|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
That's sort of a potential flaw of lower level gaming, you have fragile chars without resources to buffer those weaknesses. Its why you can caution players about getting too much of a backstory setup for their level 1 char, because they might die in the first combat :P
and honestly, as GM you can always fudge stuff. If the goal is a story experience and you don't really mind that the PCs are kinda protected, its all good. Rather than the time it'll take to generate a new char, much less figure out why it would be involved in the same campaign.
I figure they use metaphors and nicknames. "The power of <Our> lord shall grant me the strength to strike down the deeds of your Pretender" Depending on the rivalry/hate smacktalk will vary.
They may not always f~@+ up the other guy's church, but I can see it happening. Unlike today, burning down somebody's church can result in some mundane (as in not supernatural) consequences, but f!~%ing over Asmodeus' church could get you a visitation.
Generally I think churchs are fine with their people getting nuked, since they're all chesspieces. But be mindful about f~*!ing up some godling's house :)
So the tech guide does a nice job of giving us ratings for weaponry intended for personal use. Does anyone have a good rule of thumb if taking those weapons and 'upgrading' them to larger versions intended for say Siege/Naval Combat?
I figure in most cases, especially if you combine them with 'targeting systems' could could keep the ranged touch quality and bonuses on refire rate. Even 'slow' rated tech cannons (say an upgraded Rail Gun) would be able to fire faster than a conventional siege weapon.
If we wanna use the rail gun specifically: 3d10 dmg, B and P, range 200, capacity 10, slow fire, ranged touch, weighs 14 lbs.
Big siege weapons do 6d6-9d6 or so so, with range increments of 100-400. Lets assume imperfect upgrade ratings, and say a desire to hide the tech nature of the gun so there's alot of 'wasted' weight.
Would something 5d10, B and P, Range 300 (400?) be fair? Considering it may keep its armor piercing quality and ranged touch ability.
In terms of visuals, I'm thinking of what a flying fortress ala Helicarrier from Winter solider would be like if converted to pathfinder setting and made to look not as 'techy'.
Yeah, again, I'm not worried about it. Its not like its a secret 10000 gp "I win" button. It lets you do something potentially well in certain situations, sure you can alphastrikenuke a boss, but ...was that _really_ the boss? Many ways to keep this in game, let the player feel they didn't waste money, but also make the game not a total cakewalk because of the enchantment.
To clarify, I did not, and do not, intend to equate trans/gay with 'oooooh....sex' in rp. I'm just saying that its essentially entirely up to the player what they want to run. My personal preference is to not rp any of my characters with sexual behavior/relations. I'm not a prude, its just not my interest in RP as a character. It doesn't mean my _character_ is a prude or asexual or whatever. As character history, how much happens is essentially entirely up to the player.
My chars usually aren't involved in romance angles either. If your trans char was in our murderhobo game, we wouldn't care about that aspect. We'd care about how well you go along with the rest of our murderhobo group. In terms of "How well do you smash the walking bags of loot and xp we all run into"....and whether you're a ninjaloot chaotic-douchebag alignment pretending to be a team player. Similarly, if you were in our murderhobo game it might not be a good fit if you ARE looking for character development involving backstory stuff, not because its anti-trans, more because its 'we have backstory?" So your experiences will vary greatly on what group you're with
As per your OP, again its entirely up to the player and GM use of stuff. You may want to do stuff as a player and the GM couldn't care less, or they can't be bothered. The GM may want to do stuff, and you as a player couldn't care less or be bothered.
I agree that its a matter of actual use, otherwise its just characterization on page. If we go by history of actual play, one might describe my characters as 'not sexually interested' even tho their character histories might include a healthy view on it. Why? Because I'm not interested in RP'ing sex stuff in my games, and in most cases it never comes up (hur hur). Its like your usual fantasy movie stuff. You don't usually play with things like "hey, remember all those other bodily functions we don't use in games? Lets use those!" but assume they occur between the scenes or whatever.
It's kinda like those huge character histories (bonus the char dies in the first encounter..seen that happen, hasn't everyone?) which can be useful for informing the player on how the char might see things/interact, but largely have no purpose unless the GM starts picking hooks from it.
I like it, plus if you consider things like barter/trade in kind and that not all 'income' is tangible coin there's enough of wiggle room to keep even isolated communities internally functional.
