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

Kain Darkwind's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 1,836 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,836 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kain Darkwind wrote:
2d20

1d20 + 5 ⇒ (10) + 5 = 15

1d20 + 5 ⇒ (9) + 5 = 14

Tracking follow up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

2d20 ⇒ (12, 20) = 32


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Notice, however, that in all those situations, if you simply sit back and stick to your 'job', the experience becomes demonstrably worse for you.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm curious, are there any plans to release a second (or third/fourth/fifth) compilation of these mythic pdfs?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scavion wrote:
Athaleon wrote:


I don't know about you, but my odds of getting buff and learning to effectively use a sword (whatever those odds may be) are way higher than my odds of learning how to cast spells.
In Golarion they aren't.

Because you're all commoners?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Are there any plans to expand the information on the different demigod level entities (daimyo, immortals, rana, etc) at any point in the near (say 1-3 years) future? Far future? Just the names are fairly evocative, and no doubt intended to leave customers hungry for more...just wanted to say, I'm starvin'!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It seems like skills were developed mainly for out of combat usage. Combat, including cmb stuff is designed solely for obviously combat. Only spells were developed for all aspects of the game. Spells are also developed to interact with the other systems but not the reverse. You have to change that inherent blind spot if you want a class that uses combat or skills for its power.

Spells and combat maneuvers both provoke if used in threatened range. Spells Coke with a built in level scaling check to avoid this for all spells. A fighter who wants to use cmb must take feats, expending limited class features to do so. This is the way of it for so many basic features. Want to move and attack? Sack half to three quarters of your output. Want to cast and move? Sack nothing.

But ignoring that for a second. Let's make basic combat maneuvers inherent to the fighter just like weapon and armor proficiency. Take a feat for greater stuff not simply the ability to grab someone. While we look at that, how about adding throwing to the basic cmb list? Grabbing your foe and throwing him into his own men is time honored martial combat in tv and film.

Also, on the current dragoon topic....Kain is the name of a famous dragoon from Final Fantasy 4.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Being able to redirect a spell if you save against it (or retarget someone behind you with a missed ranged attack) would go a long ways towards making cinematic combat. If I've found anything, it is that fighter damage is not bad. The ability to get into position to deal that damage is bad, for fighters as well as for rogues. If throwing a fireball at a rogue suddenly becomes the risk of the rogue leaping over the fireball and it sailing on to explode on your mooks (who you oh so carefully avoided targeting originally)...well, more considerations start coming up. Do you fling death magic at a fighter who might shrug it off hard enough that it rebounds on you? Does the half damage the fighter took from a successful save represent the fact that he caught your fireball in his bare hands and threw it back to explode in your face?

Whether that comes from allowing armor to apply to touch attacks with certain classes, or giving a defense bonus (which should have been done from the onset of d20), I'm not sure. But this ability suddenly places fighters and rogues (assuming they are the ones who get the power) back in the game, rather than having to constantly sacrifice their full attack damage potential in order to move.

Allowing skills to interact with spells better would go a long ways towards making an actual skill monkey a viable concept. Perception to beat illusions, Stealth to beat divinations, Escape Artist to bypass magic walls or abjurations, etc. All too often, a spell simply nukes any point of a skill, with their +20 bonuses, assuming they allow the skill to interact at all.

I'm a big fan of Kirth's John Carter comparisons, but I do think you should be able to let high level DnD players be solo or head of armies, and that should depend on the type/style of game you are playing. Rise of the Runelords becomes anticlimactic if you simply warp your ten thousand troops into Xin-Shalast and they murder everything in sight. So while the fighter should be able to become the warmaster of the continent and the rogue should be able to pull off crazy nonsense via their shady connections just as easily as the wizard and cleric can call in planar support, it shouldn't be a requirement.

I also stand by Kirth's statement that you need to somehow prevent CR 20s from being at the beck and call of CR 17s. You can pull off pit fiends granting favors to foolhardy wizards without providing them as controlled minions. They've snuck up 4 CRs and 7HD since the dawn of d20, quite simply they aren't the same monster that the old school stories have working for the wizard are talking about.

