|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Jarvis X. Crookrows wrote:
Hah, that's alright! It's been a bit hectic at our house trying to get everything ready. Figures that this is the same time our AC decides to die. We've got Aurelia and Guinevere for names we're like 99% sure.
That's fricken awesome!!!! Congratulations. I must have missed that one as well... Those names rock the house. Next table game I run, I'm going to make some NPCs with those names in homage.
You correctly ascertain that we should no longer derail this thread, but I doubt a new thread is warranted. You continue to take my words and turn them into whatever you want them to be. At no point did I use the words "all the time," or "on a regular basis." For whatever reason you came to that conclusion because I continue to advocate that using the SoH skill to pick pockets is actually a viable application of the mechanic in game. At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree. You think there is no place in a game for PC's to pick pockets, ever. I think there is absolutely a time and place in game for PC's to pick pockets, yes, perhaps even more than once. One of the most wonderful aspects of this game is that you can find a table that suits your needs, and I can find a table that suits mine; obviously that won't be the same table. Happy gaming! :)
I read all your posts, but they don't have a consistent logic so I have to make some educated guesses at what you mean.
And your educated guess directly disregards something I flat out stated? That sounds like a rather uneducated guess to me.
So, the only reason to pick pockets ends up being to be "annoying". The simple act of even attempting pick pockets once is enough to bring unwanted trouble to the party for an unknown 'reward'. It's right up there with sapping people in public and turning out their pockets...
That argument stinks of fait accompli. You would have me believe that the only reason that any person, ever, picked any pocket was "to be annoying." Come come now, we need not resort to such tactics.
I agree that picking pockets definitely comes with risk, depending on the situation, but then the situation definitely plays a factor, and would need to be addressed as a real component of any argument for or against using the skill in question to pick pockets.
I'd also like to point out that the very first phrase in the rulebook description of the skill is "to pick pockets."
PRD: Sleight of Hand Skill, emphasis mine wrote:
So clearly those people that created the game didn't think that the only reason to pick pockets was "to be annoying."
That you feel picking pockets is an annoyance to your game is clear, but certainly you cannot claim to know that is the truth for all tables everywhere. Can you not fathom the table in which players actually have fun watching the party rogue filch a bag of coins from a wealthy merchant who's well into his cups?
He's pretty much saying if you put points in sleight of hand, you'll pickpocket everyone.
I mean I get it if the party rogue is picking everyone's pockets, that would get annoying, but if they see an easy mark, and want to take a little easy loot, what's the problem with that?
You actually either didn't read all my posts or are trying to make me sound like an extremist. I actually, expressly, clearly, and I thought pretty concisely said, if a rogue pickpocketed everyone it would be annoying, ergo: don't do that. But that doesn't mean that picking the pockets of some choice individuals somehow ruins the game for everyone.
This really flabbergasts me, that someone would be mad at a player who has their thief-built rogue try and steal things from people? Is there opportunity for more heroic uses of the Sleight of Hand skill? Sure, but I don't see how you can be upset with somebody because they spent skill points in Sleight of Hand and actually want to pick pockets? Also, "I am a thief, I steal the things..."
Dictionary.com - Thief wrote:
I mean... that's the first definition of what a thief does?!
There can't really be that many people angry at a player playing a thief-built rogue who steals things, can there?
MendedWall12: Not every rogue is a thief or has ranks in sleight of hand...
Right, but when they are and do, you'd expect them to want to get the most out of the expenditure of precious skill points, wouldn't you?
And my problem isn't that players do pick pockets. It's when they do it only because they put skill ranks in Sleight of Hand (I've seen this happen a few times).
I guess I'm a little confused here. Again, if a player used the precious resource of skill points in the Sleight of Hand skill, wouldn't you expect them to then want to get the most out of that expenditure, and actually do one of the most useful things that skill can do, pick pockets? I can't be mad at a player for putting skill points in Sleight of Hand, and then wanting to actually use the skill to their character's monetary advantage.
I'm going to assume that all the self-referencing pronouns here were just for convenience, and not actually a statement about whose game you believe the game to be, because if my DM was that narcissistic, I doubt he'd have people staying at his table very long. It is, after all, supposed to be our game.
Also, just so we're clear, aren't rogues, as a class, designed to pick pockets? They are, after all, thieves, and thieves pick pockets. It is, potentially, one of their major ways to "earn" money. I mean I get it if the party rogue is picking everyone's pockets, that would get annoying, but if they see an easy mark, and want to take a little easy loot, what's the problem with that?
