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

Malach the Merciless's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Dedicated Voter. 128 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pre 3.0 versions of AD & D had 1 minute rounds, so there was a lot of potential movement in that.

Anyone know if there is a Sin and Virtue table like in the RotRL Anniversary Edition that I can't print from the interwebs? Having trouble finding one and to lazy to create my own.

Maybe my players a rare breed but they never have issue, nor I for that matter if the GM says, x is restricted.

All my players are long time players, all I need to give them is some idea of the game system, setting, house rules, and such, and they go with it. They will ask questions but I don't generally limit their options as to what they want to build as long as they can give me some good background of their character concept and how it fits.

They will even bounce ideas off of me and other players while creating.

Of course we all have 30+ years experience gaming, with multiple systems and none of us are really interested in breaking the game, we are very interested in concepts, even if those concepts might be less than powerful characters. They always send me copies of their characters and will take criticism and suggestions for changes from me, but i don't force them on them.

As a good example?

We are starting the RotRL AP this week, they have made:

A Dwarf Barbarian
Half Orc Zen Archer
Human Fighter
Human Rogue.

They realize they have no magic support, but don't care and want see how they stack up. They are extremely creative players and will get around there limitations using that creativity. They also realize if they really are borking themselves, they will adjust and dip into other classes and use NPC as needed. It would not shock me if they go really far without dipping.

We have a ton of fun.

The Chort wrote:
SwnyNerdgasm wrote:
Are you and your group having fun? if the answer is yes, then you're playing the right way.

That's our general policy. And hellz yeah, we have a good time.

Even so, I'm curious if I as a GM decided to eliminate just one of these rules, which one it should be and what benefits might derive from that decision. I think we're all open to playing in new ways.

Try this, go completely opposite see what happens.

Five words:

A Greg Brady Cloning Machine

Here is a example from a recent combat my 6th level bard's party was involved in.

Fighting powerful BBEG and some of his mooks. Round one starts, the wizard on his turn hits him with a massive Lightning Bolt hurting him. BBEG moves into melee with wizard to kill him, hits wizard almost dead. Cleric bullrushes BBEG (who at this point was still very healthy) moving him out of melees with Mage, and back into the threat area of the fighter, and and flanking him at the same time. Changed the battle right there using battlefield control. BBEG is now flanked, in two threatened areas, in melee with two powerful melee combatants who could take his hits a bit better, and open for another killer shot from the wizard.

Without said bullrush, BBEG probably kills wizard and mess up bard with his full attack, while cleric and fighter close and attack.

Just a recent example.

If you start adding KB rules to 3.0 combat you add a whole new tactical rules to the game.

Roberta Yang wrote:
Malach the Merciless wrote:
This is covered under the Bullrush combat mechanic.
And no matter how many times you say that, the Bull Rush combat maneuver won't stop being awful. Have you ever actually looked at it?

Of course, but I see the need to have to "control" a mechanic like that based on the tactical rules nature of combat 3.0+ and how crowd control is king. It is what it is.

Again, if you really wanted to add a cinematic knockback, take a look a Mutants and Masterminds (D20 based), don't have the book right in front of me, but if I recall correctly, their Knockback system is damage based, and could be reversed engineered back to Pathfinder.

When I think of knockback, I am thinking superheroes. Knockback of a couple feet by someone falling form a blow, to me is not really knockback, but knocking prone. the original poster is talking about punches, strikes, and bullets doing knockback. Knockdown is much different than Knockback in terms of game mechanics.

Now pushing, or picking up someone, I would not consider knockback, but that is probably just semantics. This is covered under the Bullrush combat mechanic.

If you want to add Cinematic Knockback, pick up a copy of Mutants and Masterminds and convert their knockback rules (based on superheroes) to Pathfinder.

As for the "Physics" of knockback. Guns don't knock people back, and a bullet might not even knock someone down (at least not right away).

Physical attacks, well, just watch MMA, no knockback there, knockdowns yes, but knockback.

As a longtime player of LOTRO's PvMP (Player vs. Monster Player). I can tell you how they do it.

There is a seperate area, where you can bring your regular player in to battle players playing Monster (specifically Orc, Uruks, Wargs, Spiders and on the special occasions Trolls).

These Monsters are like a regular player character, you level them up, get new skills etc, with some major differences.

- First Monster players are overall weaker that regular players, monster players many time need to group up to take on regular players
- Monster player take much longer to get to higher levels than regular players (keeping them generally weaker)
- Monster players get not "Permanent" equipment. That only get essentially get consumables
- Monster players are limited to the monster play area (the Ettenmoors).

Monster players cannot communicate with regular players except by certain emotes. If a monster player talks while next to a regular player, that regular player will see gibberish, and vice versa. They cannot even communicate via Private message.

