Maerimydra's page

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I find the Pathfinder method is far superior - with the only oddity being when two reach creatures (usually standing 2+ inches tall on the map), can't attack each other with one full diagonal between them. One side-step and their good. I play plenty of reach users, and it's not a big deal. Adds some nice tactical options too if you can lock-down a large creature.

And it is simple. You don't threaten the 15'/2-diagonal square. You *do* threaten if someone takes more than a 5' step coming through there.

In what way is it ''far superior''?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just use the 3.5 exception. I never had any problem with it and I still don't understand why Pathfinder needed to have an errata for this. Not using the 3.5 exception is like trying to probe the mind of a Hound of Tindalos: it can make your head explode.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How do you move from being 15' away from someone to 5' away from someone without, at some point, passing through (ie, leaving) at point 10' away from them?

-Skeld

Quantum physics. :D

But seriously, I never heard of reach weapons not threatening the second diagonal square before. This is nonsense to me. IF that's not how Pathfinder reach weapons work, then I recommend everyone to use the 3.5 rule for reach weapons.

After some playtesting, and going through some of my old posts, I decided to revisit this archetype with a slight tweak.

** spoiler omitted **

That's a good tweak, because I think that your archetype would be plain better than the vanilla Magus otherwise.

.
That being said, I think that Bladesong Style (Ex) might be a little too good. Dex bonus to AC are better than armor bonus, because they raise your touch AC and do not come with armor check penalty and restricted movement. Furthermore, at level 20, the bladesinger's Dex bonus to AC could be 10 points over the vanilla Magus' Dex bonus to AC while the vanilla Magus' armor bonus to AC would be only 5 points (or even only 3 points, if the bladesinger can use a mithral breastplate without penalty) over the bladesinger's armor bonus to AC.

What does Song of Fury (Ex) replace?

Also, maybe you should restrict the Weapon Proficiencies of the bladesinger to blades, since you give him the ability to use a longsword in conjunction with the Weapon Finesse feat (with no drawback).

Overall, it seems like a very good archetype with no real drawback. If I were you I would tone it down a little, unless you want to recreate the power level of the bladesinger found in the Complete Book of Elves from the 2nd edition, but that's your call. :)

Alright Lumi...simmer down now. I usually swap for a theme. In the case of my variant sprites for example, I swapped 1/1 spells at the same level and generally utility spells for other utility spells and so on. A tinker sprite is good at fixing or breaking a victim's gear; a Graveborn on the other hand has a fatiguing attack instead of a daze and a way to get close w/out you noticing (vanish).

The point is that yes, certain combos are deadly and may overpower the monster however on the other hand you shouldn't intentionally gimp an enemy just to preserve some precious CR chart.

The thing is, most monsters have Skill Focus (Perception) or Alertness in their list of feats, which is a serious thorn in the Rogue's side by making non-magical scouting even more deadly. As a GM, I prefer making my encounters more challenging but also more easy to circumvent.

Everytime I see a pointless feat in a monster stat block, I replace it with Toughness.

Personally, AoOs are one of my favorite mechanics of the game. It makes big monsters with reach more scary, reach weapons relevant (there's no point of using them if you play without AoOs) and protecting your allies more easy (running past the Fighter to attack the Wizard is risky, thanks to AoOs). It makes trip and disarm more useful. AoOs also give an edge to characters in light armor with a high acrobatics score (Rogues, Monks) when it comes to moving around the battlefield without getting hit. In my experience, AoOs only slow down battles when one or more of the players suffer from analysis paralysis.

If you or your pals don't like playing with AoOs then just don't. Just ban the feats that are related to AoOs and remove them as prerequisite for any other feats.

Strangely enough, after backing Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns and Project Eternity, I didn't feel like backing this game. Why? Part because I'm broken right now, but also because they didn't gave as much information on the gameplay as they did for those other games IMO.

What they promised us was fantastic narrative and a Torment-like story. We don't know much about the gameplay and I was never able to get into Torment specifically because of the lackluster gameplay.

I do hope this game will be a blast to play, and if it is, I'll grab it at full price after release, but I'm done with Kickstarter for now. I prefer to see how Wasteland 2 turns out before throwing more money at inXile.

