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

Laurefindel's page

2,992 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,992 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Do you ever make a character based on the figurine you have?

Figurine I have? not so much.

Random picture found on the web? all the times!

Zhayne wrote:

They are inherently a bad thing and unfair.

The fact that some players enjoy being treated poorly and unfairly does not change that.

Masochism is a thing, after all.

Please keep your subjective opinion subjective. I'm jumping in because this is not flag worthy and I say this in all respect, Zhayne.

But the fact that you don't like it, and that you feel justified by a majority of other players not liking it, does not make you judge of what is inherently bad, nor who is a masochist.

RDM42 was generalizing a personal experience. A point has been made that this cannot be accepted as an argument in favour of fumbles - fair enough. But flawed does not inherently bad. People having fun with fumbles are not inherently wrong. People seeking to make fumbles work are not inherently masochists (or stooges for that matter).

If such is your opinion; that's cool. But please state it as an opinion.


Zhayne wrote:
PCs and NPCs occupy completely different design space and serve different purposes, so 'sauce for the goose' doesn't apply at all.

Agreed on the different purpose, but design space is very similar between PCs and NPCs. 3e D&D/Pathfinder is one of the most symmetrical system there is.

akrippler wrote:
I feel like it usually just screws over the player and the martials. Think about it, 1 player character rolls how many die over the course of his career? Vs the goblin they run up on and kill, he is going to roll the dice just a few times before his life is cut short.

True, but it's not PCs vs the goblin. It's the PCs vs the goblin army, the two dragons, the 5 ogres, the lonely troll, the 7 brigands, the boss and its two bodyguards etc.

Altogether, PCs have just as many rolls made against them them they make against their opponents, so fumbles balance out. Whether a fumble made by a player has the same 'weight' as a fumble rolled by one of the 12 goblins attacking the PCs is a legitimate question however, and you could easily win an argument on that point.

Fumbles, like all houserules, need to be something that the players find enjoyable and valuable to the experience of the game in order to be successful. Because yeah, even if everyone fumbles, it will affect PCs most in the end. In that regard, it is not unlike conditions (like fatigued), WBL, hit points, and other resources that PCs need to manage but NPCs have for granted and/or don't have to deal with the consequences.

Ascalaphus wrote:
I do think it's weird that magic is so reliable. I mean, it's okay for magic to be fairly reliable, but PF magic is extremely reliable. Unless someone is forcing you to make a Concentration check, your spellcasting is pretty much guaranteed to work. (snip)

someone, or something.

Magic is reliable in PF because the game wants it to be. The same way the game wants melee attacks to be reliable - fumbles are a houserule after all. It's a houserule about melee attacks turning into mishaps. This doesn't mean spells shouldn't turn into mishaps too, it's just not what the fumble houserule is about.

One could make a houserule increasing the frequency of concentration check (and even expand on it when a natural 1 is rolled if needed). As a spellcasting adventurer, concentration should be frequent, more than most games impose on their spellcaster PCs I bet. One could defend the theory that combat - any combat, not only being engaged in hand-to-hand - is enough stress and pressure to warrant a concentration check. Combine that with terrain, weather, active alertness because flying opponents are circling around and could be swooping down at any moment, the frequency and DCs of Concentration checks could easily be increased. Fear, intimidation, uncertainty; these could force more concentration checks than the do by RaW.

But that would be a different houserule from fumbles. A good sister-rule working toward the same intent, but a separate one nonetheless.

TL;DR: Fumbles are about melee combat. In order to represent the fact that "sometimes spells go wrong too", you need a different houserule.

A few solutions for those who like the idea of fumbles (or critical misses, whichever name you give them) but dislike the effects that the probability of natural 1s increase with # of attacks, which is pretty much linked with high levels of skills.

  • confirm fumbles against a fixed DC. Since the baddies' AC scales with CR to match the PCs' BAB, confirming against opponents AC does not result in less fumbles (much). Confirming against a fixed AC insures that the player's chance to confirm a critical decreases steadily as its gains levels.