I'm also going to say something I don't often say...I agree with Anzyr, that making wizards (and other spellcasters) specialize would go a long way towards bringing magic back into the realms of the fantasy genre. Gandalf threw fire, drew up magic circles, broke enchantments and summoned an awesome horse, but he didn't float invisibly while casting spells through an illusion and retreat to a private demiplane the second things turned against him. Neither did Merlin. Hell, even Harry Dresden, who is a wizard in a world where being a wizard is very specifically superior to not being a wizard, doesn't just toss off spells willy-nilly, and routinely gets physically battered around. You don't need wishing simulacrums to move past the fantasy genre's expectations with PF magic. Just plain old d20 combat magic pulls that off easy.

Slowing down casting times would go a long ways towards putting magic back in the light we see it in the books. Maybe it could be highest level = spell level rounds, 2nd highest = one-half spell level rounds, third highest = 1 round and anything below that uses normal casting times. So at 1st level, your 1st level spells take 1 round and your cantrips are standard actions. At 10th level, your 5th level spells take 5 rounds, your 4th level spells take 2 rounds and your 3rd level spells take 1 round to cast. I agree with the OP premise that PF will never do this however, I'm simply stating my agreement for the record.

When I think high level fantasy settings, I think the Book of Malazan the Fallen. Within that series (and I'm only halfway through so please don't spoil it), there are fighters who literally battle gods. There is an order of monk-fighters that sent an 'army' consisting of three individuals...and they were absolutely worth a real army. The wizards can teleport, pull energy, detect/dispel magic, etc...but most of them have very specific talents with their magic. The one wizard who can pull off multiple different varieties of magic is considered incredibly rare. And when magic goes up against martial, it's anyone's guess who wins.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Seriously though...

Spoiler:
The Rival was the original 'reverse flash' for Jay Garrick. He used a temporary formula known as Velocity 9 to gain speed and fight the Flash. It all makes sense if the Jay we know is actually some version of Edward Clariss, whether it is a Jay-clone, or something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I believe

Spoiler:
the Iron Mask is Jay.

The "Jay" that has been running around without speed? Few possibilities.

1. Clone.
2. Hunter Zolomon aka twin of Jay.
3. "The Rival"

Seriously though, Zoom feels like Savitar.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Could the guy in the mask be Psycho Pirate? Crisis-era Flash fans might recall him having a minor relationship with Barry.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You seem to have poor expectations from them, while I do my best to avoid the constant deluge of spoilers out there and maintain no expectations from them. I'm just basing my speculations off what we've seen happen or foreshadow. It's not a matter of faith in the writers per se, just thoughts on what has been teased and potential directions to take it in. It is entirely possible, even likely, for that not to be the case.

If I could make DC shows stop doing one thing, it would be killing off/burying characters on shows that do not exist within the same canon.

If I could make them stop doing two things, the second would be an immediate ban on the use of 52. Every stupid address, every hotel room, every secret lab, all 52.

I'm lying of course, if I could get them to do one thing, it would be to put out an assassination contract on any one involved in PR releases that are basically just spoilers. I'm so sick of them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:

I don't think we have any indication that Iris is going to be the goal of Barry, and do we know that Patty is leaving for real, rather than for a bit, in order to evolve her character into the CSI character she was meant to be?

I like Barry and Patty together, but I want to see Patty's badassery stop backfiring. I can't believe they would write her out for good. Unlike Felicity, Barry and Patty are a couple in the comics.

You have more faith in the writers than I do. They wrote her off and even gave her a touching farewell. She will never be a love interest for Barry again, and probably wont be brought back into the show.

I said no such thing. I simply said we don't have evidence of the contrary. And we certainly don't have evidence that Barry/Iris is going to be a thing again. They aren't making either one more tender or meaningful to each other...they seem like normal, brother/sister/best friends at this point.

It could go either way. I would just be surprised that they only brought Patty in for a few shows and then axed her when she and Barry clearly have excellent chemistry.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
derpdidruid wrote:
kain darkwind wrote:
The player entitlement crowd has always irked me.
I really hope I'm not coming off that way... I don't object to me being set back for dying, I just want a chance to catch back up to everyone else.

You absolutely are not. The self righteous indignation from some of those giving you advice is what I was responding to.

If you were my player, I would have let you solo session to catch up, if you'd wanted to make it happen quicker.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Luke, you can simply redo a T-Rex's feats to give it vital strike, no need to apply fighter levels. Skill Focus is a good candidate.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Toblakai wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:

Ignoring all of the blubbering about how unfun it is to play at a lower level than the rest of the party, I'd like to counter the assertion that you will be permanently behind the rest of the party forever.

