|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So, with the new Iron Gods AP coming out soon, one of the big questions that's been rattling around in my head that is likely to occur to a group of players is:
"Alright! We killed the technology-using robots! What can we strip/salvage off of them?"
My original thought was just for pieces of various skymetals used in a bot's construction, but with the release of Numeria: Land of Fallen Stars, which revealed some of the technology that the robots in it have (see spoiler below), will the AP cover rules for recovering pieces of tech off of defeated robots or similar opponents? I ask because it would feel like cheating the players out of some of the game if the above question was always answered with "Aw shucks, the robot's mainframe got fried and ruined all its technology, and somehow denatured all the metal used to make it. Darn."
Arachnid Robot: Plasma Torch
Torturer Robot: Force Field, Lasers, and Nanites
Side note: no word yet on metals used to make said robots.
I will often try to give advice to people who aren't as good at optimizing as me, but if they choose not to take it, that's fine. Unless...
A problem player I once gamed with once built an Tiefling Fighter Archer whose feats were:
Obviously I told Precise Shot was needed for the character to even be viable, but he would have none of it. The only problem was that he would constantly complain that everyone was more powerful than him. (So you know, this is not what made him a problem player but that would cause massive digression.)
I personally love to powergame things. I love the puzzle of it. "If I do this and this with this, then things get nifty. Ooooohh but wait! If I add this then.....Wow." I like seeing how far I can push a system's capabilities.
However I will never willingly play a powergamed character. They tend to detract from everyone's fun by:
1. Unbalancing the party.
These are my experiences with powergamed characters, usually played by others, but I've wound up playing with GMs who run high power games and even expect a certain level of powergaming but still handle you with a, b, and/or c. On a side note, I will always strive to be optimized, even if my concept doesn't work for optimization. (I once had a Bard who had Play Instrument.)
Whirlwind Attack prereq's:
Improved Cleaving Finish Prereq's:
So that's 10 feats to get this off in all its amazingness.
That's 8th level for a human fighter or 9th for any other race fighter IF you spend all your feats on just these.
If you just went for Cleaving Finish (To gain one extra attack) then you only need to spend 8 feats, putting you at 6th/7th level for human/anyone else. That's a hell of a lot of feats, but a nifty combo. :)
Flavor is a good way for the players to feel like they're doing more than just "Ug walk up and hit with sword." The OP's example of a player's narrative attack is a great example of this, as long as the player understands that just because they're hacking at the monster's neck, they're not going to cause it any additional detriment. Imagine that instead of a CR 19 undead, it's a CR 10 Huge-sized Giant of some sort (I'd look up something specific, but I'm being lazy). If the player hits, you might have a hard time explaining to a more narrative-centric Player that the giant isn't dead/in shock/bleeding out horrifically after sustaining 39 damage to the side of its neck with a power attack from a battle axe.
One thing to keep in mind is that in D&D/PF is that HP and indeed most parts of combat are an abstraction. HP tend to be more of one's ability to avoid harm than sustain it without dying. 3.5 had a great section about HP's that talked about this abstraction that said that said HP's can represent anything from ability to avoid harm to physical combat fatigue to dumb luck to divine providence (Example given being a Paladin being unfazed after soaking a fireball). Only the last few hits should do any real harm to a person as humans are actually really very fragile creatures. Alas, Pathfinder Core lacks this section.
I recently played in a game where the GM and another player didn't quite understand that. We were about 5th level, and a party member got shot in the lower back by an enemy archer for about 6 points of damage. After we sought cover, she started working to deal with the arrow, she examined it and the GM (being a logical fellow) said it was a man killer so it was very barbed, making pulling it out unviable. It was suggested to push it through, cut off the head and pull it back out (as you should normally do with most arrows), the GM stated that because of its placement that would kill or almost kill her because it would go through a lot of organs on the way through. (We eventually dealt with it using the clever method of randomly forgetting its existence and getting on with our lives.)
