Boggard

Ksorkrax's page

357 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

StabbittyDoom wrote:


Definition: A pseudo-threatened square is just barely outside of your reach, leaving you so tantalizingly close to taking advantage of your opponent's openings you can practically taste it. Sadly, however, you are not considered as threatening this square *except* in the case where the opponent moves from a pseudo-threatened square to an adjacent square that is closer to you than the pseudo-threatened square. In this case, the pseudo-threatened square is treated as a threatened square for the purposes of resolving any and all consequences of that movement (including attacks of opportunity).

To add to that:

...and except when attacking on their turn
Reason:
Reach fighters probably want to stay outside the range of a closer ranged enemy cause they want them to cause AoOs. Picture this ideal situation: Your enemy is within your range but you are outside of his. You full attack him and do a 5 fooet step away, as a result he cannot 5 foot step to you. In most situations a reach fighter should be able to do this without using the double diagonal but he should also be able to do this that way, eh?
Nice definition btw.
Grick wrote:


A square is 5 feet. The second diagonal square is 15 feet away.

I'll try to explain CommandoDudes argument to you as far as I understand it.

Point is, you are thinking gamewise, the board game part of PF. This is reasonable since combat rules, at least the RAW, behave like a board game. He thinks about the situation as a RL situation.
The "second diagonal square counts double" rule is as we know a mean to simulate euclidean distance - going diagonal is about 1.5 as long as going straight (sqrt(2) to be precise which is more like 1.4) and because we do not want to track 2.5 feet distances, we simply ignore the .5 every odd time. He does not apply this simplification for his argument, he really thinks in the distance you can measure on your table.
Imho that's not a very good argument of his since a weapon that can reach the center of a square 2 squares straight ahead can barely scratch the corner of a square 2 squares diagonal ahead by euclidean distance. Tough it'd be a good explanation for pseudo threatened squares.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I wonder if any of these comments are helping people understand why 4e redefined the battle grid so that diagonal travel and horizontal travel are the same.

It's because that solves "problems" like this.

Ah yeah, the old board game balance vs realism issue...

Captain Moonscar wrote:


When problems like this arrise we imagine there is no grid and use logic. Some times we don't even use a map if the encounter it simple enough or if we can't use it like when party members are 200+ft apart.

Here's one guy who understood rule #1.


Kazarath wrote:

[...]

In norse myth, elves were stupid little fairy people who danced around on hill tops and other such nonsense, while the dwarves [...]

If I'm not mistaken, norse dwarves ARE a kind of elves (/alfr) (just look at Rheingold where a dwarf is named ALBerich)

(to be more precise, AFAIK dwarves are dark elves (svartalfr = black elves) in norse myth)
That fairy people stuff sounds more like celtic elves (/sidhe). And for them, they were far more badass in these days until Shakespeare and others used them for their flower faerie stuff ^^
SwnyNerdgasm wrote:
Kazarath wrote:
Also to those who say all dwarven woman are ugly, take a look at this
Oh I totally would, maybe three or four times

Nah, the way she looks you'd probably won't see her after the first time, just as your purse


That's why Han shot first


I'd play him as if he's really drunk. Having the logics of a drunken guy, the lack of perception, changing moods, being easy to anger...
Oh and 1 is pretty low. I'm not even sure I'd let him be able to do anything except some very basic stuff (like telling the party that he's thirsty "Ahh neeeeed watrrrrrrrr")


In my opinion, it's actually quite simple: Paladins have their Holy Smite that damages the evil which means that by balance vice versa the other side (be it Antipaladins, be it LE Blackguards tough PF doesn't know them) has a similar power.
Aligned attacks are basically something like a weaker version of that.
Powerful creatures build up a resistance against stuff and of course their intention was that it deflects everything. However, when a powerful demon begins to raze monastries and your templars seem to be unable to hurt him, you have to invent something to bypass that and the solution is to use holy energies to harm him in the form of aligned weapons, same goes for the other side.

On the other hand, if you feel like it, just transform the DR/alignment stuff into DR/epic (where every alignment translates becomes epic) with the idea that powerful beings can build up a special defense that only certain weapons (epic ones) can breach which is the same for all kind of powerful beings, if you can hurt a demon with your weapon you can hurt an angel. (the Wacraft 3 campaign did it that way, beings with Divine Armor can only be hurt by Chaos Damage and Divine Armor is used both by demons and demigods)
Always remeber rule #1.

(in my opinion, the whole damage system needs to be overdone but that's not for PF to do since one would need to change some core stuff)

Bruunwald wrote:

The argument against the rule here seems to be that if you are good, you should be immune to all evil, thus rendering the entire point of the game moot.