  • allow a maximum of 1 fumble per combat. Characters with high amount of attacks will still have a higher chance to fumble, but at least they know that they won't have them repetitively.

  • Only consider the first attack of a character's turn as eligible for fumbles. Then it doesn't matter if the character has 1 or 15 attacks...

  • Only consider the first attack roll of a character's first turn in a combat. Don't don't consider this as a fumble yet; it's more like a Damocles sword. From then on, until the end of combat, the character is susceptible to fumbles.

  • enable fumbles on concentration checks and penetration rolls as well. Let them spellcasters fumble too...

  • I keep a bunch of unruly half-printed, half hand-written documents, sketches and organigrams in a binder (or several, depending on the campaign).

    I have several versions which I keep, go back to, revert to, rework from as I go.

    Nothing like writing (with paper and pen and all, 20th century style) to cristalyse your thoughts. As a method it has its limits, especially when it's time to share this information with players, but that's the one that work for me.

    I love me tiefling.

    I regret their 2E +CHA going to -CHA in 3E/Pathfinder, but it's still my favourite not-quite-core-but-almost race.


    Game mechanics apart, the 1E AD&D bard isn't like the 2E AD&D bard which isn't like the 3e D&D bard which itself isn't exactly like the Pathfinder Bard either.

    From the Bard's description, under Spells...

    prd wrote:
    A bard casts arcane spells drawn from the bard spell list presented in Spell Lists. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time. Every bard spell has a verbal component (song, recitation, or music)*.

    *emphasis mine

    This last part lead to believe that the Pathfinder bard *must* play a tune (or song, or verse) in order to cast a spell. Therefore, it is using music/rhymes/rhythmics to create magical effect (a rather quick tune in less than 6 seconds, but a tune nonetheless).

    One could see this as proto-arcane magic, or some kind of primeval magic from which arcane magic will later be derived when early wizards learned to disconnect the magical patterns from the rhythmics of this primeval magic. The fact that music and songs contains magical powers isn't anything new and is at the root of words like "enchantment" or "incantation".

    From this you can pretty much come-up with whatever fluff you want, but unlike the 2E bard who, as a jack-of-all-trades, "guessed" how to cast wizard's spells exactly in the same ways wizards do, the Pathfinder bard uses a different and partially incompatible type of magic.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    thejeff wrote:
    But they were right. Languages do change. They always will.

    That's true, and English is an easy language to adapt and play with.

    But semantics are being tested every day in every domain. It's often resisted at first, and time tell us if it becomes accepted or not.

    I'm curious to see whether toon will become universally accepted in TTRPG in general, or in some circles, or about one type of game/system, or about a certain type of players, or rejected altogether.

    For me it comes with too much baggage, and it seems to be true with a majority of forum users here. Many will see 'toon' with a rather negative connotation or too strong a connection with MMORPGs, which is only reinforced by what you can read on sites like Urban Dictionary or TV tropes. So until users manage to clear 'toon' of that baggage and connotation, I don't believe it's going to make it beyond " a term that some people used in the early twenty-teens".

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kryzbyn wrote:

    Toon Fallacy:

    That someone who uses MMO terms in or for a TTRPG must not or by nature can not be interested in nor capable of "good" roleplay.

    that is true.

    But semantics is important. The choice of words we use has an impact.

    One cannot start to replace words in one sector and expect to port their new definition in related fields without issues, resistance or reconsideration.

    Dazylar wrote:
    Laurefindel wrote:
    Kthulhu wrote:
    Laurefindel wrote:
    Impressive amount of destruction without leveling yet another city of the US...
    I dunno, we may not have seen the full extent of the damage, but I can't imagine that three aircraft carriers falling out of the sky into a metropolitan area (in addition to all the previous damage they did), didn't seriously f%~% that city up.
    nah, they conveniently fell from 8000 ft right into their hangar. Now all they have to no is clean-up the probably very hazardous residual chemical and/or radioactivity that will otherwise pollute the whole east coast...
    I thought the energy they used was clean, due to the Stark involvement.