Can you explain why you would punish a player by forcing them to be under level? I don't get it, I play to have fun, and being a tag a long is not fun. (Yes at higher levels the difference is not as dramatic)

First off, love your handle.

Secondly, 'punish' means to harm one in response to a breach of the rule/law/etc. I prefer the term 'consequence', which is a bit more neutral in motivation. If you are on a cliff ledge, and it crumbles, you aren't being punished for being there. But there will be consequences. Sometimes consequences aren't things you are at fault for. To me, that's very life-like.

Thirdly, I don't feel that a one or two level gap is critical. I've had to deal with being a 1st level character in a 9th level party. You can still have fun, unless your only fun comes from incessantly comparing yourself to your fellow players' character. Especially with a DM who is able to put things into the encounters that play off your strengths, or your lack of strength.

Fourth, if you have not put as much work (ie playtime) into a character as the others, I see no reason you should have the same character power.

Finally, while I prefer some consequence to death and some reward to more play, my chief objection is to the idea that coming in a level lower (or at level 1) is A) insurmountable and B) a dick DM move. I don't personally make players come in at level 1, but I absolutely support the concept if the DM chooses to run the game like that. The player entitlement crowd has always irked me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ignoring all of the blubbering about how unfun it is to play at a lower level than the rest of the party, I'd like to counter the assertion that you will be permanently behind the rest of the party forever.

Let's assume the party is level 5, and you are level 3. On the medium track, that means you are 10,000 XP behind the party. And let's assume you are allowed to do NOTHING to catch up XP-wise.

The party gains 6th level at 23,000. You will be at level 4 with 13,000 xp.

The party gains 7th level at 35,000. You will be at level 6 with 25,000 XP.

The party gains 8th level at 51,000. You will be level 7 with 41,000. Before they are even half way to 9th level at 75,000, you will be 8th level. After this, the XP gap narrows to less than 20% of the next levels. The time spent, if any, at a lower level will drop to insignificance.

This happens no matter what level you are. The most severe two level gap would be with a 3rd level party and 1st level character. It will also be the quickest corrected, since it is a 5000 xp gap. Playing in a 12th level party with a 10th level character, or a 20th level party with a 18th level character is hardly even noticeable, assuming even a moderate lack of entitlement.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The show isn't terrible. Like has been said, a disappointing take on the original material, but long ago I got over my favorite books being done 'wrong' on the screen. Different interpretations, or in this case, a completely different story. It's all good.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Marik Whiterose wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:

I'm really surprised nobody is commenting on,

** spoiler omitted **

They did the same thing with Deadshot. Apparently the same ancillary characters can't exist within the TVverse and Movieverse.

This is easily DC's most annoying feature for me, dating all the way back to the Bat-Embargo for Justice League.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't think we have any indication that Iris is going to be the goal of Barry, and do we know that Patty is leaving for real, rather than for a bit, in order to evolve her character into the CSI character she was meant to be?

I like Barry and Patty together, but I want to see Patty's badassery stop backfiring. I can't believe they would write her out for good. Unlike Felicity, Barry and Patty are a couple in the comics.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:

Spellcasting has visual effects.

Untrained unarmed provokes because they are untrained (clumsy?)
How do you PRETEND to pull a trigger? I would allow an AoO if someone 'pretended' to pull a trigger...

Metagame knowledge is a huge problem, and should be treated as such.

It sounds to me like you are in the group of people that actually thinks fighters run up to people with their arms hanging by their sides and then wind up in a theatrical motion, telegraphing their next attack...

It's the only explanation that would allow for this 5 foot step/ready action cheese.

We have readied actions trigger off of observable things IN GAME, not actions.

If the criteria are met (the opponent APPEARS to be attacking) then the action triggers.

How can one identify charging vs a move/attack? What observable effect differentiates the two if the attacker is charging 10 feet?

If YOU choose to allow metagame knowledge triggers for readied actions, that's your business.

My group doesn't.

Your group's houserules are no concern to the rules forum. Verbal spellcasting still provokes an AoO. Silent, stilled spellcasting still provokes an AoO. Fake attacks from an untrained unarmed fighter do not provoke an AoO.

You don't have metagame knowledge of my group, so you'll probably want to stay away from assumptions about what they do and don't.

Since you like to make up "rules" like pumping swords menacingly, I don't really see what relevance your ideas have to the thread.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:

I don't see the issue.