The game you people are describing is basically a walk through a room full of butter creatures while you wield a gigantic hot knife and are wearing a suit of teflon heated to 400 degrees.

That's about ten times as dumb as the rule itself.

+1


If the trick seems to be unlogical while being covered by the RAW, just forbid it.
Point is, a DMs job is to challenge and fight the characters, not to fight the players.

So, what tricks do they use?


If it's not PFS play, what about asking your DM if you could take regular AA levels despite being no elf? Wouldn't be broken or anything like that .(In my opinion, heroes are exceptional and thus one should not impose that many rules on them. And even if you want elves to have a knack humans don't get, there are still some interesting Kyonin feats that would seperate elven archers from Kyonin from human archers)


wraithstrike wrote:
Witches don't deal with outsiders so much even in media, that I have seen.

How about the Malleus Maleficarum and other medieval stuff about witches? I mean, it's basically just some medieval slander but that's where large parts of the concept of witches comes from (well ok, we got some predating stuff like old testament necromancers like the one Saul talks to or Kirke in the odyssey and the image of medieval witches was surely influenced by pagan mythology but the medieval times were when the concept was finally brought together, eh?)


Noone (except for TriOmegaZero) got that the thread was not intended to be about the alignment-of-batman-topic?

As for the topic, killing innocents should be against the law in most societies. In what way could the character be considered lawful?
Also, you could generalize the question: What about insane people? Since we're in a fantasy world we can assume that there is some kind of madness that urges them to kill innocents with good intentions ("THEY ARE ALL SHARKS IN DISGUISE!!!") and I'm sure there's something to get them all along the chaotic-lawful axis ^^
(Well, one reason more to despise the alignment-system.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Must-have skills are redundant (I'd even remove Perception as a skill)


Wiggz wrote:
, take up a 10' space and have a 10' reach,

Nah, I have a huge list of animals for my druid to take and most (!) of the large animals have only 5' reach, including Grizzly, Dire Bear, Bison, Hippopotamus, Horse, Camel, Lion, Rhinoceros, Tiger, Dire Tiger, Dire Bat, Crocodile, Shark.

10' reach is the rule but in the case of animals, the exception seems to be the standard.
Tough I guess weapon bearing things get their 10' reach
(animals can be quite strange about reach - the Chimpanzee is medium but takes 10' space and has 10' reach just as if he was large, tough that could be an error)
Wiggz wrote:


It can get a little confusing, because sometimes the spell or effect makes mention of those standard bonuses and penalties and sometimes they don't. Enlarge Person mentions some of them but not all and then throws in a few of its own.

Read over the description of the transmutation school. As long as the wording of a spell is not contrary to that it applies.

In general: apply the size boni to the stuff you said (and stealth) and do what the spell says furthermore (stat boni and in case of beast shape stuff like natural weapons and the like)

And if something is unclear to you - it's quite impossible to cover everything by the rules ("can I use hail storm to quench the fire of a burning house?"), you won't find everything, just ask your DM, as long as all players interprete the rules in the same way it's fine, eh?


One important thing, don't forget about cooperative techniques!

AvalonXQ wrote:

I think gestalt would be the most appropriate approach.

Good idea but since we're talking about magic in every case and the magic is always fitting a domain for each character, why not just give out domains (elemental in most cases) and additional spell slots (so you can make use of the domains without being a caster) out for free?


In my opinion, it's not that big of a deal since system stuff is background stuff.
That said, I'd personally prefer Berserk for describing a rage based class. However, the class skill selection points toward wilderness, like stuff savage tribesmen should be able to do... (to be honest, I dislike the boundaries the existing classes set which is why I tend to multiclass often... but oh well, that another topic)
Another idea would be another name tough I have no good idea here ("Rager" sounds lame, eh?)

Generally, my reason to prefer Berserk is that in usual fantasy context Barbarian is also used as a term for savage people, that might actually be insulting for the "people who instead of speaking just make something like bar bar" translation just like calling inuit eskimos ("people who eat raw meat") but as a fact it is used that way.
Monks are a bad term for this reason too but oh well. As for other basically wrong used names like table round paladins and celtic priest bards, neither Camelot nor the celts exist in Golarion, no problem with that, and this terms are rarely seen in their original meaning (hey, Age of Empires features paladins as high level knights weee)

To add to the history talk, forget the stuff you think you know about historical berserkers, any historic evidence is covered in thick layers of myth about immortal animal warriors send by odin and giants.
The "guys with bear fur" translation is most likely wrong - bear fur does not offer enough defense for it's weight. Another translation would be "guys who fight without armor" (from "bare") since most likely they were light infantry.
Since they had no armor, they probably had shields (real world two handed warriors are most likely wearing heavy armors) and some displays even tie the raging ability to them biting in their shields

Kavren Stark wrote:
Shar Tahl wrote:

It's too late to move past it now. It was something that moved forward through the editions. You can house rule the name to something else, but something as big as a class name won't be changed. It is referenced in far too many places.