I asked a few questions on their website and the devs quickly and kindly answered all of them, which is very kewl! It seems that CC will include a lot of the elements from D&D 3.X (OGL) while leaving the complicated stuff like grappling and readied actions out of the game, at least for the initial release (they plan to expand the game if it sells well enough).

There will be no Bards, Druids, Monks or Sorcerers in CC, but Wizards won't have to memorize their spells in advance, so they're going to work a lot like Sorcerers. Also, multiclassing will not be possible. Personally, I would have kept the Bard instead of the Ranger, but I'm mostly fine with the core classes included in the game: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian. Again, if the game sells well enough, they will included new classes in DLCs/expansions (the Druid and the Monk are currently on top of their priority list for an expansion).

I'm playing The Witcher (the first one) while waiting for Chaos Chronicles (the only real ''D&D-like game'' that will be released this year).

I still have to complete Deus Ex: HR and Skyrim.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

wolfpack75 wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Just how hard are the adventure paths

I personally think they are really hard, I've run two AP's about half way through and have had a lot of turn over in characters. I do feel that the player's lose interest as their characters continue to die and because of that I have to do a balancing act of propelling the story forward without making the players feel too safe.

One of the main problems I have with the AP's is the reliance on a single spell or skill check. A six adventure campaign shouldn't end because no one rolled high enough on a skill check or didn't have a particular spell. I am all for letting a combat encounter play out and if the party makes poor tactical decisions that they die from those decisions.

I am also all for the party having to deal with the consequences of no one playing a Rogue or healer, those are choices they need to live or die by, but requiring that someone in the party have access to 1 spell or that someone have 1 skill or the game ends is a poorly written adventure.

And I know I should have an example here but I am drawing a blank on a specific instance that has come up. I believe there was one in Kingmaker as they explored the empty town looking for a clue as to where everyone was...The adventure could have ended if they hadn't made a roll, I believe it was a Knowledge Check which can't be repeated once failed.

Anyway, I would like to see more modules which give more options for how to propel the adventures along and less reliance on 1 roll of the die determining the fate of the game.

My apologies for not having specific examples...

=Dan

In Carrion Crown, there's a door that requires a DC 28 STR check to open, and it's the only way to get in to continue the adventure. The GM had to fudge and then some to get our party through that door.

Couldn't you just hack the door to pieces?

We need more medium-sized humanoids or monstruous humanoids with medium to high CR.

Magic-user or not, Grimrock encourages specialization. A wizard focused in a single element (I recommand Air) is very powerful. Do not spread your skill points all over the place or you will regret it.

I would still play with ''a'' GM who changes, or even bans, the crafting rules. I even recommended my players not to play crafting focused characters because I would probably just decrease loot value to compensate (but I'm fine with crafting potions, scrolls and wands). However, I would not play with your friend because of all the other issues you mentionned, specifically because of the way he handles loot. It's the player that should choose how to split the loot, not the GM. And remember, the WBL chart is a guideline and not something you should follow blindly.

The alchemist is pretty powerful when built right. Especially with the mummification ability they can gain.

Pretty powerful = broken?

Alchemist is a broken class? That's a good one! :)

People do still play this game from level 1 up right? I begining to think that everyone starts this game off with celestial plate in thier back pocket, and every magic item they could possible need.

Even when you to get to the level where you can buy a Celestial Plate, if you follow RAW, it's possible that it won't be avaible for purchase anywhere. You can always burn a feat to create it yourself, but if the campaing you're playing in has some kind of time constraint, you're screwed. And no, a Fighter do not need to buy a Celestial Plate, he just needs a bow and a couple of potions of fly for when the bow won't be enough.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Chuck Norris qualifies for all feats regardless of prerequisites.

Chuck Norris doesn't even need dice. He auto wins.

Not against Bruce Lee.

Hama wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

I strongly prefer the first game, by a fair margin, but after going through the second one more than once, I gained a genuine appreciation for it. It's kind of like Pixar's movie Brave - it's vastly superior the second time around, when you know what's coming.

What? Brave was amazing the first time around...

I enjoyed it, but it wasn't nearly as good as most Pixar movies... the first time I watched it. It just felt weaker, much to my surprise, especially after seeing the trailers. I liked it the first time, but it just wasn't a great movie to me. I know that this is true for many. (You obviously disagree... there is nothing wrong with this. :D)

The thing is... it was just an okay movie until I saw it the second time. And then it became an great movie.