The regions is a psuedo war. Monsters vs Free People. The map has several regions, keeps, and such, that give bonuses based on what is taken over to the army takes it over. Monster players level by doing monster based quest (all simple gathering, and kill quests, no real plot) and killing Free People.

From what I know of the game PFO is a skill based system, not class based system. This means:

Anyone can pick up healing (Unless there are pre requisites)

So you could a Nercomatic Undead Master Warhammer Skills With healing.

Yes, political intrigue, social skills, ect

Just dotting, excellent work about to run some long time (D&D 1.0 - 3.5) through this on their first Pathfinder game, should be fun.

Water also effects the perception of the attacker, even those targets that are partially submerged. What you are aiming at that is under water, could actually be several feet from where it appears because of the way Water refracts light.

Additionally even bullets slow WAY DOWN when firing at something in water. If you have ever seen the Mythbusters show on this (Firing bullets at targets in water, even 6" of water was enough to slow some bullets down to less that lethal and throw off it trajectory.

One of my favorite characters of all time is a bard, who I had a concept for as a party buff, summoner, ranged guy.

So of course, I "optimized" him for that. When we started the game, my DM handed me a sheet that had a modification to my back story, and a "special" rapier (eventually turned out the rapier was a legendary item of his own devising) that I got in a mysterious way that I knew nothing about.

First few adventures, I was doing the old buff, ranged attack, summon monster stuff, when I ended up having to attack something with the rapier, which of course did some cool things.

So as I went up levels, I all but abandoned ranges, and my ranged feats, and started focusing on the rapier. By 9th I was not optimized at all in my original concept, nor was I optimized in Rapier Melee combat, but I have moved from Ranged to the Melee/Buff/Summoning choosing feat more akin to the the Rapier combat, than the bow combat.

One of the best campaigns, my fellows ever played, and this was 3.5, which really nerfed the Bard ability to pick up a new feat chain compared to PF.

So maybe that is a thought, have them get their concepts down, and then tweak them before the first game.

Make ups some rules, can he use the arm? If not give him a -1 to physical skills, including combat. Also if cannot use a arm, maybe he cannot use some skill without major negatives (Climb comes to mind).

D20, because of the abstraction of HP, does not have any RAW on this type of stuff.

Isil-zha wrote:

Is there a way to weave the geas into a tale you are telling the party concealing the casting of the spell and placing the orders inside the story?

Otherwise creating a magic item, like a book that casts the geas on the reader may be an option to get around the casting time in an indirect manner.

I would rule that could be possible, with the proper Bluff/Perform rolls to hide it.

Jiggy wrote:
(Psssst... It's "Guild", not "Kids".)

Sorry old and too much random stuff rolls through my brain and gets all mixed in.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

... you represent the Lollipop Kids

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, not to start a argument, but I would never play with that GM.

in terms of Remapping Keys this is also very helpful for those with disabilities, in one of the MMO's I play (LOTRO), one of my kinmates is paralyzed from the neck down, and use his mouth to play the game. Turbine was very helpful with getting his system set up to use the game via video conferencing, and now it is pretty amazing to watch him that straw.

Dedicated Voter Season 6

Only saw my item once, and of course just auto voted for it.

Dedicated Voter Season 6

Long term does not hugely matter, your vote is your opinion anyway, and if you don't like items like that, your opinion, your vote, but with the amount of votes, that won't knock said item out of the top 32.

Basic D & D, 1979, 7 year old, Keep on the Borderlands.

Yeah I agree with non instancing of War Zones. War if going on in that zone? You circumvent it or sneak through, pay your way through.

D20 is tough to do something like Broken Bones, lost eyes, etc, etc, because of the way Rules are (abstraction) and you have to rewrite a lot of the main damage rules to do so, never mind messing with the balance of the system. Other systems do this (GURPS for example comes to mind) but that would be learning a new system.

To do this you would have to come up with some type of crit system, or uses a Wounds/Vigor style system, and maybe even hit locations.

If you guys are not married to D20, I play in a GURPS ME campaign that seems to work perfectly. Magic is handle in much of the same way it is handle in the Lord of the Rings Online game (less power than the game of course than that, but the idea that magic is based off of nature manipulation and more esoteric things: rune stones, singing, etc)but magic is very subtle and very rare in the game itself.

Dedicated Voter Season 6

Seen it once

Jump Puzzle can be fun if done correctly. LOTRO added a Beacon based jump puzzle that I love a lot people hate, but if is kind of a funny little side quest that can easily be cheated (to complete the quest) with certain classes that can summon.

Why would I want to see them? Old School Tomb of Horrors! Of there must be a in game way to bypass them. You need to hire the local thief to disarm for example.

Some thoughts to you? Who is to say the T-Rex survives? GM Fiat is the number one rule, it fall off cliff into lava and dies. Characters of course are heroes and should survive if they can, but any Mook can just die at a GM's whim. If it makes sense to the story that the T Rex would die from that, he dies. Not big deal perfectly within the DM's ability to do so.