+1

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


Also for me, the term berserker
blue_the_wolf wrote:
also creates a picture of an uncivilized brute or possibly borderline insane person with little self control.

Historically speaking, berserkers probably were elite warriors in early medieval history with stuff like dutch kings and varangian guards at the byzantine court guarding the byzantine emperor, which means they were not that uncivilized - I guess it's the pop culture image of vikings as savage people, opposed to the real vikings.

But since we're in the context of fantasy games, the picture it creates is important, yeah

Thrall of Orcus wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Thrall of Orcus wrote:
(vs. going by established mythology, lore, and nostalgia that much of our beloved game is based on).
So, your point is that we should hold on to golden cows, because once a thing is made, it can never be improved.
No, I never did say that nor imply it. However, I did imply that change for change's sake does not improve things, as in the example paradies of changing the class names for little reason or benefit.

Who in this thread asked to change it for the sake of change?

Ramza Wyvernjack wrote:

The funny part about this is, it's pointless.

Most of us can agree that a decent company will NOT spend a large amount of money on the manpower and resources needed to change every word "Barbarian" in every released book because someone doesn't feel like using rule 0 to deal with super simple aesthetic personal issues.

Divide the number of threads that brougth any change by the number of threads that tried.

The journey is it's own reward.
Ramza Wyvernjack wrote:
I don't think it's the act of opening the discussion that causes people to berzerk at the idea. I think it's the act of trying to enforce a change/opinion to a concept that has held for years because one can't be content with just the simpler, cheaper(to paizo) solution of changing the fluff in the home game.

Enforce? In what way? Opening a discussion about what name is more appropriate for something is enforcing?


Is it really that big of a deal when a paladin uses the most iconic paladin power? They're supposed to do that, aren't they? I mean, otherwise there's basically no reason to prefer a paladin to a cleric 1/fighter x, eh?


Pathfinder Chronicler PrC?

Basic question, what do you want to do? Build something like a non-caster Bard? Or something like a 4e Warlord?


LazarX wrote:


I present to you one fellow who's definitely not up on his Norse or Teutonic mythology. (...)
Now you tell me that dwarves don't have a solid grounding in magic.

I tought about a subrace for dwarves which is more like dwarves from norse mythology named "toad dwarves". Their feets are talons and their skin resembles a toads skin, can transform into toads (well in norse mythology they usually became toads or stone in sunlight wheter they wanted it or not) and get a bonus on crafting magic stuff, probably also some divination bonus (however I'm not sure about ability changes, wisdom would still fit but since we want a race of wizards we should at least think about intelligence...)

Combine that with dragon disciple and you'll get a nice fafnir-wannabe


First of all, I assume we are talking about characters that, well, have a character, not some extended hireling for a party who needs additional members (like introducing a quiet, dumb brute fighter or a healbot cleric to a party of 3)

Usually, a party plans stuff. This planing can be massive. And is based on a lack of information, which is the problem - the DM just knows everything.
If you think about tactics, it's a huge advantage to know the tactics of the enemy and the DM does. Even the mentioned dumb brute fighter could have a big advantage by knowing the tactics - for such a character, the DM should lay out his tactics in advancve (like say "rush to the first in line and smash him")

It could work if you play a game in which the "mystery behind" is not known yet but that is well a quite different style than most games. There are systems based on that like Inspectres but in my opinion, they are one-shots or systems for in between (for example when the DM hasn't fully prepared for the new campaign)


Atarlost wrote:


Monk/Cleric has potential too. Crusader's Flurry (Sarenrae) + Dervish Dance + Weapon Finesse costs a lot of feats for a normal character, but not for a 40th level character. 13 Strength for PA and then dump everything else into wis and dex.

How bout making that a SAD zen archer?