    Comment was partially sarcastic due to how conveniently the carrier fell down into their hangar...

    That being said, Stark's technology might be clean and sustainable as long as its runs smoothly, but not much is said about when it's damaged. Technically, a nuclear reactor runs perfectly clean... as long as all radioactive components are contained.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Shake Spear wrote:
    Yes, but the spotlight should focus on the drama, but the drama shouldn't focus on the spotlight.

    Which tends to work best when the drama is scripted and directed. RPG is a strange beast when compared to theatre on the stage.

    Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
    Laurefindel wrote:
    (but as a proud Quebecois, I'm sad to affirm that George St-Pierre hasn't exactly the most convincing acting skills...)

    Oh give him a break. He's not supposed to be a Shakespearian actor. His fight scene was great, and I hope we see him again in the franchise!!

    I'm glad he didn't try to pretend he could do a French accent from France, and that he stuck to the Quebecois pronunciation. That was awesome actually, as this movie was seen worldwide! :)

    If you want to talk about debatable French skills, let's talk about Chris Evans... ;)

    His combat scene was indeed pretty awesome (more intense and acrobatic than any involving the winter soldier at any case); I'll give him that!

    As form the quebec accent passing for a French-speaking Algerian, it leaves me rather cold. Somehow I wish they had made him a French Canadian bad guy...

    Kthulhu wrote:
    Laurefindel wrote:
    Impressive amount of destruction without leveling yet another city of the US...
    I dunno, we may not have seen the full extent of the damage, but I can't imagine that three aircraft carriers falling out of the sky into a metropolitan area (in addition to all the previous damage they did), didn't seriously f%~% that city up.

    nah, they conveniently fell from 8000 ft right into their hangar. Now all they have to no is clean-up the probably very hazardous residual chemical and/or radioactivity that will otherwise pollute the whole east coast...

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Manimal wrote:
    Hey, bbt, if I came up to a group and asked them if they could help me flesh out a concept for my latest "toon," then proceeded to make it clear that I was talking about a PC, and a member of that group said, "Gee, I was going to help you until you used the term 'toon,'" how should I interpret their reaction?

    I'd interpret it as a mixture of...

    1) they're being rude and/or snob; find some friendlier gamers.

    2) the term offends them and they think you're being rude to them - for legitimate or imagined reasons - enough to turn you down as a fellow gamer.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Dialogues intelligently written...
    Coherent plot not contradicting nor invalidating the previous movie(s) of the same franchise...
    Action scenes not overdone nor totaling for 80% of the movie...
    Impressive amount of destruction without leveling yet another city of the US...
    Humour without ridicule comic relief character...

    There may still be hope for Hollywood productions yet.

    (but as a proud Quebecois, I'm sad to affirm that George St-Pierre hasn't exactly the most convincing acting skills...)

    Mattastrophic wrote:
    Laurefindel wrote:
    With the right player, the summoner can be a lot of fun but it suffers from the "but imagine if it falls in the wrong hands!" syndrome, and that turns many players/DMs off.

    I imagine the Summoner would be "less reviled" if it were easy to be that "right player," but as the class is, it takes a lot of experience to be that player, to not be overpowered with a Summoner.


    As a DM, I don't care so much about overpowered PCs. I care about the O-P player being a prick about it, or about the other players feeling cheated.

    In my experience (which has been blissfully good, I admit), a good player can make the game fun for everyone even if the PCs are not perfectly balanced.

    [edit] That being said, I'm not in disagreement with your statement; the "wrong hands" don't even have to be that bad to ruin the summoner experience.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I actually like the Summoner class a lot.
    But as a DM, a summoner in the group means I'm gonna have to be extra careful about certain things - more than with any other character class - and that can be tiresome.