As for Video games, HP in those is also a abstraction. My MMO character does not take any negative from damage until dead, he gets negative from other mechanics is said video game.

Unfortunately 3.0 is designed to be played with a grid and minis. Half the rules kind of get tossed out or glossed when not using them. Prior to 3.0 there was really never a need for a grid, though you could still play with one.

Even games not as tactically minded as 3.0, I will still use maps and graph paper to help sometimes keep the flow of combat together, for example in a recent GURPS game, we used a map to track our movement and location in battle, but again that was just Paper and Pencil.

I have no issue using grids and minis though. It does not lesson my fun or make me lose my suspension of disbelief. Of course I have been playing RPGs since the late 70's.

Long time player never used a grid until 3.0, and even then didn't always use it.

Back in the day to keep track of combat we used graph paper a lot of times.

Chaotic Neutral - Looks out for herself mostly, and can act on whims
Neutral Evil - Selfish

Kind of between the two.

In real life? Morally yeah torture and mind control are bad.

I am fantasy world, where magic is used to sweep the floor, and king rule with a iron hand, that could all be normal stuff.

Animated Objects are considered Constructs and not objects so cannot be sundered. You attack them the same way you would attack a monster, reducing them to 0 HP destroys them. This is the same with Grappling rules, you would not be holding it, put pinning or grappling it (it fights back).

Happler wrote:

For example. How does a snake (or gelatinous cube since it also fits), voluntarily make itself "prone" in such a way to gain the following:

–4 penalty to-hit
cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow)
+4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks
–4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
requires a move action to "stand-up" to attack (provoking an AoO).

the snake is not going to "roll-over" to do that. Rolling over would not make it any harder to hit from range as it normally would be.

A snake or a gelatinous cube do not have the intelligence level to strategize like that. Additionally a typical snake has a +'s natural armor class, which comes from it's body type/stance I would think.

I guess my whole issue is, if x creature were immune to the prone condition, I am assuming it would be listed in their description. Paizo in generally does a really good job with the product, and I assume this is not being overlooked.

Again because of the nature of the game, if it were houseruled that certain creature could not be made prone, I have no issue with that (as with any houserule that is presented for any GM's game).

Pippi wrote:
TClifford wrote:

A moving snake would be prone, but typically an attacking snake would not be prone because it has reared up or coiled up to strike.

Why is this difficult to understand?

Mostly because it's not true? And even "reared up", the majority of a snake's body is going to be on the ground, where it is stable and naturally ready to stike.

Malach the Merciless wrote:

I would say yes, prone is a abstract condition giving the prone target negative and plus. IRL, snakes are pretty much always prone in the literal but you could look at it this way.

For a snake to attack it needs to "rear" up and not flat on the ground. You knock it prone, you knock it out of the attack/defense posture, so you can see where the modifiers come in. Snake has to recover from prone to resume it's attack/defense poster by RAW.

Same could be argued with oozes and jellies, when they attack the assume an attack/defense posture which is not flat to the ground, you knock the attack posture down it is now prone, it must recover by RAW or retain that condition.

Too much literal reading into the word prone, in a very un-literal combat system

Snakes don't have to rear up to strike. My baby can hit a rat from pretty much any position.

Regardless, I think it is good to look at the intention behind the prone state. It's not stunned or sickened or fatigued, a person who has been knocked prone still has all of their faculties about them, they've just been knocked down, a position from where, by RAW, it is typically more difficult to fight or defend. It's not really that abstract. I think it's one idea to think that you could interpret that a being isn't knocked flat but rather, out of their "ready to attak/defend" zone, but I rather like the idea of some beasties just not being subject to that. Looking at the actions that lead to a creature gaining the prone state, I don't know if I'd read it that way. Perhaps I am too literal, but what can I say? I like snakes. :)

I suppose...

My point is prone is a condition, read literally it is knocking someone on their back, abstractly it is doing something to a target that gives said target certain modifiers. Why that can't be applied to any target because of a literal reading of prone, is beyond me. Unless of course the target is "immune to be knocked prone" via a rule. I would also think that targets would be given that if that was the intention. This could open other issues with other creature also, as mentioned above flying/swimming creatures.

I don't see it unreasonable that you "knock prone" an snake or an ooze, and that snake or ooze needs to use it move action to relieve itself of the the prone state.

I have no issue with it personally as a GM. I would also have no issue if someone houseruled particular targets could not be knocked prone, if that was a stated house rule.

I would say yes, prone is a abstract condition giving the prone target negative and plus. IRL, snakes are pretty much always prone in the literal but you could look at it this way.