Yeah, why? It's basically a constraint for developers, "don't give the weapon 18-20 if you don't want it to be finessable"


For the flavor err well, for the flavor I would start magic rules from scratch.
First of all, I'd seperate "raw magic" (fireballs) from "somewhat intelligent magic". Sorcerers are masters of the raw stuff.
Wizards use books to create the actual spells a long time ahead before they cast them - they should be able to cast raw stuff spontaneous but need to prepare intelligent stuff. These "precast" spells fly around in the "aura" of the wizard and are only mere concepts of a spell and require power. Wizards with some cash buy permanent concept holders like staffs and pendants that contain these concepts permanently and enable the wizard to cast these spells spontaneous.
Also wizards get rituals that take some while but are quite powerful (utility spells!) and need books
Another use of the book would be that wizards need them to get new spells - instead of scribing new spells in their books as it is now, they are already in the book (or to be more precise, there is magic theory in that book that wizards use to research new spells)

As for witches, familiars are indeed nice flavor but I'd relax it to "the witch needs to stay in contact with her link, if she is seperated more than a week from her familiar, she can not cast any spells but the very simple ones" (which also means that if a familiar dies and the witch gets a new one, all spells are available again)

(basically I dislike Vancian magic btw altough it's quite funny in Discworld)

Ikos wrote:


Learned magic, practiced usually by the elite, centered on grimores almost exclusively. Magic, derived from forbidden knowledge, could be found in books - the historical examples are exhaustive in scope. Allegedly, magic worked properly only with careful study and replicating the said rituals to the letter of law.

I agree on the rituals but taking books as argument in general is not that sound - nearly anything you learn is in books. You read it, you learn it, you throw the book away.

In general (not as an answer to your post) one should take examples from fantasy movies and books, "real world magic" is not what we want (only it's Hollywood versions, even voudou and kaballah aren't that flashy in action)


See Treantmonk, I agree with what you say on it's basis. One can be a great role player while he's also optimizing, no problem.
If I enter an arbitrary table, most players there will indeed do both.

Then there are these people who don't, people who focus on either RP or PG. Last ones do not need to be cheating munchkins, just people who build quite strong characters and don't RP.
These people are a minority but they exist and one needs a word to describe them, I mean, no one opens a thread to tell everybody how well balanced the people around him are, eh?
Now you can say, a term like "Optimizer" is bad for describing someone who does only PG and not RP since the term does not say anything about the no-RP-part but everyone will know what one means when he talks about "Optimizers" - that's how languages work, they aren't logical, they are pragmatic.

Another thing is, especially for RP, there are people who consider themselves to be "true RPers" who don't PG, build weak characters on purpose and then go on a holy crusade against the evil PGs. Lukily there are not that many of them out, also they tend to seperate themselves from us evil PGs and prefer not to play d20

As a conclusion, language is organic and illogical and this is the very core of this threads base


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xum wrote:


Mate, they SHOULD have a problem IN CHARACTER with a guy that does nothing when they are on the brink of death.... wouldn't you!? That's all I'm saying.

I would even laugh outside of the table, seriously, wouldn't get pissed with that guy, but in character I would be all over him for leting his friends die, for sure.

Yeah, the characters have a problem too but it's core lies outside. Different styles are meeting and this is a problem between the players.

"Get pissed" is a little harsh, it's just a problem, but one that could prohibit playing together. (yeah, that's sad but it is how it is)
cp wrote:


You can even give the guy 25 xp for role playing, or 75 if he really does a good job.

Otherwise, he will soon start getting the hint.

I still don't get why he has to get that hint. Can't you just tell him?

See, the problem is, if your method works what have you done? You manipulated him in acting according to your biding. Behavioristic conditioning. Don't treat humans like that.

Treantmonk wrote:


If we are discussing "Roleplaying vs Optimization", we might as well be discussing "Mustaches vs Roleplaying" as it makes about the same amount of sense.

Basically I agree but remember that there is a difference between logic semantics and how they are used.

Usually when someone talks about Roleplayers or Optimizers, he means people who are extremely focused on RP or Optimizing, neglecting the other thing - it's a figure of speech.
There are people out there who do one thing exclusively and you need a word for them. Also they most likely define the categories (I mean, it's basically the same everywhere where you can find any sort of category, say "jocks" and "thugs" and "geeks", most people do not fit exclusively in one of these categories still they make some sort of sense)


Players need to fit to each other.
There are different styles, even among players of a same typically used category like "role players". Some fit together, some don't.

Some people in this thread said "do it in character, if the rogue does not contribute, sack him" - that's a big NO.
When one of my characters has a problem with another one, then this is ONLY because the characters have said problem, NEVER when I have a problem with another player.
Doing such stuff in character related to out character is just harrasment, see Tom et ses chums which is based on that.