    1- Eilodon rules require that you master the rules rather well. Most abusive eilodon builds I see on these boards happen because of extrapolated or misread rules. As a DM I must know my stuff, but it annoys me to play the administrative lawyer.

    2- Summoner is bit of a spotlight hogger. That is also true with most summoning-oriented or pet characters like the druid or conjurer, but that's especially problematic with the summoner because he has few tools to do anything else.

    3- Summoner has a lot of disposable/expandable resources, meaning that it can take a lot more risks than most without real repercussions.

    With the right player, the summoner can be a lot of fun but it suffers from the "but imagine if it falls in the wrong hands!" syndrome, and that turns many players/DMs off.

    Gaming with fumbles (critical misses, whatever you call them) does not equal "The Three Stooges RPG"

    Fumbles would be a great rule to reinforce A 3 Stooges RPG game/theme, but it would also be a great rule to reinforce a gritty fantasy theme, or a Hollywood cinema theme, or a realistic simulationist theme etc.

    It all depends on how the rule is used, to what degree it influences the action and how it is described by the DM.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Rynjin wrote:

    TTRPGs are not the only kind of RPG.

    Just because it hasn't fully penetrated the bubble yet doesn't mean it's not a usable term.

    It's not a "style of play" issue in the slightest, it is merely a different term for PC.

    True, but failing to take origins into account may end-up insulting people. Toon make sense as an animated, colorful MMO character, 'casue that's what a toon is.

    I don't think people would have such a problem with "toon" if it didn't refer to something goofy, often clown-ish and cartoonesque; Not all players take their hobby with the same level of "aloofness".

    Kirth Gersen wrote:


    And eliminate Charisma entirely.
    That's a problem (dumping Charisma) you would never have to deal with, ever again.

    Can't argue with that logic 'though! :)

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    It never fails: every week, there's another thread in which a well-meaning DM housrules egregious penalties for various social stuff for characters with low Cha scores, even if they have high social skill bonuses. And I'm totally sympathetic to their desire to do so, because, let's face it, for anyone other than Cha-based casters and paladins, Charisma doesn't really do a whole lot. You never see a thread bemoaning all the people who use Dex as a dump stat, because no one really wants to tank their initiative and ranged attacks and AC and Reflex saves all at once. But Charisma? Why not dump Charisma, mechanically-speaking?

    So I propose trying an experiment. Let's re-define Wisdom as how well "in touch" with things you are, including your willpower (being in touch with your own convictions). And eliminate Charisma entirely.

    What this does is stops people from dumping Charisma. That's a problem you would never have to deal with, ever again.

    funny, up to the second paragraph, I thought you were about to suggest ditching WIS for a super CHA stat...

    Altogether, I have an issue with having a different amount of built points based on the class. Seems sketchy. I see the logic behind, but there's got to be better solution...

    8 people marked this as a favorite.
    Manimal wrote:

    If I used the term "Toon" rather than PC, what would you say? What arguments would you use for or against it?



    As far as I'm concerned, "Toon" has a pejorative baggage when applied to Table Top RPG. It ain't that insulting nor discriminating, nor do I buy into the "tabletop RPG is superior to MMO or computer RPG"; it just isn't a term I deem appropriate, and one that doesn't sound very "serious" (as serious a hobby can be).

    Let's just say I would quickly loose interest in a conversation using Toon instead of character, or PC. Don't have much argument other than "please use the right lingo for the right context".

    For the records, while I dislike Toon, I find Murderhobo much more insulting and revolting. What people do with their characters ain't my business, but it doesn't need become the definition of what my character is (or any character must be).


    Reverse wrote:

    Traveling through hot or cold environments involves a lot of Fort saves. A lot of Fort saves. While I like the flavour of getting fatigued and damaged while walking through the desert, it seems like the fun will be sucked out of it by getting the players to roll two dozen Fort saves a day.