I strongly suspect it's partially because the trailers sold me on one thing, but the movie experience was something else entirely; when I went in, I simply wasn't in the appropriate mood for the genuinely great story they were trying to tell. I'm pretty sure this is true for a fairly large sampling (obviously, different opinions are different).

This is not a problem with Brave the movie, it is a problem of expectation v. delivery.

In any event, NWN2 is similar: the OC has a good, strong story (much stronger than the OC of NWN1), but the problems surrounding it were so numerous that it made it hard for many to appreciate in the slightest. To make matters worse, it was a distinct step down in story telling from the previous installment (Hordes of the Underdark) - not because of the power level or anything, but because it was just a lesser story. It was different than what we expected and wanted, and thus harmed enjoyment.

With a better card in my computer, a few patches in the game, and a determination to go through, regardless, and do so quickly now that I knew how to do the sidequests, the story unfolded very nicely. It wasn't as great as Shadows of Undrentide, Hordes...

No need for that, you pretty much covered my thoughts about both games. :)

NWN OC was atrocious while NWN2 OC was just bad. Both games expansions were good enough, but, like I said, I played the game in the wrong order and NWN, which I played recently, really shows its age. However, except for SoZ, NWN expansions were more chanlleging than NWN2 expansions (both games OCs were cakewalk), but the story of MotB is far superior to the story of HotU. If you add the online components to the equation, then NWN is clearly the winner, but for someone like me who experienced only the single player portion of both games, NWN2 was more enjoyable.

So this is the game using 4e rules? I have been playing NWN Diamond on my laptop for years (no broadband here, so no online). I was thinking it would be a great idea if Pathfinder somehow got in the mix.

I didn't hear good things about NWN2, so I hope something good happens to this one.

From someone who played NWN1 and NWN2 in the wrong order and who didn't tried the multiplayer mode, NWN2 left a better impression on me than NWN1.

Here's a quick fix to the Fighter class:

The Fighter's bonus feats (and only those) can now be chosen from D&D 3.X material in addition to PF material, including splatbooks, like Tome of Battle, and the 3.X version of updated feats, like Power Attack, Manyshot, Improved Trip, etc. :)

I seem to remember it being said that Light Shields (and bucklers) can hold things, and its a free action to toss things between available hands.

So a shield Pally using a Light Shield could toss his one-handed weapon into the shield hand, cast his swift action spell with his weapon hand, then toss it back and proceed to pummel whatever he's up against.

In 3.5 you could cast with the hand that was carrying a buckler or small shield. In Pathfinder it's buckler only, making the small shield obsolete for spellcasters.

''Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.''

''Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.''

You see, nothing in the small shield description says that you can use your hand for spellcasting, you can only use it to carry items.

Maerimydra wrote:

Werthead wrote:

On the link on the first post in the thread, it's the first thing on that page:

Quote:

Over the past year, we have been working on a reliable engine, the OGL 3.5e rules implementation

OK, thanks. However, I think you should read this:

http://www.chaos-chronicles.com/source-of-inspiration-6-penpaper-rpgs/

That seems slightly contradictary. Working through it, I think what they are doing is using what is essentially 3.5 under the OGL, but are modifying the combat so it's a bit more like 4E's, but not so much they get sued into the bowels of the earth by Hasbro's legal department?

This is what I think too, but they'll probably throw a good amount of their own stuff (homebrew) in the mix too. The devs seem to enjoy houserules when playing D&D and this will surely reflect on the game. I think they are going for a ''facing'' system with the hex-grid where each character has a back and a front: it could potentially help the Rogue class a lot.

Well, that and Rage which adds at least twice his level extra in HP because Con bonuses are cool like that.

Damage taken while raging still need to be healed, which could translate into a higher healing ressources drain. Being 25% (or more, thanks to armor training) more likely to being hit is not something insignificant, even more so if you are fighting multiple opponents. Now, a raging POUNCING Barbarian will probably take less damage than a Fighter over the course of a battle because he will kill his opponents a lot faster. This is how good Pounce really is and this is where I disagree with you: the power creep in Pathfinder is not as slight as you suggest. Is the core Fighter lacking a bit? Yeah, I agree with you, but splatbooks made things much, much worse.

