|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
Checking with the community to determine what the general consenus is regarding the Hungry Ghost Monks "Steel Ki" ability. The player wants to steal ki from unconcious opponents (for instance, an opponent that was nocked below zero HP by another party member), justifying it by the fact that a coup de grace is a critical hit. Technically, as per RAW, this is true. RAI? Probably not so much. Thoughts?
I have a player that wants to take subject feat. Rolled a half-orc, and wants to get the most out of his bite. The feat clearly states a pre-req of three natural attacks. My argument is that the half-orc only has one natural attack (the bite) and the otehr limbs would be considered unarmed attacks. Am I correct?
I'm pretty sure that "It does get hard for them (a monster at expected CR at level 8) to compensate." = disruptive. If the "single" CR equivalent monster can't hit the tank, the encounter is (in most cases) a cake walk. If we add more lower level baddies to generate an equal CR, then the baddies have ZERO chance of hitting. And, this happens most of the time in AP's.
31 is easy for a fighter at lv 8. Agreed! "Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items."
This question came up because the PC's triggered a trap, got hit for 2d6 acid damage, and then quickly left the area. The rules are so unclear on how to adjudicate the item damage however, so the CR7 trap seemed extremely weak to simply allow the PC's to not worry about any of their equipment and walk out of a high level trap with only 2d6 damage.
Did you forget the 50% miss chance for being headless? Vortch would be very brutal without that miss chance...just sayin'.
Why would a Druid be killing gravediggers anyway?
See page 178 of Core. Under the heading "The Combat Round", it reads: When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of roundsend just before the same initiative count that they began on." Therefore, I think this supports the "roll a 1 on the d4 and the dragon uses his breath weapon again next round" interpretation.
Too funny! You're a player in my game...aren't you? <shakes fist> I would rule that the goblins get another perception check since the ranger is clanking down the hall, and may blow the rogues cover. Since the rogue is already hidden, and most likely aware (perception check vs. the rangers stealth) of the incoming ranger, I would rule that he gets another stealth check (at a +4 since he was already hidden) to account for all of the new activity. Just my two coppers...
OK, so if I understand this correctly, the use of a ranged touch attack coupled with the use of this ability results in the target losing his dexterity bonus to AC (as if he were flat footed). Essentially, in this scenario, the target loses the benefit of his armor (touch attack) AND the benefit of his Dexterity (flat footed). Is that a true statement? Is that the intent? My initial understanding (due to the wording) was that it simply lets a rogue gain the benefit of a sneak attack even though/while normal conditions would not allow it. So, based on my interpretation, this item would only be useful to a rogue with regards to the insightful shot.
Well, I tend to agree. However: "Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you." and "In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform." In my example, isn't a shield considered a one-handed weapon? Likewise, each since each "weapon" is in a seperate hand, the attacks don't technically "require two hands to perform".
Really? So one festival per year costs 1 BP per month? That equates to 48,000 gp in value. This seems way out of whack!
Dude, you just said that the word "squares" is used to define the penalty, then went on to explain using fractions. <boggle> I get your meaning though, so all is good....it's just added to the confusion...I think. ;-P The other spell is Stone Call, not Spike Stones. After the AOE damage, Stone Call affects the area as "difficult terrain". The main question is very simple. Does difficult terrain stack? The rules (gasp) are not clear. In some cases it makes sense that it would...others?....not so much. Is it a balance issue? An official ruling would be nice! Just checked the Spike Stones spell, and it states that anyone moving through the AOE moves at half speed. So, yes...your example is correct. However, this was not the question or the spell I used in the example. Again, the question is simple. Does "difficult terrain" stack?
The exception is rather than adding the multipliers, you multiply them. \ Roger that, I understand that now. Thanks! Here is more to add to the confusion: As per Core p.193: If you occupy squares with different kinds of terrain, you can move only as fast as the most difficult terrain you
The word "squares" leads me to believe that this applies only to creatures that occupy more than one square. for example, a large creature occupying three squares of clear terrain and one square of difficult terrain will move as if hampered by difficult terrain. Now, if we take that same example and say that the same creature instead occupies three hexes of difficult terrain due to the entangle spell, and the last hex is affected by both the entangle spell and the stone call spell (both of which cause difficult terrain), is he suffering a x4 penalty? (According to the above posts, the general consensus is that there is no such thing as a x4 penalty due to difficult terrain not "stacking", but I'm offering the above example as food for thought to possibly support the case that it does.) Discuss! I wish we could get an offical ruling!!
Starting to second guess this again: The only reason I'm questioning it still is the wording "This is a specific exception to the normal rule of doubling". What does this mean exactly? To me, it implies that the hampered movement conditions stack (so, more than one "difficult terrrain condition" will apply another 2 square penalty). Take bonuses for example....many bonuses (of the same type) don't stack. Is this an example of "the normal rule of doubling" in effect...the fact that they don't stack?
Very good, everyone! That's another problem solved!
If an area is affected by the spell Entangle and then the same area is affected by the spell Stone Call, does the difficult terrain impose a double penalty for the difficult terrain that both of these spells create? (Normally, difficult terrain causes you to move at 1/2 speed...do the two spells stack to cause a 1/4 speed penalty?)
Hmmm...I didn't say the rider was asleep, but I think you've answered the question in partial anyway. I'm really wondering if it's possible to order a combat trained horse to attack an opponent even though his rider is not currently mounted. It seems to me that a horse would need more than a verbal command to do so. It seems appropriate that a horse would need a rider pulling the reins in a certain way in order to coax the trained horse to attack. <shrug> Does it seem reasonable that a horse could be commanded (for instance) by it's rider (that is standing 20' feet away) to run over to a sleeping opponent and kick it in the head? What if that opponent was not sleeping? (To me, it seems like the horse would be rather passive about it...unless it was being attacked of course.)