External trade will be largely where actual coin comes into play. Going back to the original farmer example, it highlights a good reason why it may be useful for the professional farmer to co-op with other professional farmers, maybe on the same plantation/property/whatever, a little more breathing room to crank out same relative profit but less individual work, or work hard to get more profit.
The times I've seen it, its usually from the players that notice the inconsistencies and gaps and want to exploit them. "Look the rules don't say your technoarmor is immune to <this spell> so I win!"
And even within setting, "Immune to fire? Apparently that also means immune to being dropped into the sun right?"
Eh, its a fantasy game. The guy next to you is a Drow, the girl across from you is a changeling, you're pretty sure the guy next to you is trying to play a MLP character but you don't want to give hint that you get the reference, and the GM just attacked your party with a tentacle beast.
And you're all murderhobos. Play as you will :)
I'd potentially give the cone in this case a splash (or even other breath types) (bonus to area of effect) Which is probably why 'historically' A flying firebreathing dragon is a bit more dangerous as it carpetbombs from above and on the move, than the more predictable line/cone of the stationary, grounded dragon.
I don't know if its rogue hate as much as "Sneak attack can be kinda cheese" but thats an issue that crosses decades. Then people see some of the ridonkulous examples of cheese that can be built and attribute that to the class.
Thing is, that can be applied to pretty much any class. Build them a certain way and tada cheesetastic. So its not a rogue-specific thing.
Sorry for the late revival, but I had something along the similar lines:
For flavor/descriptive purposes how would one visualize this? I get that its a mythic quality, so they can do some superheroic stuff, but from my general visual, if you now have a 10 foot reach for AoO, but don't have to move (at least, you don't trigger any AoO from using this ability) to smack things in your 10' area how does this get described?
Dude 10 feet away from me tries to flee out of the area. I smack him and end up back in my spot, ala Lunge, I do some sorta coincidence damage that equals my attack check, like, he tries to flee, flavor wise without moving I kick up a cobblestone and smack him with it? some sorta jackie chan chain reaction thing where I hit a conveniently placed object that smacks another object that then smacks the guy in the face?
Old school response? We generally found the action Evil, an evil action of the GM/DM for bringing such anvilicious tactics of "Oh, he wants us to have an afterschool special moment with the morality and nature of creatures when they're young."
Especially if we weren't playing murderhobos at the time.
But if a player group is cool with it, more power to them.
I like the potential for this, if we could hammer down some reasonable guidelines you could then in turn use this to modify effective CR, if you were so inclined. Or give the GM a better sense of what CR threats to actually throw at the PCs. As we see in the various threads, you can stick with Char Level and Wealth By Level and still end up with some ginzu-buzzsaw-tacnukes of doom that hit well above their APL/character level weight.
I'd say giving them a quality of tremorsense is taking things to an unnecessary level of specificity. Tentacles flop around and grab things they touch (presumably not itself, otherwise it would quickly knot itself up), if you're in the area of effect, you're at risk of things turning into a hentai video. Being invisible doesn't matter.
One other minor thing, Sneak Attack damage does the same damage type as the spell used to deliver it. So, Scorching Ray would be all Fire damage, Shocking Grasp would be all Electricity, and so on.
Which can lead to weirdness too. Especially with elemental effects. "Hi, I'm a creature with an elemental resistance to X at Y rating. I can swim in X as long as it doesn't do more than Y dmg. I can open my eyes, I can put it under my arms, I can dip my penis in it! but for some reason, that ray of X shot by a rogue/wizard even tho it never surpasses my resistance, can suddenly become f#$*ing hellball of OMFGDEAD! Because...of reasons."
But I acknowledge my bias. :)
No. Heck its oversimplified in the game, of course its not a good descriptor in real life.
There are a bunch of organizations we could say have guidelines and public facade that present as LG or close to it, but in the realities underneath, when you start getting into people, you're more likely to find 'neutral selfish'. And there's that aspect of "bad people realize a great place to hide AND be bad? In a 'good' organization'
If we use the hammer, anvil, arm combat guide, I'd say the rogue is a hammer, the mage is something of an anvil. So I can't really see why the anvil cares that the hammer is doing hammer things. But then again I've settled more into the idea of mage-types being control/summon types first, blasters secondary.