How so? The Ranger does just fine with Medium armor and d10 hit dice, and the Barbarian has always rocked the almighty d12, how in the hell is either of them a Glass Cannon (that is, a character who can dish it out but not take it).

I already explained why the core Barbarian was a glass cannon and drained more healing ressources than the Fighter in a previous post, and that remains true until he can shell out 10K gp and a feat for a mithral full plate. Of course, with splatbooks, this is not true anymore. Also, the ''almighty'' d12 translates into only 1 more hp per level.

The gap is just slightly more apparent now since every single class has gained new options over time, while Fighter has remained bottom b~*+~ of the supposed frontliners.

That is my point exactly. But I would replace the word ''slightly'' with ''blatantly''.

Yes, the Barbarian had/has less AC. The Ranger had/has slightly less damage when not fighting his FE.

They were/are still better. They had more options outside of combat, and just as many in it, with 1 or 2 less to-hit/damage.

The Ranger and Barbarian were glass cannons back then, while the Fighter and Paladin were the real tanks. Only the Paladin was stealing the ''niche'' of the Fighter back then while being more useful outside of combat. Hell, the Paladin was/is even a better tank than the Fighter, because he's more resilient, has more hp, better saves and sometimes better AC than the Fighter. Now, thanks to power creep, every martial classes, and even some non-martial classes (magus, summoner), got away with the Fighter's pie, leaving nothing behing for the poor sucker.

hustonj wrote:

Again, back to my original post that the anti-fighters soundly ignored.

The problem is NOT the Fighter class.

The problem is the ever-increasing power creep love being provided for everyone else.

All the anti-fighter crowd keeps doing is pointing at the results of the ongoing power creep and demanding that the failure for one of the foundation bedrocks of the system to "keep up" is inherent in the construction of the foundation stone. Zark's "Great post" helps display this point pretty well. Even more so when you remember that Pathifinder STARTED as power creep from D&D 3.x.

The problem is NOT in the foundation stone.

The problem is in all the cruft that keeps getting tacked onto the system.

This comes up in EVERY game engine where there has been enough expansion publishing. There's been a lot of expansion publishing for Pathfinder.

One, I disagree with your premise. At the baseline Fighter was always worse than Barbarian and Ranger. None of the new options added a significant amount of power to either class, they just gave them more options.

I have to disagree here. It's not true that a baseline Barbarian could get a better AC than a baseline Fighter when raging. It's also not true that a baseline Ranger (thus without instant enemy) could outdamage the baseline Fighter when not fighting one of his favored enemies. And yes, some of the new options added a significant amount of power to either class (beast totem = scaling AC bonus and pounce, extra rage power, spell sunder, instant enemy, etc.)

In other words, the Fighter might have be equal to (or slightly worse than) the Barbarian and the Ranger in core, but splatbooks only made things worse for the Fighter.

I think I'm going to give the Fighter (and only the Fighter) some of the Warblade's class features and the ability to select combat maneuvers from ToB:tBot9S with his bonus feats.

On the link on the first post in the thread, it's the first thing on that page:

Quote:

Over the past year, we have been working on a reliable engine, the OGL 3.5e rules implementation

OK, thanks. However, I think you should read this:

http://www.chaos-chronicles.com/source-of-inspiration-6-penpaper-rpgs/

Hmmmmmm....looking forward to it. Too bad that they are not using PF ruleset, but hey. 3.5 was good 5 years ago right?

Where did you get this 3.5 rule set thing? It's not what they say on their web site, at least this is not what I read.

By the way, this game is not based on the D&D 3.5 OGL. It seems like the devs burrowed a lot of ''ideas'' from D&D, more specifically 4th edition, but they are using a new, independent rule set.

Stretch goals.

My favourite one is the one where Colin McComb will issue a video apology for D&D 2E's COMPLETE BOOK OF ELVES :)

Damn that book! I was GMing a D&D 2nd Ed. campaing back in the days and one of the players was playing an elven archer. He decimated all my carefully planned encounters in a matter of seconds.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It slipped under my radar too, so thanks for posting! I have always wondered if making a computer game based on the OGL 3.5e rules would be legal, and it seems like it is. That's awesome news!

Am I deaf or they didn't mention if it was going to be a turn-based (like Wasteland 2) or pseudo real-time (like Torment) RPG in the promotional video?

