|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The language for the bandolier really gave me pause, because I had never read that before and I always treated grabbing something from a bandolier as a swift action. I mean, it's in a belt that is specifically designed to make it easy to grab. I believe the reason it gave me pause is this: Draw or Sheathe specifically states that if your weapon is "in a pack" or "out of easy reach," treat this as a retrieve a stored item action. The words "in a pack" and "out of easy reach," at least in game terms, are utterly ambiguous. Does that mean on one of those handy hooks on the side of a masterwork backpack? What if it's a dagger and it's literally in an inner compartment of your backpack? That's still a weapon, and it's still "in a pack?" Having read that rule multiple times, I always assumed a bandolier put things "in easy reach," and never even read the specific description of a bandolier. I have to say, I'm going to just make that another houserule and continue making retrieving something from a bandolier a swift action.
Having said that, I do think that the language of the Draw or Sheathe rule is so ambiguous that a player could easily interpret that to mean they can draw a weapon from the inner part of a backpack "as part of a move action" if they have a +1 BAB. Read that rule thoroughly, and you'll see that it is about as clear as mud, in game terms. Does that mean the devs were specifically trying to rule in a players favor devoid of realism? I know there are other places in the rules that do this, perhaps this is one. As it is, I'm going to continue to rule sans realism, and say regardless of where "in a pack" something is, in game terms it's a move action to retrieve it, and that action provokes an AoO because of how unwieldy an action that probably is.
Not happening. Unseen servant can lift 20 pounds, tower shield weighs 45 lbs. It could drag the shield for you, but I don't what good that would do. Interestingly, this does bring up the idea that an unseen servant is well within the parameters of the spell to carry a heavy steel shield. Do with that whatever you will. I still wouldn't let it block movement because it has no CMD, and an angry barbarian could barrel through it like a strong gust of wind.
Dude, I totally get it. Trust me I do. Like you say, though, there are A LOT of mechanics in game that don't, in any way, mimic real life. I mean, I probably can't get a book out of my backpack while holding onto my greatsword with one hand in three seconds, sure; I also can't summon a wall of fire to cut off my enemies' escape route and so I can listen to the lovely sound of their burning flesh.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I certainly understand the desire for this particular shenanigan; if allowed, it would make unseen servant among the most powerful first level spells in the game.
That's exactly why I don't understand it, and why I labeled it shenanigans. At any point does the logical part of a person's brain lend itself to thinking the spell called "unseen servant" should be one of the most powerful first level spells in the game? If the devs had wanted it to do what the OP is asking they would have renamed it "unseen combat stopping power of awesomesauceness-orama!"
GM 1990 I couldn't tell if you were advocating the additional move tax or not...? Give me TLDR version.
To the OP, it's a game, and the devs have decided that the move action to retrieve a stored item covers the whole action no matter what fluff description that takes in the game, one move action is perfectly fair. Adding an additional move is sadistic. In situations like that I like to remind the GM that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. This means NPCs that need to retrieve something from a backpack mid-battle might be taking two AoOs from my Swashbuckler with combat reflexes. :)
Edit:Ninja'd a bit by the OP. Monster races definitely aren't really prone to retrieving items, and if it's a campaign that spends the bulk of combat against monster races then it's a REALLY unnecessary disadvantage to PCs.
I've actually failed DC 0 checks before. Even got as low as a -2 on an Initiative check once.
That's awesome, I've tripped going down the stairs before, but I do not want my game about heroic adventurers to in any way simulate the foibles of real life. I want it to be fun to play and not make me worry about whether Conan will see Red Sonja lying half naked on furs 10' away from him, or unsuccessfully set his sword on a table.
Remember that we're talking about a system where there's an explicitly listed Perception DC for noticing that somebody's standing next to you and for hearing what they're saying to you.
Come on Jiggy, you can do better than that!? The listed DC is ZERO!!! Meaning they only listed them as a frame of reference for ad-hocing other DCs, not because someone might actually fail at it...
Daniel Yeatman wrote:
I'm almost certain that tying ropes in a non-grapply situation is a Sleight of Hand check now.
Tying ropes not on a person is called roleplaying. If you need some kind of a DC for the knot it's the character's CMD. We're talking about hearty heroes and adventurers here, why do they need to roll something to tie a rope on an inanimate object?
I'm surprised by the number of folks who have appeared later in the thread to support reading adventures before you've played them. It seems like an ill-advised practice to me. Cannibalism has its proponents too, but I'm happy to accept it as a taboo and skip further discussion of it.
Right, right because eating people and reading a book are in some way related, at all...
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
One could say that having fun with your friends is winning. :)
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
If you are willing to part with some of your hard earned cash I have found the GM Miscellany books to be invaluable. In particular in this case would be Random Wilderness Encounters. :)
Here's the difference between knowledge and inappropriate use of that knowledge as it pertains to game play and relates to the OP. Knowledge of what treasure is in a published module is not cheating. Trying to put forth that some of the treasure listed in that published module was earned by the characters when it clearly was not, is cheating.