For a snake to attack it needs to "rear" up and not flat on the ground. You knock it prone, you knock it out of the attack/defense posture, so you can see where the modifiers come in. Snake has to recover from prone to resume it's attack/defense poster by RAW.

Same could be argued with oozes and jellies, when they attack the assume an attack/defense posture which is not flat to the ground, you knock the attack posture down it is now prone, it must recover by RAW or retain that condition.

Too much literal reading into the word prone, in a very un-literal combat system

I have cleric that uses it as a dirty trick at times, pours over a combatants, or their helmet, armor, etc suddenly has rush of water in it.

Blindsense (Ex) Using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing, a creature with blindsense notices things it cannot see. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent the creature cannot see still has total concealment against the creature with blindsense, and the creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

So if you meet all the rules for blindsense, yes. If the dragon still need line of sight or effect for the spell to work, then no.

this is how D20 is designed, your AC does not generally increase but your mitigations do (IE HP bloat and DR) as you level.

To fix that would would have change fundamentally how combat works in D20 games.

HP would have to be much lower if you could increase defenses as you level.

A good example is a game like GURPS.

In GURPS your HP, doesn't increase dramatically, what does increase is your ability to negate damage (through active defenses like dodging and parrying to passive ones like DR). So as you go higher in power, you allocate you character points to improve that stuff, but HP never gets super high, and typical strike from a longsword can do knock you down 3/4 HP or more if it hits you.

With that being said, GURPS is very different mechanically than D20 for combat.

You could do a Vitality/Wound thing for HP.

Vit is just like HP, minor scratches, injuries, Wounds are more deadly/disabling.

There is a variant in the Pathfinder SRD similar, have you looked at it?

Wounds and Vigor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dwarfism in humans (real life) does not result in childlike weakness, in fact many little people can be as strong or stronger than regular sized adults if you need a real life example. This in real life is considered a "disabling condition" to a "normal human"

Translate that to halfling, which that height and mass are normal for the race? Don't see an issue.

Oh and did you see that dragons can fly?


Oh wait . . .

Let's just all play GURPS, we could all be no armed, no limb time manipulators . .

I use this alot:

[/url=]English to Sindarin Dictionary[/url].

Basically I look at some english words and translate them to Sindarin, and then maybe play around with it

What you are trying to do it bring realism and logic to a non realistic illogical abstraction.

You have a 6 second round, combat is going, people are moving, attack, dodging, parrying, hitting, and firing ranges weapons in that 6 seconds. In these 6 seconds? Abstractly this bowman is probably firing more than one shot, and those he or she is shooting at are dodging, ducking, fighting, moving. So it all balances out in the long run with simple modifiers.

Now if my Bow guy is firing at some who is intentionally trying not to get shot, and using their full movement to do it and nothing else? They target is seeking out cover, dropping prone etc?

If the target does not know the bowman is there? the Target is flat footed.

Now throwing out RAW, perhaps in the above two situations you give the shooter a circumstance bonus for aiming.

It is the way to system is designed. There are other systems that you can do what you are trying to do, but they are completely non D20 based.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jack Chick wants to post a new banned topic list

SoulGambit0 wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

the following 10 commonly recurring topics need to be banned on at least a temporary basis

1. monk bashing threads of any kind

2. martial vs. caster disparity threads of any kind

3. antagonize is broken threads

4. synthesist is overpowered threads

5. alignment threads of any kind

6. guns and gunpowder hate threads

7. oriental hate threads

8. threads pertaining to how melee combatants can't do anything to fight ranged or flying foes

9. threads complaining about entitled players or adversarial DMs

10. threads complaining about the existence of dervish dance or agile weapons

I suddenly have an urge to find a way to make a thread about all ten of these things at once. Maybe about how the Monk sucks because it puts a "Lawful" constraint that really puts an undue straightjacket on eastern religions/traditions, highlighting how frankenstinian the mesh-up between eastern and western fiction really is. That mesh up, of course, lead to getting guns in my medieval fantasy spreading the proverbial mayo even thinner. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if the Monk was good, but in a game that allows such overpowered things like the Synthesis and other Spellcasters, how can any melee combatant keep up? The monk being sub-par for that by being so MAD (I mean, even other Finesse Fighters get Dervish Dance, I mean why are they allowed that kind of BS while a Monk has to spend on three stats?). I'd say that the Monk's Acrobatics an Speed let them actually do something in a fight against ranged or flying foes (unlike basically every other melee-er), but that implies the Monk can do anything but twiddle their thumbs dramatically. I guess you could say that the Monk could just focus on Dex/Wis anyways and be a tank but what are they suppossed to do, buy Antagonize? So the only way they can be relevant is to rely on a feat that we all know is OP and BS. imHo, all these problems are just because of the secret Paizo conspiracy to cater to players that just feel so...

But he can flurry with body parts, guns, and spells all at once right?

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.