My problem with Weapon Training (and the Weapon Focus Line) is how much it tends to pidgeonhole fighters into specific weapons/types of weapons.

IMHO the class feature and feats would have been far better off as 'Combat Training' and 'Combat Focus/Combat Specialization' and applied to all weapons equally.

*makes a note to self to add that to my houserules document*

It could be true for most people, but one of my players used the weapon training class feature to become a better ''switch hitter''. He used his feats to specialize in the longbow and he took weapon training ''heavy blades''.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It also depends on the level. Wizards aren't OP at level 1-2. ;)

Wizard > Druid > Cleric > Sorcerer = Oracle > Summoner > Magus = Bard > Everyone else

EDIT for Rynjin

Wizard > Druid > Cleric > Sorcerer = Oracle > Summoner > Magus = Bard > Everyone else > Fighter

I'm sad that you put the Alchemist in the ''Everyone else'' category. :(

I filled one entire shelf (and a bit more) of my bookcase with D&D 3.X and Pathfinder books and I told myself: ''that's enough, I don't need more books, I don't even have the space to store more books and I have to stop spending money on RPG books'', but then Ultimate Psionic was announced. Maybe I'll make an exception for you guys. :)

The bear cub companion is for those that would like to play a character similar to Ator the Fighting Eagle:

Ator the Fighting Eagle. 1:06 to see the bear cub. :)

This is how you design a good Fighter class in a table top RPG or, in this case, a video game:

Project Eternity - The Rules of (Melee) Engagement.

You mean Mithral breastplate? Mithral Fullplate is Medium Armor and therefore STILL screws movement for some reason >_<

You're right, I edited my post (40 ft > 30 ft).

Maerimydra wrote:

Zark wrote:

BTW, I still don’t understand why fighters only have 2 skills per level since “everyone else with 2 skill point is ridiculously loaded with supernatural powers and abilities” (as pointed out by Proftobe).

I don't really mind if the Fighter has only 2 skill points per level. However, I do mind that he has only 2 skill points per level while not being a better FIGHTER than the Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger.

If he's NOT a considerably better fighter than the other martial classes, it would have to be because he's traded off his....

Armor Training (watch the Paladin plod along at 20 foot movement.}
Weapon Training (The Fighter is effectively one BAB tier ahead of the other martials once he hits his capstone levels)

And left his bonus fighter feats at home somewhere.

I hear you, but I don't think that those class features are enough to make the Fighter ''considerably'' better than the other martials.

Armor Training - Sure, moving 30ft in heavy armor is kewl, but once the party has a reliable access to the Haste spell (which can be as soon as level 4 with a summoner in the party), movement speed becomes less of an issue. Also, a Barbarian can move at 30 ft when wearing a mithral full plate. However, a mithral full plate cost a sh*t load of money (roughly 10k gp) and heavy armor proeficiency for the Barbarian, which means that the Fighter remains the real ''armor master'' until higher levels where 10k gp becomes trivial.

Weapon Training - Does less damage than Rage, Favored Enemy, Smite Evil and Challenge, but it does last all day and on every opponents that you can hit, which is about as good, but not considerably better, as these other class features.

Feats - Back when I first read the CRB, I thought that the Fighter was considerably better than the Barbarian, since most Rage Powers in the CRB were underwhelming IMO. But with the coming of the APG, it seems that some of the ''new'' Rage Powers totally blow Feats out of the water. Luckily, Rage Powers can only be used when raging, which can't be all day at low-levels. During higher levels, however, the limited number of rounds you can rage per day becomes less of an issue and Rage Powers become almost ''always on'' abilities, just like Feats, but better, because most of them give you scaling bonuses instead of fixed bonuses.

So, his the Fighter considerably better than the other martial classes from level 1-20? I would say no, he's about the same, and he got less skill points than those other classes (except for the Paladin, who's definitely more resilient than the Fighter). I would say the sweet spot for playing a Fighter vs ''other martial classes'' is from level 4 to 10, which turns out to be my personal sweet spot for playing D&D, so I still like the Fighter even if I think that he's a bit lacking compared the the other martial classes.

Maerimydra wrote:

Prerequisites are OK as long as they make you better in what you're trying to accomplish.