Thank you!!!! Just knowing that someone with coding ability is still interested in Combat Manager as a project is good news. I don't know about proprietary things, so not sure if you can just release a "Snapshot version of Combat Manager"? If so, I'm certain everybody that uses it regularly would certainly give it running try.
This. It's been argued back and forth with enough reasonable logic on both sides, so that when all is said and done the answer is: "whatever your table has decided." Let that be that, and move on.
One thing I've always wondered about these, and I own one of the forest packs, so it obviously hasn't prevented me from buying: why aren't they double sided? Making them double sided would greatly increase the number of combinations possible... I have exactly zero publishing knowledge so there might very well be a really simple reason that I don't see, but if these could be made double sided, it would certainly give a lot more bang for your buck.
Hugo Rune wrote:
Right! Which is why I said before, there are a lot of "senses" players and GMs have to use. In your scenario above, there's common sense, and narrative sense trumping mechanics, and there are absolutely situations in the game where that is the case. That's why the rules are pretty explicit about the fact that, sometimes, you need to know the gist of what a character is saying before you make a roll, because it will absolutely have an effect on the character(s)' reactions. I agree though, that what a character is saying, is much more important than how a player is saying it. The how is reflected in the dice rolls, but the what is static, and if the what is the verbal equivalent of pulling out someone's heart and eating it with taco sauce in front of them, it doesn't matter what shows on the dice.
GM Piratey Steve wrote:
Ha! Awesome. I once ran an adjusted Kraken encounter in much the same way. Each tentacle was its own "monster." It is still one of the most memorable encounters I've had at any table. Thanks to good dice rolls, Aghon has been rather useful in this encounter. ;) Also, did I mention this campaign is hella fun!? Good on you GM Piratey Steve. My continued thanks for you running this!!!
Manly-man teapot wrote:
Given that the trait explicitly spells out uses that are not covered, I'd interpret it to cover those uses that are not excluded.
This. I'd take the word persuade to mean both #1 and #2. Also, in contrast to BlackJack Weasel, I think it is very possible, through logical argument, to persuade someone to "like" your character. This is because in this situation to "like" means simply to adjust the friendliness of someone's attitude. This is a mechanical application of rules, and not a real-world approximation of social interaction.
Totally agree. The arena ran its course, and, I do believe, actually served to prove the point that the power of Pathfinder is in magic, and that if a character wants to be able to persist through mid to high levels, they will need access to it in some way, shape, or form.
Thanks to all those that participated. On to other things. :)
Just wanted to pop back in and say that it has been over a week, and I've not heard anything from Kyle. It does appear that this project is, in fact, most sorrowfully, dead. Like I said in my previous post, I am very thankful that the latest version I have is very stable and has all the functionality I need. It's a shame that newer monsters and NPCs won't get updated, but these things happen.
R.I.P. Combat Manager
The Sword wrote:
The need to apply a mechanic to every single element of the game is one of pathfinders main flaws imho.
I would not argue that, but you have to remember that 3.5, from which Pathfinder is derived, was designed as a "more dice" system. I mean, remember that 3.5 had Spot, Search, Hide, and Move Silently... That's a crapton of dice rolls for trying not to be noticed by someone, and someone trying to notice you. For many players of the game, rolling dice is part of the fun, and they want to roll the dice more often, as opposed to less often. I think with the advent of a variety of diceless systems, we've seen the hobby in and of itself make a back-swing into some players and GMs wanting less dice, as opposed to more. Ergo D&D 5.0...
Edit: As I was thinking about this, I realized that there are a lot of different "senses" players and GM's just take for granted when playing a role playing game.
Common sense (if it came in a box everyone would have some)
Okay, I get that, but if you look at your hypothetical and my hypothetical, you are talking about investing in an ability score, two feats, and minimum 200 gp to get an additional 1-7 damage; My character only invested one feat and 50 gp. So from a simple economy standpoint, heavy crossbow wins. And, I'd daresay that if you start looking at actual economy of character investment, the crossbow is as good, or only slightly less good than its longbow counterpart at mid to high levels.
What really bothers me is how absolutely horrible a crossbow is in game when it was the most deadly weapon of war in the Middle Ages. I guess every crossbowman unit was full of fifth level bolt ace gunslingers.
