.
I think part of the confusion is of the repeated misuse of wording by various parties in this thread. A few points:
What you do instead, is make one normal, unmodified attack, THEN choose whether that attack is a standard action [Attack] or a full-round action [Full Attack]. This is what it says literally, hence I do not get the continued need for clarification and why I chalk it up as failure to read properly. In this case the rules are clear as day. Skip Williams says the exact same thing in the quoted sections above.
Yes yes, the other side of the discussion will bring up that manyshot has attack actions and that the full-attack action will state you can stop after one attack. Doesn't change the fact that manyshot requires a full-attack action. No full-attack action, no manyshot. So you are in a paradox and your game explodes. Please exit this time-space continuum as paradoxes are not permited. It does NOT say that you can stop a full attack action after one attack. That is found nowhere. It does say you may choose between a standard action and full round action after one attack. There is no paradox because manyshot demands a full attack. The choice between standard and full round action can (but not MUST) be made before or after the first attack. But manyshot demands a full attack, thus you must choose a full attack before making any attacks. There is no 'opt out of full attack' clause. There is a 'choose between standard and full round action after first attack' clause. Numerous abilities proc off of declaring a full round action. Considering everything else that is included in the CRB one would think that somewhere, it would be mentioned that taking those abilities prevents you from following the flow of action as laid out under the full attack action description if that were the case. It's ridiculous to think that you start with a standard action and upgrade, and what's more it just doesn't work for the flow of combat as described. Not only is it anti-intuitive, but it means they had to spell out a whole lot of unnecessary information about what were and were not legal move actions in a place where it only makes sense for them to do so if those move actions [i]are part of another action already taking place[i]. My point is that there is no breach of the 'flow of actions'. You are allowed the liberty of making a choice between a full attack or a standard attack after one attack. But some feats require you to full attack thus choosing before the first attack.
The text afterwards does not contradict that you are choosing between a standard action and a full round action. The text afterwards explains when you may make the choice between standard and full round action. I said 'inescapably implies'. It literally says that you make a choice between a standard action and full round action. You may make a move action after a 'first attack' because a 'first attack' and a standard action are equivalent actions. (Compare: Manyshot first attack etc. are not equivalent to standard actions.) A standard action allows a move action. The text clarifies, but nothing more. To wit: the text literally says "make your first attack and then choose whether it is a standard or full round action".
Proper wiz strategy involves using spells that give no save or targeting weaknesses after you made the requisite knowledge check. That last part should be easy with a gazillion int points. If baddies are resistant to everything, buff party, summon beasties, create walls. Plenty of gamechangers.
And if in that fight the craven worm chooses to attempt murder but is knocked unconscious but not outright killed, the paladin should let him live? That's what some seem to be saying. Should we heal them back to positives and then when they fight again let them live again?
Killing a non-combatant is evil. Nonsense. The rules are pretty clear about this. Only killing innocents or killing for your personal gain is evil.
Someone asked me to show some stuff, so I will. Keep in mind my changes are extensive, hence I 'rewrote the book'. If something seems weird, OP or UP it is probably because of changes elsewhere, and it is still a work in progress. First of all, familiarize yourself with some of the basic changes with my 'patchlist' here. Below is the stuff I will share for now. I made 10-level base classes because after tenth number inflation becomes a serious problem and frankly I didn't want to bother with them. I consider them forever wasted and unfixable. Other stuff which I will not share in this post are skills, feats and the rules for combat, magic, overland travel and the various arcane, divine and psychic effects. Some of it I'm not sure about copyright issues (magic and combat), the rest is just a list of stuff I will only show on request. I will also not post the Druid class because I copied Trailblazer's Wild Shape, which as far as I know is not open content. Unless pointed out otherwise I will not take the risk. Keep in mind I have mostly gathered stuff from other sources and put them together in a presentable way. I'd guess about 25% of the material is my own, 25% is inspired by ideas read somewhere and 50% is blatant copypasta, almost all of it from the Pathfinder CRB. If you see anything you like, feel free to use it in your own games, as long as you don't get paid for it. If you see anything you think is yours and I show it here without permission, please inform me. Some of the names from here that deserve credit are Kirth Gersen, Evil Lincoln, Porpentine and Ashiel. Basics
Wow, that's an impressive list. I need to get organized. I spent about a year working on that, I rewrote pretty much every chapter in the book because I made so many changes I wanted to make it complete. I spent time making every change presentable as if it was a brand new book. So yeah I'm quite organized. :)
Well if academics cannot agree why do we hope to do so in this thread? 8)
Double weapons are defined in the equipment section says you may use it to preform the Two Weapon Fighting special attack, but you incur attack penalties as if fighting with a one handed and light weapon. It has no effect on damage. It's still a two-handed weapon, and there is a separate rule that triggers when you are wielding a 2 handed weapon, in the combat section, that provides a 1.5 strength modifier. It also does not stop it from being a 2-handed weapon for the purposes of power attack. You are not required to fight with it as a double weapon (you can use them only as a 2 handed weapon), and using them in one hand prevents you from making the TWF Special Attack, nor can you use only one end of the weapon to make TWF attacks (you cannot for example use only one end of a staff to make your dual-attacks). This is based on an unreasonable reading of the entry, since it conveniently ignores the clause that you only get to wield one end 2-handed if you forgo the use of the other. And that it mechanically stops being a 2-handed weapon as soon as you TWF with it. That said I can see how one can spin the rules in favour of themselves given the inherent ambiguity of words, not that I find it reasonable. In that case I am just left with pointing out that every official statblock ever posted of someone wielding a double weapon in fact does not follow your reading. This has been discussed on the boards before. If you are uncertain about it, I would advise doing a forum search and discussing it with your GM. Many people house rule damage penalties onto double weapons, but they are not part of the core rules as they are written. Personally, I think adding such penalties is unnecessary, given that it's the thing that makes double weapons special. I know, I've been part of some of those earlier discussions. In which above mentioned points were conveniently ignored.
I will probably implement this for my houserules, as it is just too sexy. Probably take the PF monk and excise ki powers in favour of psionics. I CANNOT BELIEVE NOBODY ELSE HAS RESPONDED YET.
However, where in the rules does it say that a cleric can't use a heavy shield and cast spells? if it's because he needs a free hand - I don't mean to make him take down the axe everytime - most of the time he can do it as a free action while moving and still cast the spell - so no need for nitpicking here. Heavy shield takes up one hand, you don't have the hand free for holding the weapon as with the light shield. Weapon takes up one hand. Casting takes up one hand. Putting away the axe and grabbing it again are both move actions, dropping the axe is one free action. It is just a limitation on action economy. Picking the heavy shield over the light shield has consequences. Not being able to cast a spell while also holding a weapon is one of them. Note that for the light shield, the RAW is that you switch the weapon to your shield hand for holding (this is a free action), then cast a spell, then switch the weapon back. |