That's one example of adding fluff to an attack that actually wound up making what should be the most minor inconvenience in the game at that level a massive hindrance that nearly killed a PC. I personally try not to describe the damage dealt or attacks because they invariably wind up being too lethal-sounding for someone, or making a player feel disgruntled when they describe a huge amazing attack that hits and does damage only to have the GM describe its resolution as "The monster just barely manages to get out of the way in time, avoiding harm." I did have an idea recently which was to not describe attacks except for particularly epic circumstances or if they will hint at some defense the monsder has, like DR. But then when a player kills something, before letting them know that it's dead, tell them "Describe your attack," followed by whatever they say going off perfectly. This gives the player a feeling of being a super badass while avoiding "But I hit Mister Wizard-McBadguy in the neck with my axe!"
Wow.....that dragged on a bit... <.< >.>
That was my first idea, but it seemed a bit obvious, and the OP did ask how to make traps relevant. I am agreeing with you, a character who has built himself to be awesome in a field should feel awesome in that field, but devising ways to challenge said character in their special field of expertise can be a way to add some excitement to the game. In this case, uber-traps should be the exception rather than the rule. Uber-McTrapmeister not only gets to feel useful by disarming common traps in his sleep, but then occasionally they get to feel legendary by overcoming a challenge that would thwart a lesser mortal.
Monsters in a room with traps, monsters know where the traps are and avoid them while trying to herd the PCs into setting them off. And throw some glyphs of warding on the ceiling behind illusions just to screw with flying PCs.
Also, put an Explosive Runes trap on the underside of the lid of a treasure chest, goes off auto: "Today I memorized Exploding Runes." Or it could be something hard to not read: "It."
It's interesting that it feels like about a fifth of this thread has become a debate about fumbles. Is it really that big a deal? Like most things in gaming, fumbles have their place and the possibility to be done well. But most people don't like them because they tend to add injury to insult. In the game I'm currently in, I frequently drop my weapon because my GM uses them, and I hate it not only because it's debilitating, but also because he playfully mocks me for it. I plan to talk to him about it at some point, but just haven't gotten around to it yet.
Honestly, it feels like this thread's getting a bit derailed, but that's just me.
Finally got around to actually looking at those things, and OH MY HOLY DAWNFLOWER!! How the hell does a swarm of mosquitoes deal 2d6 damage plus 1d6 bleed????? Where are these mosquitoes spawning?? The Worldwound?
Cue the science music!!!
According to science, it takes around 400,000 mosquitoes all pulling their maximum capacity of blood to kill a human, but that's an ungodly number of insects (even minuscule ones) to attack an individual human. I'm having a bit of trouble tracking down real mosquito swarm numbers, but most of them probably aren't that big. Hell, the human body can't even fit that many mosquitoes on it at one time. My rough estimation is that an average human body could fit about 18,500 mosquitoes on it at any one time, assuming you're fully shaved and naked. Meaning you'd need to be Fully Covered in a new layer of mosquitoes 21 and a half times before you've lost enough blood to actually die (assuming you stand there and take it without killing any of them). As the internet is also not very forthcoming with how long it takes for a mosquito to fully feed, I'd put my estimation that this whole process, if done in as unrealistically efficient a manner as possible, would take probably about 20-30 minutes. Though, if after about the first 15 you said "screw this," you'd probably want to go to a hospital immediately and inject their entire annual supply of malaria vaccine.
Oh! And turns out getting away from them wouldn't be too hard either, since the average mosquito's top speed caps at around 1.5 miles per hour. Meaning (Mathmathmathmath) the swarm would have a fly speed of 15 feet IF you round up. (Real number is 13.2 feet.)
Yep, pretty sure Golarion mosquitoes are from the Worldwound. Or at least Hell. Since a relatively small swarm of them can outrun most medium-sized prey, and murder the hell out of said prey in a matter of under 30 seconds.
Actually it's quite simple for the Tarrasque to destroy a small town, it just uses Trample. ....Oh it doesn't have trample. WHY DOESN'T IT HAVE TRAMPLE?!?!?!!!?!? Oh well, at least its natural weapons are treated as Adamantine. Hmm? What do you mean IT LOST THAT?!?!!?
Well, fine then, one could say that the Tarrasque is one of very very few creatures that can perform Combat Maneuvers on buildings. It's certainly big enough. For one building, Trip. For the town, Rush+Charge+Overrun. Aaaaaand there's 300 feet of buildings gone. For the next ten rounds it does the same to 80 feet per round, followed by another 300. That should bring down Sandpoint, or maybe even Magnimar, in about an hour. (I don't know how big Magnimar is.)