Dodge is a good prerequisite for Mobility, because both feats stack and beef up your AC.

Combat Expertise is a bad prerequisite for Improved Trip, because it doesn't help you in your trip attempts.

Prerequisites are okay as long as they're individually feats you'd want anyways.

Power Attack is an okay prerequisite for Improved Sunder because it's actually a feat any viable sunder build will want anyways even if only for when actually killing your enemy after you've sundered everything sunderable.

Spell Focus Conjuration is an okay prerequisite for Augment Summoning even though it doesn't help Summoning because it's a good feat. There is only one class that gets summon spells that doesn't get loads of worthwhile conjurations that have saving throws and that class makes for lousy summoners because it's a 6 level caster without early entry on the summon spells.

Dodge is not an okay prerequisite. It's not a feat anyone takes except as a prerequisite. Mobility's almost as bad, though it's worth something if you expect to face enemies with more reach than you as a melee build.

Agreed, except for one thing. Dodge is a OK prerequisite for Mobility, but Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility and Spring Attack are NOT OK prerequisites for Whirlwind Attack, which doesn't even allow you to move! In other words, Dodge is a ''must have'' if you're planning on maximising your AC, but if that's not your goal, then sure, it's a waste of a feat.

If I was going for damage then there are other classes that are better at it (summoners spring to mind or rangers with instant enemy or barbarians with pounce).

Funny that all those things come from the APG. :)

I'm telling you, the APG is but one part of a greater and sinister plot to kill the Fighter!

I'd argue that while it isn't a bad feat, Dodge isn't a good prerequisite simply because it's forcing you to burn a feat you might not otherwise take to get one that you do want more.

What if a wizard couldn't learn Summon Monster IV unless he had SM I-III in his spellbook? What if he couldn't cast it unless he had SM I-III prepared for the day first?

What if you did the same with, say, Burning Hands - Scorching Ray - Fireball?

Sure, it would make logical sense, but it would also make those spells a much bigger drain on resources, even if the earlier spells were still something that could be handy, a Wizard may well rather have a Haste or Prot From Evil prepared/known instead.

What you are describing here looks a lot like the Shadow Caster class from the 3.5 era.

Prerequisites are OK as long as they make you better in what you're trying to accomplish.

Dodge is a good prerequisite for Mobility, because both feats stack and beef up your AC.

Combat Expertise is a bad prerequisite for Improved Trip, because it doesn't help you in your trip attempts.

Dotting!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Don't you just love how the solution to all a martial's problems is 'there's a feat for that'?

It's almost as if martials didn't have a limited number of them, with fighters getting a lot more but are still limited.

it's as if pathfinder seems to hate martial classes.

I don't think they hate them, I think they just do not want to upset the more ''conservative'' gamers by changing them too much.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't take 10 on Stealth checks while sneaking around - the "can't take 10 when in dangerous conditions" clause applies, trying your best not to be noticed with the danger of getting whacked if you fail is pretty much a textbook stressful situation.

However, a Rogue might pick the Skill Mastery advanced talent and take 10s on Stealth. Come to think of it, that makes SM one of the better talents out there.

But then it could be argued that the various NPCs ''taking 10'' on perception checks described in past modules couldn't really take 10, since if someone is trying to sneak on them, they're in a ''dangerous situation''. It would also mean that you couldn't take 10 on your climb check when climbing, because it's ''dangerous'' to fall. You couldn't take 10 for your acrobatics (balance) check while crossing a rope bridge either, etc.

The "can't take 10 when in dangerous conditions" can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. To me, it applies when you're in the middle of a fight, when something is attacking you or actively searching for you (because it saw you going into hinding) or when you're taking environmental damage (ex: trying to climb out of an acid pit).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maerimydra wrote:

solarius wrote:

Stealth doesn't make you silenced either.

house rule it whatever you like in your game, by raw an invisible mage IS a better scout than a stealth rouge.(still the same for higher levels, just need the wizard to cast some more spells or just send his pet)

sending a stealth PC ahead is a bad move, as after an unlucky roll you get surrounded by monsters while your party still waiting for you to report back. Stealth has been given more credit than it deserves but since it's off topic so let's just call it...

Why is the scout not just ''taking 10'' on his stealth check?

Take 10... aaaaand its a 34.

Plus the distance modifiers! :)