The rules are quite clear that the readied action resolves (entirely) before the triggering action.

1. Attack and....

2. Hold up. Readied action triggers.

3. Readied action attack. 5-ft step during readied action allowed. Used to move readied attacker back 5-ft.

4. Now attacker, you get to take your action. You cannot change it at this point, you still need to attack the readier, unless you physically can no longer do so (if for instance, you were paralyzed or killed or teleported to another planet from the readied action.).

5. Excellent. I will take the 5-ft. step I am allowed during my attack action, move into range and complete my attack.

The only interrupt is the one from the readier.

the problem is that the readied action is triggering off meta information, not something observable in the game world.

Every movement of a sword, every exploratory swing COULD be an attack. How does the kobold know that THIS one is the 'real' attack? Fighters don't just walk up to an opponent with their sword held limply in their hand and then wind up in a theatrical roundhouse swing to make a single attack...

Meta game knowledge. That's why this shouldn't work.

No this is nonsense, and the sort of nonsense that results in the 'I pump my sword menacingly' defense. Absolutely zero support for this position in the rules book.

There are mechanics that operate off 'meta' knowledge. How do I tell the difference between a guy scratching his butt and one casting a spell? I get an AoO. How can I tell if the guy is faking a punch at my face with his untrained unarmed strike? I don't get an AoO. What is the difference between a guy who pretends to pull the trigger while pointing a gun at my head and one who does? I get an AoO to take the gun away from him or stab him with my dagger, because bringing a gun to a knife fight is dumb.

There are plenty of triggering actions where the player may or may not be privy to all of the meta knowledge going on. They still trigger, and they still function.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't see the issue.

The rules are quite clear that the readied action resolves (entirely) before the triggering action.

1. Attack and....

2. Hold up. Readied action triggers.

3. Readied action attack. 5-ft step during readied action allowed. Used to move readied attacker back 5-ft.

4. Now attacker, you get to take your action. You cannot change it at this point, you still need to attack the readier, unless you physically can no longer do so (if for instance, you were paralyzed or killed or teleported to another planet from the readied action.).

5. Excellent. I will take the 5-ft. step I am allowed during my attack action, move into range and complete my attack.

The only interrupt is the one from the readier.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Byakko wrote:

The problem is time usage.

Most games have a time constraint, especially in society play. Combat can be slow enough as is, without making players delve into the "chess" involved in dealing with these timing issues. Frankly, most players aren't interested in doing so even when time isn't a factor.

Does employing such a tactic really add much to the game experience? Almost never. Usually, this will just result in a slight delay IC as the losing side stalls for a round. OOC, this will typically result in a much longer delay as the players and GM attempt to muddle through issues similar to those brought up in this thread.

Now, there are a few places where it might be fun to use this trick. For example, for comical effect as a goblin cheekily closes a door as a hero is about to full attack them. Or, the players are facing TPK and the swashbuckler uses some trickery to stave off defeat and give the cleric time to work. These cases should be rare, however, as frequent use will only lead to frustration, and frankly is a bad indication of a GM's ability to shut down exploitative shenanigans which detract from play.

I am sympathetic to your concern, but not your solution. I well realize how frustratingly long it is to deal with combat, particularly when someone brings up a tactic that someone else involved isn't aware of. I do not think that the solution is to change the rules, which has only in my experience, led to confusion as certain swaths of the gaming public is working off one iteration and others a newer set of rules. Anytime the rules have to be consulted in game, the game bogs down. If there are differing interpretations once the rules are read, it bogs down further.

Luckily, for a GM who is concerned with the length of combat, the solution is simple...don't employ it. It's not tactically sound or overpowering, and only useful in niche situations, where players continue doing the same thing over and over again. If it is the players who are using the tactic, an OOC "I prefer we don't use this option in the interest of speeding combat along" goes a long way. If they cannot abide by such a gentleman's agreement, simply never perform the triggering action and have them lose their turn over and over again until they come around to your way of thinking.

Again, this isn't a good tactic. It's almost never superior, and it cannot be counted on in any event, unless the DM is readying one NPC against another who the DM will force to follow the script.

What is important is that people understand the rules that can be involved (5-ft step DURING being a big one here) and how they playout, moreso than adjusting orders of resolution, limits on valid triggers, etc.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'll happily admit there is a problem with the rules, Byakko, when someone can explain precisely what the problem is.

It seems to me that most people have a bigger problem with the concept of taking a 5-foot step 'during' an attack than they do with readied actions over all.