    Does anyone have any homebrew rules or suggestions for fun environmental travelling rules that might suit?

    How about...

    - Bitter cold / severe heat deal automatic damage, as per RaW.

    - Fort save, rolled once at the beginning of day, provide a certain amount of damage reduction / energy resistance vs those attacks. You could event scale it, such as DC 15 Fort save = resist 1, DC 20 Fort = resist 2, DC 25 = resist 3 etc.

    - Proper winter/desert gear, and survival skill either provide bonus on Fort save above, or provide an extra DR on their own in such ways that someone equipped for the environment, succeeding on Survival check and Fort save is virtually immune to environmental damage.

    My wife just rented this.

    Must have missed the previews for this flic, skiped this thread, didn't read any reviews or heard friend's impressions. In other words, I had absolutely no idea what was about to hit me, other than "its Simon Pegg"!

    Going to bed happy...

    PsychoticWarrior wrote:

    All of our rules are unspoken.

    We communicate solely by smoke signal and interpretive dance.

    I though you were about to say that all of your rules are unspoken; they're all written in the core book...

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Matt Thomason wrote:

    For me, it's a case of wanting a world that's "like ours, plus extra stuff". (snip)

    My preferred reality is "cinematic realism" - people can get away with edge cases more often than they really ought to be able to due to uncanny luck "because that outcome makes a better story."

    Same here.

    I want a game supporting a world (including its inhabitants) with which I can relate to a minimum. I'm not all for realism but I refute the "but dragons!" and "PCs are gods amongs men" arguments as default and sole assuption, without being told "shut-up and play E6!" (although I'm willing to let go of level 16-20). I'm grateful that the game can do mundane easlily and that most magic/supernatural is more or less equivalent to good tech, so that pruning is realatively easy when necesary.

    2. In ancient greece, a young man named Perseus goes trought a gate to take his abducted lover back, giving birth to largely exagerated legends about his doings.

    Wathch the opening scene of trailer
    A post-catastrophe movie that seems to acknoledge the mass destruction of the previous film. Good.

    keep watching the trailer
    they're destroying yet another city? This is starting to get really old in hollywood movie nowadays...

    Greil9 wrote:
    Does your table have unspoken rules?

    My table doesn't speak; it's just a table. If it has rules, they're definielty unspoken...

    But more seriously, there was kind of an unspoken rule with my old group that nastiness will be answered with nastiness. If the group started to pull dirty moves and nasty tricks, monsters would suddenly become equally nasty.

    Tequila Sunrise wrote:

    So your explanation for a character surviving full lava-immersion would be, like what, the sudden Sherlock reveal? "Suspecting that a lava-bath trap would be part of the wicked Count LeDuche's lair defenses, you bought a potion of fire resistance before setting out on this dangerous quest, which you just happened to drink before falling into this particular lava-bath trap! Deficit your current gp total by the potion's cost."?

    Or maybe "No, full lava immersion doesn't mean full lava immersion! It means you caught yourself on the conveniently placed floating bits of cooled lava."?

    I was thinking option 2, but I guess option 1 could work for a very theamtic game.

    If "immersion in lava should be fatal" and "character didn't die", then logically there was no immersion. Momentary lava bubble, bit of rock, cooled crust etc. Anything goes. Otherwise it doesn't change anyting by RaW. Character will still have to swim its way through on the following round, taking more damage and most likely succumb.

    As a playstyle, it works well in a very cinematographic, somewhat exagerated hollywood movie style, but not all players and/or DMs are willing to roll with it. If the players are unprepared for this style, you quickly get into the "but if I wasn't immersed, why did I take 20d6 points of damage" type of circular logic. Damage goes with the threat, concequence happens after the expentidure of plot immunity points.

    In my experience, believability is only stretched that far in very few and distant situations. It's easier to narrate the haywagon below the thrid floor where the PC fell, the in-extremis parry of the orc's falchion, the timely dodge of the giant's thrown rock, the sheild's protection against the flames of the dragon and other common situations.