Get together and talk about it. And prepare for the possible outcome that you just don't match, which means that you can't play together (you like that guy? K, then do other stuff with him like going to the movies or whatever)

As for the optimize or roleplay subtopic, in my opinion a hero trains himself to be strong, eh? There are some differences between optimizing and optimizing, important thing is style (oh and fun)
Especially with the system I play in (also the campaign) the amount I omptimize can fluctuate to a great deal... d20 is the system where I omptimize the most. d20 is focused on battles (4e even more), the major part of the sheet is battle stats, eh? I could imagine a d20 campaign based on intrigue and other non combat stuff but other systems would be more suitable for that.
The most funny thing on that is my current VtM campaign - we're playing two parties, each one for as long as a story arc goes, both are located in the same city and as you may have guessed, yes, one is Camarilla, other one is Sabbat. Which translated in second one is extreme PG, other one is mixed (my char is able to fight to some degree but he is not actually build for that) - it's quite fun to switch between both styles (as a note, as some others already said, extreme PG does not exclude RP and RP we do)


Additional combatants can easily be "gamebreakers", especially at low levels - you could also just hire a bunch of local mercenaries. What matters is style, just think about that and you're done.
Falcon for scouting? Sure, why not, perception bonus due to warning cry seems reasonable and definitively not overpowered, you paid for that bird with good money. Additional mount? I played a ranger who had a horse in addition to his companion, no problem with that - of course, I never used that horse as a combatant (while horses can fight it's just silly after all and not very heroic)
Even a guy who uses a bunch of dogs has some style tough I'd make that another class (pack leader is the direction) - just remember that even regular companions get weak in comparisson at high levels, such a class would probably suck after level 10 or so.
As for combat speed, from other systems I'm used to so called mob rules, a mob is comparable to a swarm, only that it consists of large stuff like for example well, an angry mob of peasants with forks and torches. Treat a bunch of wardogs like a single combatant and you got your speed, however that would ask for many additional rules.

As for PFS, it has stricter rules for balancing, just live with it, even when it seams to be (/indeed is) not logical, I mean, why shouldn't a PC not be able to create items if not for balance and easy character administration?


In conclusion, you think 3.5 sucks (in comparisson to PF) tough you don't really know why yet you want convince other people about it.

Sounds like a missionary who is not that sure about his religion.

(to be more precise: you can break ANY game by PGing, that's what PG is about.)


Barbarians are thought of being "primal", having animalistic instincts and stuff. Picture the ninja sneaking from behind when the barbarian suddenly, instinctively growls and turns around


It's somewhat stylish to regain your strength, however I would remove that "once per encouter" - while I really like that you get at-will powers in 4e, encouter powers just make no sense in terms of realism and style (only in terms of balance and the "board game aspect")

Also it's not that stylish for say a wizard... how about making it a rage power or combat feat or something else which is combat class domain?


Well, you already named the problem, they need a shared list. Since 3/4 and 1/2 casters get "early entries" this is quite a problem... removing them weakens them, letting them stay strenghtens the full casters even more...
Also some spell lists are theme based, like the Bards's illusion and healing magics...

But in general, assuming shared lists, it should be not that big problem, we introduce "magic level points" and a table that relates them to spell levels (and possibly spells per level if you don't want slots per level as additional thing). Full casters get 4 points a lev, 3/4 casters 3, half casters 2. Also you could introduce an amount of slots per level and these slots become highest level slots (or something like "you get 1 slot of the highest level you can cast and one slot two levels below that")

here's the table (only for , using max level) the wizards progression:
spell level____points needed_______full cast gets at__3/4 g.a.__1/2 g.a.
level 0: ______3 p_________________________1_______1________2
level 1: ______4 p_________________________1_______2________2
level 2: ______12 p________________________3_______4________6
level 3: ______20 p________________________5_______7________10
level 4: ______28 p________________________7_______10_______14
level 5: ______36 p________________________9_______12_______18
level 6: ______44 p________________________11______15
level 7: ______52 p________________________13______18
level 8: ______60 p________________________15______20
level 9: ______68 p________________________17

Yeah, as a result Bards get lvl 8 spells. It's basically a logic consequence of merging spell lists.