There is no invincibility glitch, unless your house ruling ends up making one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The 'which square is he in' argument is ridiculous.

If I am a 10th level fighter taking a full attack, I have 2 attacks.

I make one attack against a guy. I currently threaten as per the square I started in. I now use my 5ft. step DURING the full attack to shift north one square. Immediately, for my purposes, I now threaten as though I was in the new square. Since this is not only on my turn but within my action, no one is going to be making/provoking attacks of opportunity or targeting me, so the fact that at the beginning of my action I was in one square and at the end of my action I was in another doesn't come into play. I make my second attack from the northern square.

How is that difficult? At what point does that break down?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Okay here's one Kain. I'm only able to to make one attack on my turn due to bab. The enemy is forced to make a charge against me on his next turn. I ready a brace weapon against his charge. My initiative had me right before him anyways. When he charges I get my braced attack and deal more damage than if I had moved and attacked him. How is this not superior? Where is the flaw?

Why is the enemy forced to make a charge against you? Who are the other combatants in this scenario? Is this a one on one fight with Chargey McChargerson and you?

Because when you ready your action with a spear, the last thing I do is charge. I drink a potion in front of you and move half way in. Utter waste of your turn, and the next round starts with me in normal range and buffed. Or I move in under total defense, enjoying a +4 bonus to AC the next round and still wasting your turn.

I'm not even sure the endgame merits arguing against the scenario though. You do one attack that deals more damage...the superior condition is met (assuming your scenario can be defended), but is this what you call 'overpowering'? Is this akin to melee invincibility?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I will add this to what Coriat has already handled.

If your complaint is that the rules 'should' allow things to be resolved at the same time, or 'should' prevent 5-ft steps, that's fine. I'm not going to argue that, because I don't really care. My point has ever been that if the rules themselves are followed, the concerns raised about 'invincible' characters never emerge.

If you think you can provide a setup in which the readied action can be shown to be in most ways superior or overpowering, I welcome it. I will deconstruct any such scenario and point out to you why it does not, cannot or will not resolve as you have imagined.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So BNW's argument against readying boils down to that it can be a good tactic. The game shudders at the thought.

He has chosen to ignore all the ways in which it can be countered, which have been brought up ad nauseum for his edification, which makes his declaration that other people 'need to stop saying that [argument that he feels he has addressed]' a touch ironic, bordering on obloquy. The upper hand held by the readied action is the essence of fugacity, as repeated gambles on the quality of one's round vs the potential quality of one's round are doomed to eventually swing in favor of the house. Often on the very first hand.

The archer example. "I ready a move action to run adjacent to the archer when he fires."

You are hoping to provoke an AoO from the archer, and hit him when he fires.

You could achieve this entire effect (move up to archer, hit archer) with your original, beat the archer in initiative action, except that he might be flat footed if you had acted immediately on your turn. So we're essentially at a net zero gain, slight negative. What are we potentially losing to achieve that?

1. The archer takes a non-ranged attack action, like drinking a potion. Utter loss of your turn.

2. The archer takes a full ranged attack action. (Or fires before moving) You trigger your move action, move adjacent, he uses his 5 ft. step allowed during his attack to move backwards out of your reach, you get no AoO. You've traded a full round action for a move action you could have taken anyways and reduced your initiative count to just before the archer's.

This tends to be typical of all of your examples, BNW. They don't hold water when you look at them in accordance with the rules and in actual play. The more combatants on the field, the less likely you are going to be able to predict how any given one will act that turn. Readying can be useful, but it is hardly the end all be all of combat that you seem to consider it.

The 'pump your sword menacingly' tactic is not worth the word count required to respond to it. Suffice to say that BNW accounted for its value (ie none whatsoever) admirably in his response to this non-action. I can only assume you brought up the concept sarcastically, ShieldLawrence.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:

Sword, can you even see the rest of us from your vantage point on that moral high ground?

I'll be honest, it's getting hard to sort out the different positions. I'm not sure if Darksol's wall of text supports losing your action if you get ready-juked or not.

I will clarify that you do not lose your action. It is wasted the same way a concentration check on a spell is failed; that is, it goes off as if there was no effect (but the spell itself is treated as though it was cast normally).

This means that although the attack was treated as normal, it still affected an empty square (which, unless there was a creature there, invisible or otherwise), it did not have any effect against the intende target.