Or perhaps it can treat buildings like opponents and can thus use the Awesome Blow feat on them. (Insert huff and puff joke here.)
Though, I wonder, have you ever really looked at the Tarrasque, I mean Really looked at it? If you look super closely, you'll notice that it's covered in a very fine layer of fluff. And it's that fluff that allows it to murder its way through towns like a wrecking ball with teeth shot out of a railgun.
Giving monsters feats that they should have to make them more scary can be just harsh. Some monsters are built without them for fluff purposes. Example: the 3.5 Tarrasque took Toughness six times in favor of better feats, like Improved Crit for each of its attacks, or literally anything else.
Also, one could argue that the Witchfire's appearance might ruin its invisibility as a matter of course. Invisibility works on light sources but never the light they emit, and it would be pretty hard to imagine "a fiery being that emits no light." To be fair, the party wouldn't know what this roughly cylindrical pillar of green flickering light was until it reached out a hand and touched one of them, but still, it would likely not gain any real stealth help from invisibility. Further, one could also argue that incorporeality doesn't necessarily foil Blindsense/Blindsight under strict RAW.
Lastly, that last round, while super effective, is the kind of thing most incorporeal creatures can do, just not as well. They'd probably have to whack-a-mole their head up a few times before finding a safe place to pop up and watch the party from, a head+ sized rock for example. Then follow, etc. The only reason this doesn't happen is because if the monster did this, there would be a GM in the real world suddenly feeling very, very lonely.
I once had a GM arguing the exact same thing, just different part of the rules: melee weapon =/= natural weapon. And because the rules on performing a Coup de Grace said "melee weapon" it can't be done with a "natural weapon." Apparently lions, tigers, and bears (oh my) are incapable of ripping out an unconscious (or otherwise incapacitated) animal's throat with teeth or claws. That action requires at least a hand ax.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
'S a lot of long words, we're naught but humble gamers... ;)
Hmmmmm, it just occurred to me that whether or not this would be a violation of a Paladin's......Paladinhood is probably based on his deity's beliefs.
Would his god/dess see it as a great method of punishment/rehabilitation, or mind-rape?
Are you allowing them the chance to atone, or violating their most basic fundamental rights?
Remember, some NG and LG deities are alright with the "ends justify the means" reasoning, while others require you to do everything in your power to uphold order and good in every step of your journey.
It also just occurred to me that this method would probably be used by a Lawful Neutral Inquisitor...
To get back to the debate of whether or not it's moral: That's massively up for debate. It depends on your belief system and whether you feel the ends justify the means or not. There really is no correct answer here, guys. Different people will feel different things, that's just how it is.
Someone probably already posted this, but here goes:
New campaign idea:
There's a Kingdom with a zealous Paladin who forcibly employs this use of a HoOA as a punishment against evil-doers. All of them, from petty thief to mass-murdering psychopath. Altering anyone whose alignment is Chaotic Neutral or Evil-anything. The party meets this man and could become good friends with him until he witnesses a CN party member doing something questionable and either tries or succeeds in "bringing the criminal to justice."
This seems a great way to establish a Good-aligned villain (Lawful Good even) into a campaign. Especially if he refuses to back down while logically and rabidly defending his method as being "The best and only way."
I hate powergamers.
I love building powergamed characters, but refuse to play them.
I love Rogues, but hate that they suck.
I love the Tarrasque, but that that it sucks.
I hate Summoners. All of them. Twice.
I hate when GM's don't know what they're talking about.
I hate when people play outside their own sex.
I like blast spells.
I hate GM's who don't know how to say "No" to disruptive players who want to join their game.
I hate the backwards compatibility.
I want an AP in Numeria.
I hate Evil's image as a forbidden alignment.
I hate players who always gleefully jump on the Evil alignment when it's available.
I hate that Necromancy is usually seen as Evil.
I hate Drow as a playable race.
I hate the Tengu.
Strix are stupid.
Most of my roleplaying game experiences have sucked and have left me jaded. ;(
My 2 cents:
I personally have always had a love of the base races, I don't know why, but they've always appealed to me. In 3.5, I tend to like Humans and Half-Orcs. Pathfinder, my favorites are Humans and Half-Elves. This isn't to say I don't have a fondness for other races (I have an Ifrit in my head that I've been dying to play for.....waaay too long. :\ ) I just tend to prefer the base races.