Another idea for such a system: one could rule that magic points can be spend for other stuff, for example: remove lvl 0 spells from that list and say "you need to spend 2 points to get access to lvl 0 spells"
Or wizards start with a big bunch of them and every magic school needs to be bought first (solving the bard's special list problem - bard's don't get that many points so they have to decide which schools they want, usually illusion, enchantment and "healing" as a new school. just like weapon profiencies every class gets school profiencies, which means bards without a dip into wizard are unable to buy the evocation school for example, however unlike wizards they have the healing school in their "profiency" list - if you introduce such a system, individuality of casters is also raised, especially for special gishs like wizard/rogues who use illusions and shadows and basically nothing else)

I'd still prefer getting rid of the vancian system for a magic point based system as nearly every other game featuring magic has, to name only one advantage: a mage could decide if he wants to spend his magic points to shoot hundreds of small fire bolts over the day, one at a time, or gather all his powers for one big shot that shatters walls (PF introducing the idea that lvl 0 spells are not spend is a direct result of the lack of weak but economic spells)


Ultrace wrote:

[...]

Note though that there's not a lot of benefit to doing this unless the user is encumbered--the disk doesn't move any faster than the caster's top speed, it always has to have a solid surface underneath it (you can't cross chasms or pits with it) [...]

You see no benefit in that? Think about traps (other than pit traps) and how you hover over them.

In this context, another question: if you allow riding floating disks or if a flying wizard uses it to let another character glide, what is considered "ground"? Is a (possibly traped) rope bridge ground? Is muddy swamp considered ground? Water? Lava? Does it trigger traps underneath without actual touching? (/is it emitting some kind of "force"?)


Exalted is somewhat based on it's system, if you really need to play it d20-wise, you've got to rewrite the rules from scratch, don't even think that you can use the current classes. Best shot is to translate every special ability an Exalted can have into feats which is a great deal to do...
a better question is: why do you want to convert it? What's the problem about it's system?


Spoiler:
Use the specific powers of the villains to boost up the troops, for example: give the goblins one level in Cleric of Lamashtu, one other level and add one "lamashtu transformation" template that gives them body parts like Nualia's arm

After all it's only about boosting up monsters... actually, Rise of the Runelords was meant to be played from lvl 1 on...
Just make sure that the chars reach a point when they are on par with the adventure path, it would suck if you had to adjust every monster.

Also, think about skipping some unimportant areas


I still admire the legendary Gygax, oh what glorious day it was for satanism when he found out that nothing tempts the mortal man more than a twenty-sided die! Forget television, forget evil music (like Queen or The Rolling Stones), forget even Harry Potter (tough it is quite good in seducing children to our cause), the twenty-sided die is the great dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. Ia! Iä! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

(always remember:http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.ASP)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rolling them behind the screen is when players should not know the result, for example: "is this water edible or is that black mushroom a dead giveaway that it is poisoned?" *rollingbehindscreen* "you think it's edible."

if you need to fudge you should think about introducing a hero point system instead


The Force is quite a problem for such a setting - non-force chars will suck at high levs - better pilot but no presentiment, good fighter but no defense against force grip... in the old episodes, other chars were only useful because Luke was still a rookie, in the new episodes, non-jedi just suck.

My idea: go back to the roots of Star Wars, take a look on the old Drafts:
The Adventures of the Starkiller
Rough Draft
First Draft
The Star Wars
(and more)

Make it a Space Samurai Western, make the Jedi (Ashla-Bendu) and Sith (Bogan) basically elite warriors/imperial knights and reduce the power of the force to some nice tricks (for example force jump, metabolism control like the breath-holding in ep I) instead of a must-have for fighters (like force speed in KotoR I/II) - in Darths & Droids for example it seems as if anyone could use lightsabers to parry incoming shots, don't have to be cheddar monk for that


If not for encumbrance I would not bother 'bout that stuff, it costs nothing and adventurers can be expected to have that stuff. Make it a standard pack for that issue (-> if the character says "hey, this situation can be solved totally by a simple blanket" and blankets are standard pack, he can, other stuff needs to be mentioned)

If for encumbrance, yeah, make that an issue. Especially with Halfling Dervish Dance STR 5 Fighters.


First of all, question yourself about "what is evil in my world"?
Some people in this thread talked about "turn the game cartoonish", I can see that because in my opininion, the alignment system IS already cartoonish - "pure evil" and "pure good" might work in Dragonball Z but if you get serious, it doesn't even work when demons and angels are part of the game (I mean, just read the bible - angels are supposed to be good, yet one becomes the devil, god likes to nuke people he doesn't like and commands genocide and is directly responsible for some people acting evil like the pharao or king Saul...)
No serious movie features such stuff (some comic based do, some "patriotic" ones do plus those based on simple old tales like star wars)
If your world is this kind of black and white (don't misunderstand me, that's not bad, we don't study social behavior, we play a game, also star wars rules) do simple stuff. For some ideas, get a walkthrough of Baldur's Gate 2, there's a dungeon centered around that ("skin of several lovely nymphs, whipped to death" "shall one member of your party suffer some minor damage or do you want to permanently loose CON?")
If you like it more complex, make the dungeon a major illusion - the character actually thinks, he is in charge of something and then the problems begin. Let's say he is in charge of a town and this one is full of criminals and beggars and corrupt guardsmen, every "good" approach seems to be futile... compell him to go lawfull evil on that b#!~$