(For clarification purposes, which wall of text are you referring to? I have a feeling that I've made multiple of those, and am not sure which one is causing the confusion.)

We are on the same page then, in that the attack still happens, it just now most likely (due to the ready) fails to include the guy you swung at. I'm uncertain if you recognize the legitimacy of taking a 5 ft. step during that attack (if you are allowed) in order to place the foe back in reach.

The wall of text to which I refer is the one hidden in spoilers in your most recent, that broke down nearly all options available to the martial combatants. While comprehensive, I was not quite sure the message you were going for. I will say, I myself noted the issues with cleave and the 'other direction bull rushes' and combined some feats in my own game. Improved/Greater Bull Rush affects Drag and Reposition. Cleave upgrades into Great Cleave at bab +4 and does not require adjacent targets, merely targets without an ally in between. Even with the changes (and allowing fighters to swap out their bonus combat feats each day with an hour training), I did not see them used often though.

The Sword wrote:

Oh no. The view from up here is great. I have my rose tinted spectacles to look through if I need to squint ; )

I'll say now that Darksol has as valid an argument as mine. Rules as written are unhelpful. I'm not even sure about rules as intended (who is). I can see that a FAQ could as easily go one way as the other. You can tell that from the fact that so many people would play it differently on each side for the last 400+ posts. I do think there needs to be an answer so we know where we stand house ruling etc.

My version speeds up combat and is more realistic giving players/DMs reasonable expectations of the outcome of actions. While Darksols interpretation adds an extra tactical dimension that rewards reading the opponent and anticipating their actions. I think this will come down to how your group plays, what their dynamic is and how they get their kicks. It has been really interesting reading. We definitely shouldn't derail the thread with an argument about trap options.

Now, I am curious, what was your interpretation of the actual rules before your fix, The Sword? Again, I've been reading through our extensive posts, and I no longer know what anyone advances except (sadly) those that had the worst (and least supported) ideas.

These two pieces of text are what I'm looking at for my own view.

"Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."

Aka, you take your action unless you are unconscious, dead, etc as a result of the readied action.

"You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round."

Specifically spells out that you can 5 ft. step.

And for what it's worth, the only feat options I consider outright traps are ones that advertise something they do not provide, like Prone Shooter or Elephant Stomp. Skill Focus (basketweaving) and Cleave might not be great, but they give you a bonus or let you do something you couldn't do before. As long as someone does not have false expectations for what the game will hold, feat choices are up to the player, not some higher body of Optimized Pathfinder Law.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Sword, can you even see the rest of us from your vantage point on that moral high ground?

I'll be honest, it's getting hard to sort out the different positions. I'm not sure if Darksol's wall of text supports losing your action if you get ready-juked or not.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes. If you do exactly what you did before, regardless of the happy self positive thoughts you think as you commit yourself to the action that you knew would fail, you still miss.

Completely ok.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Your idea Elro, or the bizarre idea (not yours, I don't think) that you shouldn't be able to ready for an attack are making the issue worse. The only outcome of your ideas is that the order of operations becomes more confused, not less so.

Again, against anyone who is not doggedly determined to succeed via a singular method in the face of previous failure, this tactic might buy one round. Might, because you cannot be sure that you will be attacked, or attacked in melee, or whatever level of specific-ness you attached to the readied action.

It cannot make a kobold invulnerable to a fighter.

It cannot make a monk invulnerable to a T-Rex.

It cannot make a giant invulnerable to a barbarian.

The more you screw around with the actual order of operations established, the more likely you are to either create inadvertent situations where a reach advantage does actually lead to immunity or the slower the game has to crawl when you go figure out how your rules changed the official ones.

If simplicity is the goal of your houserule, remove readied actions entirely. But these slight adjustments (or the truly odd thoughts like the nonsensical concept of 'stating that you pump your weapon around, keeping people from telling when you attack') make things more complex and not inherently any more fair.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

T-rex has reach. Moving in closer to get a hold of a quick moving prey is not beyond the intelligence of an animal. Alternately, seeking out easier prey when confronted with a strange or particularly difficult meal is fairly standard for animals.

So you try to be the dancing kobold, ready to move when bit. T-Rex moves in on you. Attacks at the very edge of its reach, 15 ft. away. You dance away, ending the round 20 ft. away from the T-Rex.