    Tequila Sunrise wrote:
    If the game devs had intended lava to obey real world sense, or had wanted hp to be 'plot immunity' when it comes to lava, they wouldn't have assigned it a damage value. They would've just said "Some extreme hazards, like lava, don't deal damage or allow saving throws. They just kill characters." Like the 2e devs did.

    I don't think the devs saw hp as plot immunity, but it doesn't make them less compatible with damage values.

    Everything should have a damage value as RaW; that's when you know if you have enough hp (plot immunity points) not to die.

    Lava deals 20d6 damage. That's RaW. If you still have hp left after; your DM describes how you likely survived. If that killed you, there's no immunity there; you're dead.

    Hp as plot immunity points simply changes perspective. Instead of saying "I cut off your head; 35 points of damage", you say "35 points of damage; I cut off your head". Having your head cut off should kill you. Period. It's much easier to adjust whether the head was cut-off or not after damage is dealt and subtracted from hp than to try to figure why you are still alive after having your head cut off.

    Same goes with immersion in lava. Survive the 20d6 damage? Then you weren't immerse in lethal ways. Dead after those 20d6 damage; yeah, you probably were immerse in ways that would sensibly kill you. I find this applies well to falling damage as well. Survived the fall; you most likely landed on something that allowed you to get-up fresh, bouncing off Hollywood style. Fall killed you; your legs got crushed into your lungs as you landed on rocks.

    GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
    Actually I don't think it matters what kind of points they are, if it was intended that lava should kill instantly when submerged, why not just say that?

    Interpreting hp can matter, especially as plot immunity points. Then it would go something like:

    If total immersion in lava should kill you, and the character has enough hp not to die, then surely "something" made it possible for the character to survive. The character spends hp not to be immersed into lava in ways that would be lethal, otherwise he/she wouldn't be alive no matter how many hp he/she has etc.

    That isn't a play style that satisfies every group, but one that can reconcile hp and common sense.

    Aeris Fallstar wrote:
    Action Cards: I think someone mentioned (Evil Lincoln?) that they were given out on Critical Fumble rolls. I would love to hear what these Action Cards are, or anyone else's ideas on good cards.

    This one was me.

    I've experimented a lot with the concept of cards, probably made 6 or 7 different decks. I like them because they allow a wide variety of possibility without the bother of cross-referencing charts. Cards as a concept however, are better used lightly; you're better of with several charts that with several different decks IMO. I don't think I ever used more than two in a single game.

    The one you're referencing was the Battle Event Deck. When a PC, "boss"/main NPC/encounter's leader would roll a natural 1, a card was drawn.

    Cards included random events/situations that affected the person drawing the card, its team or the whole battlefield. Things like change of weather, distracting/blinding light, reshuffle of initiative etc. affected everyone. Things like morale check, sudden ending of mass effects, second wind etc affected the whole party. Fumbles (none of which involved losing your weapons!), equipment malfunction, tricky complications such as mud or brambles affected the person responsible. Not all events were bad, but all included some kind of unexpected complication.

    Unfortunately, I lost the document when my laptop was stolen (along with my backed-up files), otherwise I'd gladly post them here.

    Ultimately, natural 1s became too frequent, so Event Cards became used only on a confirmation roll, then only once per game, then ultimately dropped altogether. It did however showed me how complications can contribute to make combats memorable. Afterward, I started to plan using heavy rain, wind etc a lot more in my encounters.

    Tequila Sunrise wrote:
    Damian Magecraft wrote:
    kyrt-ryder wrote:

    For what its worth Damian... the numbers say so because the game is deliberately presenting Lava in a way that PC's can- with enough hit points- survive contact or even immersion in it.

    Not that making lava a force of nature which cannot be withstood is necessarily a bad thing. Just not part of the default assumptions.

    True enough...

    Except part of the default assumptions (of nearly every TRPG) is that players will also apply "common" sense. (That is why Rule Zero exists).