(WoD: Werewolf the Apokalypse did a fun thing on "detect evil": some werewolves got the ability to sense "the scent of the Wyrm" (Wyrm is the force of destruction they hunt) which really works like a smell: innocents that come in contact with it have it, for example someone who ate something from a corrupted facility - there's even a box in the rule book about the ability not being detect evil ^^)

Bruunwald wrote:
Sounds like A Clockwork Orange. (...)The music had been precious to him, and now it was being turned against him as a means of reconditioning him.

Well err problem is that Alex is not turned good, he only feels sick when confronted with violence, I mean, one of the first things he want to do is smash in the face of his parents adopted son - the violence is still in him (which is a major point of the movie/book)


How do you get the required dex for TWF if you maxed STR?

As for TWF, it's all about damage sources. Rogues can go TWF because they get Sneak Attack, Paladins use smite... your raging damage bonus well... could work. Ask your party to buff up your damage.

For other chars it depends on the DM and how they let attack the monsters - some do it in a way that allows for many full attacks (it's even quite bad for you not to get the full attack only in the first round!)

Speaking of style, do it. Barbarians with two axes or claws or whatever rule.
(the TWF talk in the forums is about optimizing, always remember that, you can build a fun to play and potent character without that)


One elementary problem seems to be that the party is still inexperienced. Help them to get this experience, for example you could stall the assassin action and have some common housebreaker steal stuff et voila, the party starts to sleep protected. Or if it is time for some assassin action, do something that doesn't kill the victim, for example the assassin gets interupted but manages to stab his target, infusing poison -> quest. Or say instead of stabbing his target, he just steals one single strand of hair... (and goes voodoo on the target if they don't bring him the book)


How 'bout that:
"Your animal companion begins to growl - you get a +5 circumstance bonus on your perception check" - stylish, effective but not to overpowered
(I mean, you have some speed when walking, there are only some brief moments between your companion detecting and the ambusher attacking)

As for scent PCs, yeah, that's what you get. You burned the use of a shapeshift or even a feat (as for half-orcs) and now you have the legendary insticts of a wild animal, sounds fair to me.


I'd say scimitar for one simple reason, it allows Dervish Dance and that is the most close thing in PF to Wudang Style - it's usually one handed (except for Dan Jian - just allow the sheath to work like a shield for that) and used by guys without armor.

Basically: While the Dao is a sword for common soldiers, Jians are basically monk weapons. Give them to weapon masters or something like that and remember that it's about style


Stéphane Le Roux wrote:
If you allow Bluff to do the same, you end with absurd situations like this:

No, that's what with you end up if you allow absurd situations.

A common form of bad arguing is to state that something leads to some sort of overexxageration and then argue as if that is the only logic consequence. It's called "strawman argumentation", please stop that.

As for the topic, just think about if something looks right. Just use common sense, there can be misunderstatements but these will always be the first time someone plays with a new DM.


First of all think about style - if the table is ok with twfing, do it.
Classic western features no TWF (since it doesn't work IRL - one needs to aim, tough the typical "dance for me" is performed with two guns and one could have a gun in each hand to switch when one is empty - if the fight lasts that long) but Roland Deschain does TWF (and since he is a fantasy knight, he might be a better base for a epic high fantasy char as PF chars are)
(-4 sounds about right btw, for both cases - usual western gunslingers would just miss with that malus while a true master of the gun as the gunslingers of Gilead are still hits)

I would disallow Rapid Shot in combination with TWF for one simple reason: There is some kind of rapid shooting in classical western which requires the gunslinger to use his other hand to rapidly move the hammer manually (works only with revolvers since it needs a hammer and not IRL) but on the other hand, it's no gamebreaker with -6

(as for inspiration, stick to fantasy and western, as for real world gunslingers, the most realistic gunslinger from fiction is Scrooge McDuck with his "Draw? Are you mad? Do you know how much bullets cost?" - even in the legendary city of Tombstone the death count per year was below ten)


bttr, gnomes were once (alchemy in the renaissance) elementals of earth?


LazarX wrote:
John Lemon wrote:
I don't see how we're going to run out of water anytime soon, and we're a planet with a population of 6 billion.
Oceans full of water aren't any good if they are not drinkable. Supplies of healthy water are a major concern in many areas of the globe, including the southwestern United States which has been relying on large underground aquifers which do not replenish themselves as fast as the demand taps them.