Round 2, the frustrated T-Rex moves in on you and attacks at 10 ft. away. Your readied attack is wasted. You step away and end the round in range of the T-Rex next turn. You never get to pull it off again, because 5ft. step rules are not limited to higher than animal int. Every attack it makes at 15 ft. away having not moved yet can add a free of charge 5 ft. step in at any point.

It's a good first round tactic to get the T-rex to blow its initial attack. Assuming of course, that the T-rex attacks you and not someone else. It is not invincibility.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The answer to the OP question of 'what happens when your action becomes invalid' is 'the action is spent anyways.'

If you attacked someone and their readied action removed them from your range, you attack anyways and miss.

If you cast a spell on someone and their readied action removed them from your range, you cast the spell anyways to no effect. Etc.

However, the kobold is not invincible due to potential actions explained numerous times by Coriat.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


It quickly turns into a game of

1) what readied actions can I or can't I take,
2) some weird rock siccors paper game for what series of actions beat which other series of actions. For the dm to be fair, you'd have to write your answer down on a placcard dating game style

The fighter knows that the kobold is delaying. They don't know the trigger action.

1. You cannot trigger for impossible conditions. "I attack the first person to think of their girlfriend," "I attack the first lawful evil fighter to hop on one leg"

I would personally go a step further and say you can only ready (and trigger) on positive actions of which you are aware.

There is no in-game awareness of 'fighter class' ergo it is invalid to set as a trigger. There is in-game awareness of 'lawful evil', but it requires some specific effects, so anyone you have not detected (or whatever) counts as 'not Lawful Evil' Same for invisible foes that you cannot see.

You cannot trigger on 'runs out of movement' or 'stops moving' because you don't know how much movement someone has left, and as long as they have movement left and have not taken another action in between, they can keep using that movement.

You can trigger on 'moves adjacent' or 'moves onto [trapped] square' or 'attacks me' because those are all positive actions that can be viewed in character.

It isn't really the guessing game you make it out to be.

As for the kobold, I see it delaying. Based on my previous experience, I suspect he's trying to sucker me again.

Did he pick 'when foe moves adjacent'? Well, I'm headed over there now, guess we'll find out. I move adjacent. Did he hit me and spring away 5 ft.? No? Then he likely has 'when foe attacks me'. I use the Intimidate action to cause him to be shaken, and end my turn adjacent to him. On the next round, he's screwed.

Or, he does hit me and springs away. I have 15 ft. movement left. I go after him, and kill him with my standard action remaining.

Or, as soon as I see him not bother to use his action, I assume he's pulling some nonsense with readied actions against me, use a free action to tell my pals that he's a dancer, and go murder someone else because I'm a big bad fighter and the kobolds are going to die.

These are all very simple things to do. If you keep rushing in on the guy who keeps dancing away, you deserve to die. Repeating a failing tactic ad nauseum should kill you on the battlefield.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The kobold readies an action to A) attack when you attack. B) attack when you move adjacent/in threatened range/whatever. (Stop moving is invalid because if you have more movement, you can continue.)

You move in on the kobold. He does not trigger on your move. Assuming you want to even play this absurd game with him, you halt, and wait for the next round.

OR

You move in on the kobold. He triggers on you moving adjacent and steps back 5 ft. You finish, with 15-25 ft remaining in movement, and follow him back where you smack his little kobold head off.

BUT I PREFER

After round 1, the kobold repeats his readying nonsense. You ignore him entirely, leaving him to dick around wasting his turn while you slaughter his pet pig or shaman or girlfriend.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Coriat's argument essentially breaks down to the following.

Attacking Dancing Kobold = {5 ft. step then Attack D.K., Attack D.K., Attack D.K. then 5 ft. step}

And that set is identical to {Attack D.K.} because Attack D.K. = 5 ft. step during Attack D.K. and according to set theory, two sets which differ only in that one has duplicate members are in fact exactly identical.

Ergo, if you attack D.K. and he has readied to attack you then, as legal upon his attack, 5 ft. step, you can 5ft. step after him and complete your attack, assuming you have not moved in the round.

You cannot attack a different kobold. You cannot cast a spell. You cannot drink a potion. You must attack D.K. You have committed to the action. However, that action to which you have committed includes the option to 5 ft. step during. Just as a kobold does not need to ready the 5 ft. step as part of HIS action. He merely needs to ready an attack against the attacker, and may decide, upon taking that action, to use a 5 ft. step during. (if you cannot imagine a scenario where the kobold steps toward the attacker, reach weapons.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Woof. Can't back this yet, but I see that I have time. I will be back after Christmas gifts and bills have gone. A buck thirty five. What a beast.