Absolutely horrible? I guess I'd disagree with that. A heavy crossbow is a simple weapon, which means virtually everyone can use it, and for the price of one feat your character is capable of doing d10 damage per combat round, possibly critting on a 19+, and all that is from a range of up to 120 feet. Especially at low levels, that is pretty darn pernicious.
Astral Wanderer wrote:
Bluff gives also a perfect example of why you should talk first and roll later: the roll gets certain modifiers if a lie is particularly believable or not; if you roll first and decide the lie based on that, how are you going to know what modifiers you should have applied? Or are you going to pointlessly apply them retroactively?This is a great point. The language from the bluff skill actually says
Bluff Skill emphasis mine wrote:
If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true.
This absolutely demands that the player state their character's lie before the roll is made.
In addition the Make Request action of the Diplomacy skill is going to require that the player openly state the request before the roll as well, because:
Diplomacy Skill-Make Request wrote:
Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
So clearly there are sections of the rules for social skills that assume the player is offering up something before the roll is made.
Java Man wrote:
If you keep thinking off these sorts of questions you will go crazy, or have 300 pages of adjustments and house errata. Just remember that people can fly and throw fireballs in this game.
Dude, this. Just so much this. People can be invisible, fly, and shoot magical rainbows that knock people unconscious and blind them. Not to mention an acolyte priest can grow your arm back if it gets chopped off.
Why worry about it? I mean, unless you have a metric crapton of time on your hands and you just like researching these things to pass the hours, then, by all means, have at it.
Dude!!! I was just thinking about this exact thing the other day. The new series from escapistmagazine.com Natural 20 has an episode almost entirely devoted to just this very thing. You have to watch it in order to understand, because it would take way too long for me to explain. Let me just say this: after someone roleplays their social skill check first, and then rolls the dice, you get moments like this.
Which is why I firmly believe that, sometimes, especially in social roleplay situations, the dice are a suggestion, and can, definitely, mean much less, or nothing at all, when compared to the qualities of a player's dialogue/monologue. Not everyone plays that way though, and each way is equally valid. :)
Is the Combat Manager project dead? This is one of the best help programs available, and it would be a shame if Kyle had given up on it.
That's a question I've been pondering a lot lately as well. It's been almost a full calendar year since Kyle posted an update, and I haven't looked but it seems like quite some time since he's popped his avatar in to say "hi." My guess would be, yes, it is dead. Thankfully the last version I have works very well, with very few crashes. Not sure if anyone else out there wants to take up the mantle? I know there is a sourceforge page. Not sure if the full code is available on there or not? Also his email address is listed on the combat manager site... perhaps I'll just shoot him an email and ask what's up?
Edit: Email sent. I'll certainly post something if/when I hear back.
Bastards of Golarion actually has an entry about it: Half-dwarves, half-gnome and half-halflings don't exist because of biological incompatibility. Doesn't mean you can't do it in home games, of course...
So tab A does not fit into slot B. Got it. :) Obviously, by the contents of this thread, the idea of half-dwarves as a homebrew race is not a new idea. So race builder it up!
Meaning you want me to tell you what my character is going to do before my character actually does it...? On the off chance that what my character is going to do will be construed as hostile, and therefore warrants rolling for initiative? I think that forces a little bit of a "let's all read each other's minds" situation on everyone. Also, since text is terrible at showing tone, I'm not being acerbic or sarcastic. I'm really asking, because as I imagine the transition from sitting around talking at a table, narrating the story as a collective group, to initiative rolling, sometimes there is a really grey area there, and in situations like the aforementioned that grey area can cause discomfort.
Okay, I am not disagreeing with you, because your logic is totally sound. I just want to get clear how this operates in a certain situation. The corner cases with this are going to be situations where things might turn hostile. For the purposes of imagination say a ranger sees a gnome, that he suspects is evil, about to take off on a sleigh full of children that the ranger is certain will be used in devilish sacrifices to some dark god. They're not in initiative yet, because nothing hostile has happened.
Ranger nocks arrow and draws bow: Freeze Gnomey-Mcgnomepants! You so mutch as twitch a hand on those reins and I'll drop this arrow in your eyesocket.
It would be my assumption as the player of this character that I could in fact ready the action to release that arrow if the gnome so much as twitches a muscle on the reins.
Now, is the initiative rolled right there? If so, what if the ranger botches the roll? Clearly the gnome isn't going to be surprised, so there's no surprise round. But, according to your logic, the ranger can't ready a standard action to fire the arrow, because initiative has not been rolled yet.