To add something to that, cracked about that:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19048_6-important-things-you-didnt-know-were -running-out-of_p2.html


Lab_Rat wrote:


Feats would probably be: (1) Spell Focus-conj and (h) Augment summoning or combat
casting.

These feats are a good option for druids, however you might consider taking them later on since summoning is not that powerful on low levels - essentially on level 1 it's like a damage spell which would be nice if that would be how you fight but you have some strength you want to use!

My advice: get your spell focus conjuration but wait for augment summoning to lvl 3, get something that improves your fighting instead like power attack. Instead of summoning, grab a stick and cast Shillelagh, a charged power attack with shillelagh kicks ass (you'll outdamage fighters easily on low levs)

Oh, another advice for druids in general, I'm not too sure if you need it, depending on your party you might want to have Magic Fang prepared all the time, it's duration sucks at low levels but you'll be glad if (or should I say "when") you need magic damage for some ghost or demon (as I said, depending on the party, if you got negative channelers, sorcerers with magic missiles, arcane duelists with arcane strike or whatever screw that)


Is that stuff such a big deal? Just ask your DM or if you are the DM, think about what's balanced (remember that one burned a powerful spell which means in terms of balance that the caster improves himself)

Especially magic jar should always be worked out with the DM, I mean you are on the best way to become a lich, eh? This will mean power, you'll start to create your own magic tower dungeon or something like that, that's quite a big deal and a major influence on the campaign


John Lemon wrote:


Undead computer: First, find a place with a major rat infestation. Solve vermin problem but keep a bunch of rats around. Also take rat corpses. Second, find a secluded spot where you wish to begin work on your undead computer. Third, using animate dead, turn rats into skeleton rats. Give basic orders (e.g. if rat 1 OR 2 raises tail, raise tail etc.) Congratulations, you now have logic gates. Expand from there. (Taken from 4chan's /tg/ section)

That was a extrem infestation if you have enough rats for that - even a simple Neumann-core would need thousands of them and would be able to compute stuff that some guys with paper can do.

Oh and some cleric who disagrees with necromancy could destroy all your effort with a few well placed channels


ItoSaithWebb wrote:


OK, so if arrows really have no damage entry then the damage comes from the force of the bow and not the arrow it's self. Following this line of logic then, as per RAW, and enlarge spell would effect the damage dice of a bow or crossbow or whatever since it has been stated the the size of the arrow is immaterial.

However, if you read the description of the gravity bow spell as it makes reference that the damage is done by the weight and density of the arrow being effected.

As for the gravity bow, read the text:

Quote:
Gravity bow significantly increases the weight and density of arrows or bolts fired from your bow or crossbow the instant before they strike their target and ...

Let's go for some simple physics right here. Energy is conservated and in the bow, we have it stored as elastic energy which is determined by the string and wood and then transfered into kinetic energy.

What arrows do is:
- being aerodynamic and thus reducing loss of energy to the air
- being pointy, focusing the energy on one point
- having some other nasty effects like hooks that rip flesh when you want to draw it out of the body (and spells)

If we care for the physics, it's basically the bow that matters tough good arrows can provide. As for oversized arrows, they are LESS good since they offer more resistance to the air and are probably less pointy. What they do are being more stable which is nice if you want to crush fortifications, also they don't need to speed up that much for the same energy (put a regular arrow in a ballista and it will rip in mid air by the high speed)

As for the rules:
- arrows can be build good, aerodynamic and stuff, I'd give a small bonus on that (special arrows -> warheads)
- but basically they are not responsible for the damage
- arrows have to fit to the bow (different real world bows need different lengths of arrows for example but let's assume we've got a standard on golarion on medium sized arrows) or they will fly HORRIBLE (no bonus, attack and damage malus) (enlarged bows need enlarged arrows, enlarged arrows on regular bows don't even fit on the string)
-gravity bow is magics and thus to ignore - in our physics, it actually adds energy by increasing the mass while keeping the velocity

If someone wants to play the Dakka-Crossbower with a ballista in hand, well ask your DM, do it.


Mogart wrote:


Because if it is held weapons then it does count for the claws, at least with respect to haste. If it works with haste, then why not the arcane pool?

Think of forcing strong surges of elemental energy in your body. Yikes, that hurts!

Haste on the other hand is inteded to work well with bodies.
(one possible explanation, frankly I don't care if one rules that arcane pool can be used on nat weaps)


Never enuff dakka.

1 to 50 of 357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>