Knowing that the goblin chieftain in area C-3 has a chest containing 3,300 gp worth of assorted coins, gems, and art objects is not cheating. Writing down that your character received that loot when your characters never even entered area C-3 is cheating.
Some people are very good at separating what they know from what their characters' know. Some people will take every scrap of advantage they can, earned or through subterfuge, because they forget that it's just a game.
I did/do, and the helpful people in the community pointed me to all the various resources out there. I decided to put the collection of links and tidbits here, just in case there were others that wanted to explore this new ruleset and see what it has to offer.
So, first, you'll want to take a look at the D&D 5e SRD.
In addition to that, Wizards has what they call the "basic" rules as separate PDFs.
Taking in all three of those resources gives you basically :P the complete 5e ruleset to work with.
I don't know about you guys and gals, but I always use Hero Lab for character creation, and you can still do that with 5e. HL has the SRD version of the 5e ruleset for the $29.99. If you purchase that and then go grab the 5e community package, you'll have a very thorough (not entirely complete, but it's getting there) set of character and monster creation data at your fingertips.
Hope this is useful to those that want to give the 5e ruleset a try. If anyone has any other free resources for 5e please post the links here.
Note that what's pared down is not the ruleset, but the list of character options. Could be relevant.
It is, in fact, very relevant, because if I'm paying for the character creation data from HL, I'm assuming they have all the options available. If the SRD is the complete ruleset, then we could start playing 5e sooner, rather than later. Thanks for the info.
So Qstor's advice that the rules are all online forced my brain to realize that there is, of course an SRD. My question for you that have played is: is that the pared down version of the entire 5e ruleset? Four-hundred and three pages of SRD covers the PHB, DMG, and MM? If so, color me excited because that means that we could start playing right away, and the only expense I'd incur is the $30.00 for the complete Hero Lab ruleset.
Believe you me, I thought long and hard about it! :) I mean, I seemed to do nothing else but think about it for the entirety of the length of time that I have had the book checked out from the library. I'll do some research into other people's alchemist hacks. Thanks for the heads up.
I'm thread necro'ing my own thread for two reasons. One: I checked out the 5e Player's Guide from my local library to give it a very thorough read through. Two: Hero Lab now has 5e support.
Regarding point one: Wow!! When people like houstonderek said that 5e gives the DM back a lot of power, he wasn't kidding. And, unlike some, I think that is a very good thing. When I tried to sum up the difference between the Pathfinder ruleset, and the 5e ruleset to my kids (the same ones I play at the tabletop with) I said this: "Pathfinder is a clunky mess, in comparison 5e is elegant and simple." That's the best way I can describe the difference. Things I love about the 5e ruleset are: the new treatment of spellcasting (prepared spells can be used in any slot a caster has open); the simplistic handling of equipment (buying, using, and selling); the entirely new ability score driven and minimalistic skill system (stealth actually works); and the REALLY simplistic adjudication of light and darkness (darkness is heavily obscured and unless you have dark vision you gained the blinded condition); add into all that the pretty simple and easily adjudicated movement and combat rules, and you have a winner winner chicken dinner.
Regarding point two: Hello!!! I've been using Hero Lab almost since I switched to Pathfinder, and I switched to Pathfinder right when it came out in August 2009. Hero Lab is the modern GM's best friend, making character creation, leveling, and even tracking combat a lot faster and easier. With the advent of 5e's SRD and HL support, my biggest barrier to switching is gone!
So, having said all that, here's why I'm NOT switching. Yes, that's right, after all that praise, I've decided not to switch to 5e, at least for the time being. My first reason is purely financial. I said it before, and I'll say it again. I've invested a LOT of money in Pathfinder "rule" books (class guides, ultimates) over the years. I do have a couple setting books, and a lot of actual "hard" copy modules (which could be switched to 5e with some work), but the bulk of what I've purchased are rule books. My second reason for not switching is, interestingly enough, character options. My sons and I have become accustomed to being able to do just about darn near anything we want to do with the races and classes. For example, one of my youngest son's favorite characters is his goblin alchemist, Kruncha. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no way for me to duplicate that character in the current 5e system. That doesn't mean that Wizards won't be publishing a lot of splat books in the near future. I can all but guarantee that they will, since they are in the business of making money after all. As of right now, though, Kruncha has to exist in the Pathfinder system. My third reason for not switching is this community. Over the years I've had a lot of positive (a few negative certainly, but more positive) interactions with the great people on these boards, and gotten a lot of my rules questions answered quickly and easily by brighter minds than mine.
So, there's that. Now, just to be clear, if, for some reason, I come into a windfall of cash money, you can bet I'll be switching systems posthaste, and figuring out how to closely replicate an alchemist with the available class option. :) But for now, I'll still be playing Pathfinder. Now if I could just figure out how to adapt the 5e skill rules into our existing game without too much work...
Has the argument ever been about fighters "sucking?" I thought the argument was that at mid to high levels the casters absolutely dominate the martial classes. I'm sure somewhere someone said, "fighters suck." But I don't think that that's been the baseline argument. The baseline argument is that there is a large disparity in power between full caster classes and martial classes once a certain level is reached.
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.