    Characters have hit points. Lava deals damage. Therefore common sense dictates that characters with sufficient hit points don't obey real world physics, and that the game devs and their game expect such characters to survive hazards that would instantly kill any real person.

    You can house rule all you like, but the last time RAW obeyed real world common sense was 2e D&D. (And then only selectively.)

    That's if you see hit points as "buffer for physical injuries" as opposed to "plot immunity points", or a mix of the two.

    Rynjin wrote:
    Damian Magecraft wrote:

    well using the 2d10 the bell curve makes it so that an auto-fail only happens 1% of the time.

    IMO some small chance of failure is needed or success becomes meaningless.
    This is a weird concept to me. I'm of the opinion that someone who's trained all their life to do something shouldn't have a flat 1% chance to fail no matter what.

    That's where the take 10/take 20 rule comes.

    I'm with Damian on this one (except that he got ride of the take 10/20), when you are under rushed or threatened conditions, there should be a chance of failure; even if the task is trivial. Is there are no rush or threat, then there shouldn't be a test at all IMO.

    Put a gun on 20 people's head. Ask them to tie their shoes or else they're shot. Guarantied one will fail... (Damian is generous enough to say that 1 in 100 will fail).

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Matt Thomason wrote:
    I think if we take Stormwind at it's spirit, that the ability to RP/Optimize doesn't affect your ability to do the other, then there's no issues with it.

    That I can agree with

    It's mostly the assesment that one has absolutely no impact on the other that I refute (unless you get a very felxible definition of either RP or optimisation)

    kyrt-ryder wrote:
    Hawriel wrote:
    Any reflex save that involves electricity uses the fort save instead. No, you cannot dodge electricity.

    Of course you don't dodge electricity, you dodge the place it was aimed at, the same as dodging bullets.

    Yet unlike a bullet, an electrical arc doesn't keep going in a straight line if you move the electrode. I agree that modern conception of electricity does not apply here, but having electrical attacks behaving differently from fire attacks is an interesting mechanical concept.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    RP also includes character development. This include, among other things, choice of skills, feats etc.

    The Stormwind Fallacy is true insofar as one (RP vs. Optimisation) does not necesarily prevent the other, but they can also conflict with each other. The only way around this is to allow optimisation to consider the chosen concept, and work with those basic premices.

    So the character is sickly and has 6 CON; take that as initial concept and optimise that 6 CON character.

    Still, optimisation usually involves planning ahead, sometimes several levels in advance. RP may take your character places you wouldn't have guess at character creation. Therfore for the Stormwind Fallacy to be true, optimisation must accept that charater can evolve in non-linear ways. Again, there's a way to optimise that, even if the charcter isn't overall optimal.

    TL;DR: The Stormind Fallacy is true or false depending on your definition of optimisation.

    Hawriel wrote:
    Any reflex save that involves electricity uses the fort save instead. No, you cannot dodge electricity.


    While we're in the Vancian casting paradigm, lets point at spontaneous casters.

    Another fundamental concept of Vancian magic is that spells are too complicated to cast be in the mist of battle or in rushed situations. That's why casters prepare spells in advance, otherwise they'd be killed before they get halfway through casting their fireball. Long and difficult casting is a reality casters have to cope with, spellcasters don't just prepare spells just for fun.

    Again, spontaneous casters conveniently ignore this reality as well... But again, I understand the demand to play without spell preparation, and spontaneous Vancian casters are balanced enough to be player side by side their prepared casters counterprats which is an awesome feature on the game-designer's part.

    At-will spells in a Vancian casting paradigm.

    One of the fundamental concept of Vancian magic is that magical energy is a finite ressource; one can run out of spells. At-will cantrips and similar powers conveniently ignore this reality, but I see why people like to have at-will magical powers.

    Crossbows pack a lot of punch. At least that's the accepted trope about them.