Or, does initiative get rolled before the ranger makes his hostile statement? If so, how the hell could that be, because nobody knew the ranger was going to be hostile until he made the hostile statement...?
Again, I agree that the fact that the ready action is listed under special initiative actions definitely speaks to it having to be used while in initiative, but there has to be a way to "ready" an action outside of combat for situations like that listed above. So how would that operate?
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
This. I had a player that really wanted to play a race like the Weezards of the Boast's Dragonborn. We made it using the race builder rules, and it works just fine. Really, with the race building rules, there is no race that is "off the table" to use a bad pun. :)
Mike Shel wrote:
What gives, fellas? Posts are really trickling in slowly! I thought the idea was everyone posting daily. C'mon! Snap to it! This spectator is very much looking forward to a few upcoming encounters that make those fish look like a pleasant interlude.
I say this with the utmost respect and admiration: F@#$ you! :-)
I seriously do not want to take away from any of the work that people have put in, obviously even some 3PP thought these rules were necessary, but I have to say. WTF?!
In every game I've ever played, drinking alcohol was just part of the flavor of the campaign, because taverns/inns are frequent venues for information gathering or resting. The idea that people would sit around a table and discuss, in minute detail, the type of alcohol consumed, its strength/weakness, and actually roll dice to discover whether or not their brave hero got hammered and passed out, seems ludicrous to me. Maybe that's just me, and maybe I'm the product of a too too busy lifestyle, but moments at the gaming table for me are too precious to be spent rolling dice to determine tipsiness. There's adventuring to do, monsters to slay, dungeons to crawl. Onward brave heroes!
I'm fine with going one on one again as well. Seems like the ability to recruit has died drastically after the initial interest. Not sure if bumping the recruitment thread would even make a difference at this point.
If you want us to roll initiative in the gameplay thread just holler. :)
Okay, I have the alias partially set up and GM approval for my 6th level all Paizo caster. I'll be PMing CMDM here shortly with the alias and my three rounds of preparation actions.
Edit: Did want to note that I have a question put to the DM and I might be tweaking the character just a titch based on his answer. All things considered though I should be ready for the arena by Monday of next week. :)
Samuel Hutchinson wrote:
Besides seeing Deadpool tomorrow night, I'm free to play.
Jealous!!! Please pop back in with at least a brief review. I actually have a pretty busy weekend myself, but not because of anything as exciting as Valentine's celebrations or going to see Deadpool. I'm afraid my business is for much more mundane things. Perhaps that's why I so enjoy fantasy gaming. :)
Just saw this series today, and was in the middle of Episode 2 when I thought to myself. "Really?" No DM is that bad. I mean we all have bad days, and we all have those brain-fart moments, but on my worst day I could come up with a reasonable encounter with as little information as the terrain and climate. This is exactly what random encounter tables were created to solve.
And yes, I get that it's supposed to be comedy, but even comedy should be remotely realistic.
I'm still here, and I have a bunch of ideas for my 6th level caster. We're using all Paizo, correct? If this week doesn't bring any new surprises I should have my character ready to submit by the end of business on Thursday. :) Sorry again for the delays. Real life has been throwing me some curve-balls lately.
You know, you're right. There are many spells, like glyph of warding, and the symbol spells, that have a specific note about the difficulty of disabling them, and the fact that only a character with the trapfinding ability can use disable device to disable them. Alarm has no such language, but I've always run it under the idea that it could be disabled at a 25 + spell level DC. I think I may have even read in a module along the way that Alarm could be disabled by a rogue just like a normal mechanical alarm...
Interesting. This is one of those things that could start a whole RAI/RAW string of posts.
I'll add to what Jiggy said with the knowledge that I did everything in my power to make sure the fighter got the best initiative bonus, because I knew that I needed to win initiative to even have a chance. That a fighter built specifically to deal with an invisible flying opponent (which is what I assumed would be the tactic going in) got beat simply because she lost initiative absolutely proves Jiggy's point. Terylinlara was specifically built to make sure the wizard couldn't get away, and he got away. Now, granted, I was stuck with only Core Rulebook options, and there are some options out there that would have benefited her, but in the end, Jiggy is exactly right. She was built to get the jump on a wizard, and didn't get the jump. That I forgot to buy a simple magic item that could have absorbed magic missiles, in the end, didn't really effect the outcome. Once she lost initiative, it was over, and I knew it. When I saw that initiative dice roll, my stomach and my heart sank. I actually had a real physical reaction to seeing that roll.