The only issue I have with exotic races is when the party goes overboard with it. I've been in a few too many games with people who played almost nothing but exotic races for various reasons, powergaming, 'it's cool,' powergaming, roleplaying purposes, and powergaming. And also powergaming. Not to be confused with optimization. (I understand that this is not the norm, this is just my personal experience.) Jumping back to the beginning of the paragraph, when I say 'overboard' I mean that the party looks more like Mommy Fortuna's escaped exhibits than a group of adventurers. We once had a party made up of a Mongrelfolk, a Stonechild, an Illumian, a Doppelganger, an Asherati, a Shade, a Blue, and a Tinker Gnome.
As I said, I have nothing against exotic races, but when everyone in the group is playing something exotic with no rhyme or reason, it tends to seem a bit silly. I mostly agree with an earlier post about there is no wrong reason to play an exotic race. There are, of course, always exceptions to every rule.
The Katana isn't the super weapon I thought it was? Next you will being telling me too much bacon is bad for you.
The Katana isn't the super weapon I thought it was? Next you will being telling me too much bacon is bad for you.
The problem starts if someone really shows up at a game with one of those and expects to be allowed to actually play it. And then shows up on the board to complain about being denied by his (smart) GM. ^^
Yep. Met some of those. I've also met people who refuse to play if they're not allowed to break their characters into the middle of next year. If you're not willing to play the game at the level it's meant to be played, or that which the GM's willing to deal with, you're playing the wrong game. To that end, I hear Exalted's good this time of year... :p
Stuff...Lots of it.
Thank you, you have been most helpful. All the stuff non-clone related was about what I thought, but I needed a second or third opinion. The clone stuff.....Yeah, I chose not to even really start on that. Lol
On the topic of the Falcata barb, I agree with being against min-maxing shenanananananagins. I personally enjoy bending the system as far as I can to see how loud of a breaking noise it'll make. However, I dislike it when people play such things because it's no fun when one person outshines the party, which is why I don't play them. They're just a lot of fun to build. And then you post them on the DPR Olympics and make everyone's heads explode.
Ooooooooh, DPR Olymipics comma Mythic anyone?
Diego Rossi wrote:
Well played, sir.
Dude, you already have the book. Those are questions which are best posed to the designers, the best I could do is give my opinions as a player on them...
Which I would be very interested to hear. Opinions are what I'm looking for until a developer covers them either in this thread, a different thread, an FAQ, or some other medium. :D
Also, what if a Tier 9-10 Mythic character (Immortal) doesn't take the Longevity Universal Path ability? Without it he still takes aging penalties and has a max age. Does the character still come back if he dies of old age? Can he die of old age? Also, the image of a Venerable Human [Insert Martial Class here]20/Champian 10 seems hilarious. Heh, "Get off my lawn!"
And another thing: How does the Guardian ability Cling to Life interact with Immortal?
And yet another: How do either of these interact with the Clone spell?
What if you die of old age at Tier 10 after taking Cling to Life and having an active Clone spell?
A question that's been bothering me since I read it..
If a Wizard/Archmage takes Perfect Preparation, and discards his spellbook, as it says he can, does he still have the ability to learn new spells from scrolls and other Wizards' spellbooks? And if so, does doing so still cost the same amount to "scribe" the spells onto his brain?
So, I've been wondering about this for a while now, can one use a "Swift Action" ability as a move or standard action?
A specific example would be a Paladin wanting to use smite evil, (swift action) lay on hands himself, (swift action, change to move) and take the total defense action (standard) in the same round.
Similarly, could a Paladin lay on hands himself twice in a round, using his swift and standard actions? Afterall, using that specific ability on himself is a swift action, but using it on another is a standard, so are they interchangeable when the paladin uses it on himself?
Could the same paladin use lay on hands on himself, smite evil, and cast a quickened spell? (5th level or higher take Extra Traits feat for the Magical Lineage trait choosing, let's say, CLW and then getting to 14th level. A bit featy but totally doable.)
Yes, all of my examples involve a paladin, but that's just because paladins have that unique takes-two-different-action-types-depending-on-circumstances lay on hands ability. I'm curious about if swift actions can be traded out for other actions for any class. I know that one can't do it with quickened spells no matter what is said here, but I still wanna know about what people think about other swift actions getting used as move or standard actions instead.