    In D&D, "punch" is usually represented by a higher crit multiplier. Interestingly, the crossbow has a higher threat range but a lower critical than the bow. I've seen people upping the crossbow's crit from 19-20/x2 to 20/x4 to give them more oomph. However, that's not what I'm sugggesting here.

    Crossbows are also unique weapons insofar as, unlike all other weapons (except perhaps firearms, which have their own quirky rules), the crossbow's "punch power" is independent from the user's STR. As manually triggered, portable and resetable war machines, crossbows could have a STR bonus of their own. After all, the basic arrow trap has a STR of 12-13 (deals 1d8+1 points of damage), and crossbows are not far from "movable arrow traps" in design.

    I could see a smaller base die (shorter bow, smaller die; that's always been the logic of D&D) but with a high-ish inherent STR rating.

    I don't have a lot of experience with Snap Shot, but exclusivity for crossbows looks good on paper. Not sure about about implications for bow-users vs melee fighters etc however.

    n00bxqb wrote:

    No auto-fail/auto-success on 1s and 20s. A 1 is always a 1 and a 20 is always a 20.

    Seems silly that a level 20 fighter would miss a level 1 commoner 5% of the time.

    I don't think it's silly (well, I think that a game where 20th-level characters are attacking 1st-level commoner in sufficient amount to find the 5% auto-fail rate problematic is silly), but I can get behind the design philosophy that "if you can't take 10, then there shouldn't be any auto succeed/autofail". But Pathfinder is exactly the opposite.

    The problem however is that this regularity happens much sooner than level 20. You get into situations where fighters can't miss a commonnner ever at level 8th-9th, and heaviliy armoured fighters that cannot be hit by weak opponents at even lower levels.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    chaoseffect wrote:
    Laurefindel wrote:
    Rynjin wrote:
    blue_the_wolf wrote:

    The fact that a guy in full armor can fire a bow with all of the speed and accuracy of some one in light or no armor.

    New home rule for the next game I GM. some form of penalty to shooting bows while wearing medium or heavy armor.

    Why? Who does that help?
    Justify the existence of crossbowmen?
    I doubt it. It's not like you really need a ton of AC as an archer anyway.

    True, which means it wouldn't hurt archers much then. Regardless of who it wouldn't hurt, the question remains: "who would it help?"

    Versimilitude to real-life experience perhaps, or to closer simulation of historical combat... I agree that it wouldn't add much to the game.

    (but I still think it would give something to the crossbow, which atm is just an inferior choice)

    Rynjin wrote:
    blue_the_wolf wrote:

    The fact that a guy in full armor can fire a bow with all of the speed and accuracy of some one in light or no armor.

    New home rule for the next game I GM. some form of penalty to shooting bows while wearing medium or heavy armor.

    Why? Who does that help?

    Justify the existence of crossbowmen?

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    No matter how well balanced or crafted, 40 pounds of steel is going to slow you down quite a bit.
    Not if you've been training for it.

    Protective gear usually is a handicap at pretty much everything you do, except for not-bleeding. Can't speak about modern military, but I know that Hockey players are better/faster/stronger without all their equipment. Off course they wouldn't last one good check...

    I know for sure I'm better at everything I do without my suppostedly top-of-line harness when working in heights, but I guess I'll be thankful for all those lost minutes worth of lost efficiency when I do fall and live to tell the tale.

    But beyond the penalties it already gives, I doubt that making armours even more restrictive would add anything to the game.

    DEX and CHA

    Can't decide which, so I cheat and list two stats...

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    yellowdingo wrote:
    Ash ketchum is a bum. Having finaly gone home to pallet town (which amounts to a cluster of five small farms and professor oaks lab) he hands his mother a bag of dirty laundry, Stays overnight, and is now off to a new region...

    No worse than most college students I knew...

    [edit] Did he also ask for money and ready-made food for the weekend? Because if not, then he's actually better than most college students I knew...

    1 to 50 of 2,992 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.