Now, if the player is being an A!#~~ (player, not player char) about hogging all the glory and dumping on the other players for being deadweight, then I'd reach over and smack her in the back of the head. if not, you really need to get to the issue of why the mage feels they MUST do OMFG level of 'damage'.
Sorry if this came up elsewhere, I didn't see it when I did a search check.
But would Mettle potentially trump things like Evil Eye (Witch)?
Mettle (Ex): You are able to resist effects with great willpower of fortitude. If you succeed on a Fortitude or Will save against an effect with a partial effect on a successful save, you instead suffer no effects from the attack.
A successful save vs Evil eye normally reduces the effect to 1 round, which can lead to cackle-cycling to keep things going. But with Mettle, a save that results in partial effect (would that include duration of effect) gets negated entirely. So would the Mettle saving guy be potentially immune to evil-eye stacking if they save?
I will say the downside to starting higher is the unfortunate quality we all seem to pick up after gaming some years. You can't help but optimize. So when you start with 5th level wealth guidelines, you tend to end up with 5th level chars with every ounce of gold squirreled into the appropriate gear, especially if the GM isn't being restrictive about availability. Usually they can add conditions, like, "No starting the game with permanent spells, or crafted items" but you can still get pretty set up.
So I was pondering the options to make mythic chars have the opportunity to take side trips/etc into non-mythic adventures at the 'expense' of suppressing some of their mythic might.
I was thinking of making it a mythic trait available to any mythic of (possibly) tier 5 or less with the following effect:
(The name is still a work in progress)
Effect: You can suppress the draw of mythic fate by temporarily suppressing your mythic might. A mythic character of (tier 5?) or less can suppress their might down to Tier 1, temporarily losing access to all gained mythic feats/abilities/etc of their higher tiers, but will now face non-mythic, or low-mythic encounters instead of those matched to their true tier.
These reduced mythic encounters do not count as trials and while suppressed a mythic cannot gain a new tier.
Mythics of tier (whatever) or greater cannot benefit from this trait, as they are too heavily involved in mythic fate to be able to easily step away from it.
By rationale I'm also saying that beyond a point (when your passives get a bit too much, like tier 5 and more) you get more into reality warping that can do stuff like save your ass from getting killed/etc. And would likely come into play whether you wanted to suppress it or not, if some non-mythic threat managed to do significant harm to you.
So its an IC and OOC effort, signalling when the party wants to not have to run mythic stuff for awhile, but also trades in some of their power for the duration.
Groups vary, but what I've seen more often with the experiences that involve GMs trying to get stuff out of players, well it depends. Generally, I found you don't want to make the player feel like they're doing unnecessary work just to please a GM, especially if they're using the gaming-day as relaxation FROM work/real life. In a similar vein you don't want to guy who happens to be a litigator in real life to get away with a low social score just because they can orate well in real life.
In general, I agree with the complaints re: social skills. And all too frequently we see them (via players posting their "look at me!" builds in threads, etc) built as situation bombs exploiting the weakness of the system.
I like the sense that social skills are broken because they include both a 'to hit' and 'damage' component, rather than splitting them up. So to fix it you need to change it up a bit, where the super diplomat might make excellent points, but fail to do significant change because the target has "social skills damage reduction" or "fast healing".
A real life social exchange can include 'really good points that fail to make a positive impact'. Otherwise you'd have things like "well thought out argument destroys fundamentalism" as the mechanics of social skills in PF/etc have it set up.
You're thinking real-world physics on something that is complete fantasy. You might as well ask how well the bullet holds together when the average all-lead bullet basically shatters on impact of anything hard enough to change its trajectory. Or what happens when it does shatter.
I'm a little late to this party, but as for the most part physics and 'reality' bend in FAVOR of bullets for some insane reason in PF, "Because of bonuses my non-magic bullet can totally annihilate this ancient dragon but can't penetrate this wooden table!" that when it comes to deflect arrows slapping away bullets with no harm, well, it has to just suck it up and deal with it :)
There's also the "Apparently you want me to be your adventure-bot-whipping-boy GM" where you get pushy me-me-me players that want the GM to spend all their time catering to how obviously awesome the Players and by nature their Player-Characters are.
Bad player-gm relations are not always the GMs fault :)