In for a penny, in for a pound. 25k gap to fill in a month. Really cannot wait to see this one roll out.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No, they don't contradict. It flat out says 'if you take damage equal to or greater'. It doesn't say anything about reducing your score to 0 (for damage).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's no crazier than the works of Plufet Smedger the Elder.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I confess I am boggled by the idea that a god, actual deity, would not be stronger than a simple Runelord or mythic mage.

Even if you support the idea that magic must always trump the mundane, divinity typically trumps magic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A readied action is specifically intended to interrupt (and resolve before) the action it triggers against. It doesn't make a lot of sense to deny readied action triggers in such a fashion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
electricjokecascade wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:


The undead cleric was a cleric/rogue. The party was 11-12th level. Fun times. I provided Mike Shel the logs from our experience, he thought it was a good run too.
Kain, do you think you could share the logs with me too?

I'm on vacation at the moment (and away from the logs) but I'd be glad to. PM me your email address.

As for Tycho, he was operating under the curse of greed caused by the Tooth of Ahazu the Seizer. Most of the traps in the Tomb were not of the simple 'perception check, disarm check, proceed merrily', so simple trapfinding wasn't the end-all be all. I do recall him saving you from a particularly devastating crushing stone.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:

As I mentioned above, my GM dropped this into our STAP campaign. Characters were not optimized for a dungeon crawl by any means and included a sorcerer/wizard, a waves Oracle, a weather cleric, a human sword and board fighter, a summoner (who had his eidolon but no summons), and an undead cleric, along with a duelist cohort.

Fun times! It'll be fun keeping an eye on this. Hopefully you guys have some decent luck.

Thinking, we might have gone in at 12th level instead of 14th...

The undead cleric was a cleric/rogue. The party was 11-12th level. Fun times. I provided Mike Shel the logs from our experience, he thought it was a good run too.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
VRMH wrote:
Telepathy is, as I recall, part of the Devil subtype. But they do indeed seem to lack a knowledge of Common.

It is, but it is also located in the language block of every single other devil.

It just seems strange that they cannot communicate with humans unless those humans make an effort to.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As the thread title. I was formatting their stats for pb2 boards, since i like to tinker and having a mass of preformatted base stats helps. I noticed the Heresy Devil does not speak Common and lacks telepathy. Is that intentional or oversight?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Woof. Can't back this yet, but I see that I have time. I will be back after Christmas gifts and bills have gone. A buck thirty five. What a beast.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sauce987654321 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Besides, it's not like King Kong was just a Megaprimatus. He was a Giant, Advanced, Megaprimatus.
King Kong isn't colossal, IMO he isn't even gargantuan.

The old 3.0 size chart went as follows:

4-8 ft: Medium (60-500 lbs)
8-16 ft: Large (500-4000 lbs)
16-32 ft: Huge (4000-32000 lbs)
32-64 ft: Gargantuan (32000-250,000 lbs)
64+: Colossal (250k+ lbs) OR if you went with Upper Krust, 64-128 ft with
128-256 ft: Titanic

So, this chart would suggest gorillas and lions are now Medium. Naturally, the 3.0 designers broke their own rules.

King Kong's official height is 50 ft. The Peter Jackson version, of which I am extremely fond, is 25 ft. Ergo, Gargantuan is suitable, and Huge fits if you want to use the smaller one.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Smilodon and by extension, all tigers are constantly being buffed beyond their actual power. Compare the stats for a tiger to a bear, and for a dire tiger to a dire bear. Despite the bear being larger, stronger and, according to Russian circus fights circa 1900, the clear cut winner, in nearly every statistic, the tiger outstrips the bear in Paizo's estimation.

The ape goes the other way. Chimpanzees (small sized) should have a 19 Str, and gorillas (which should be Medium sized) around 21. The dire ape, a large sized gorilla at 25 works out nicely. That puts Gargantuan megaprimatus around 33 Str, which is right on par with a T-rex, and seems appropriate.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

10HD, 29 Str and a mangle effect on its rend. Also ignores difficult terrain from the forest. It is basically a smilodon in Gargantuan ape's clothing. The special abilities are good, just the chasis bugs me. Why not something closer to the T-Rex?

1 to 50 of 1,836 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.