This question came up yesterday: Is it possible for a combat trained mount (in this case, it was a horse) to get an attack if it is essentially unattended? Consider that the rider has dismounted and is in a 5 foot square next to the mount. Can the rider direct his horse to attack an opponent that is within reach of the horse? Can the mount be directed to move (sans rider) to an opponent to attack? What if the the opponent is asleep in the above scenario?
If a 3rd level caster uses this spell, is she allowed to pick three unique and separate 10 foot squares to affect? Or, do the rules state that the 10 foot squares have to be "touching" (as in sharing a side)? Likewise, do the squares have to be " a square composed of 4 5 foot squares"? Or, can she affect, for instance, a row of four 5 foot squares? Who knew there would be this much math involved? :-)
Here is how I will rule it then: Crawling 5 feet is a move action in normal terrain. So, in order to crawl through Grease (difficult terrain) at 1/2 speed, it will require a full round (figuring 2.5 feet per round) and a DC 10 Acrobatics check (per move action) to move 5 feet. So, if a character is prone in the Grease and wants to crawl out of it (a 5 foot move), they will have to make a DC 10 Acrobatics check (as a Move action) to crawl 2.5 feet. Repeat the process again to end the turn prone in the adjacent 5 foot square. Likewise, if he succeeds on his first attempt, but fails the second, he will only need to make one successful attempt the following round to get out. He could then use his remaining Move action to stand up. I think that is a reasonable ruling.
A character has moved (as observed by his enemy), and stops to cast invisibility, and is then subsequently the victim of a Grease spell and fails his save and falls. His enemy moves in to take a swing with a 50% miss chance. On his next turn, the Invisible Grease victim wants to crawl away (essentially making a 5 foot step to crawl as a move action) to get out of the area of the Grease spell....does his enemy get an attack of opportunity? Likewise, does crawling through Grease negate the need to make an Acrobatics check?
I'm currently running Stolen Lands with core classes. With the release of the APG, the players are interested in using the new powers and features presented in that book. I'm concerned about the power creep. Will the use of the APG by the PC's reduce the challenge of the AP as written? I'm not interested in the extra work that may be required to compensate for the increased power of the PC's. Thoughts?
I have yet to receive the subject order...I sent two emails concerning this (one last week, the otehr last night), so I am trying to get a response here. According to this site, the subject order was shipped to me. Also, a later order (#1461244) has been received. Did the subject order get returned? Lost? Please advise. -Steve
Last comment on this: A. I have some new players starting in this campaign that have been playing for around 10 years. I grew up on 1st edition through AD&D, stoped playing for many years, then recently learned 3.5, 4th, and Pathfinder. B. The new players all play MMORPG's. As have I....way too many I'm afraid to say. I understand the general nature of those games. :-) I know, for a fact, that a players age and his/her point of reference have a huge impact on what type of game they will enjoy. I was merely trying to determine your point of reference to gauge how my game might be accepted by a group of younger players. And, I think I've accomplished that, but I'm sorry if I offended you. Please accept my apologies.
@legallytired - Of course...randomly. That's just the old school gamer in me I suppose. I'm not a big fan of min-maxing to the nth degree so I can have the best, most optimized character for combat. I think these drawbacks/limitations do add the game a great deal...it's just not in the form of more bonuses and extra damage. It adds to the challenge, thus making each victory more rewarding....not just another group of mooks the party mowed through. <yawn> Just curious, how long have you been playing D&D? Do you play MMORPG's? @WarforgedGardener - 10 point buy....one thing I didn't mention was that I would probably give each player (at some point in the game) rewards for good role-playing (not funny voices or dramatic dialog per se, but good solid tactics and use of the other non-combat aspects of the game...like actually perfoming like your avatar "should" based on the character concept and alignment). The rewards would be something like a +1 or +2 bonus to an attribute. They would see these no more than once or twice throughout their career though. All other stat increases would be per RAW. Of course, if things get too dicey, I can always increase their power level to suit....easier than taking power away after they have already had it. Besides, stat increasing items are available in the game, so this will just put a cap on the max stat increases before they get out of hand.
Yes, so he is destined to not be the best melee fighter...but he may end up being fleet footed and gain a boon of +10' base speed. It forces the player to make some choices.....stay back and use ranged? Or, rush up and provide a flank? The game is not always about combat though. I suppose it takes a particular type of player to enjoy being challenged along that level.
Why is dropping a weapon on a 1 or 2 "especially" a bad idea? I think it's fun and keeps things interesting. Yeas, a -2 penalty to attacks does suck, but it only applies to ranged attacks. Again, a unique bane for a single player...not the entire party.
After they gain 1000 exp, they pick a class. So, now they can have all the skills & perks of the NPC class plus the benefits of the class level. Which should actually make them a bit tougher than an average PC. What do you mean "normal point buy"? It would be tough to gimp a player enough to make him unable to quality to cast 9th level spells...the requirement is a 10 + spell level in the applicable attribute. And, no feats for the NPC class.... My thinking is that each little victory will be that much sweeter due to the increased challenge. Most PC's become really powerful around 6th level (as compared to the challenge) when using a 20 or 25 point buy in my opinion.
I'm planning to start a group of 5-6 players this weekend, and I'm doing things a bit differently with starting characters. They will start as a random NPC class at -1000 experience. I've given the NPC classes certain bonuses that reflect the rules for NPC boons...for instance, the Commoner class gets a +2 bonus to Heal checks (+4 for disease and poison). Aristocrats get bonuses to Knowledge (Nobility) and Bluff. Things of that nature, just to keep things interesting. Likewise, I will be rolling for a random bane and a random boon. An example bane might be that the character is Clumsy and drops his weapon on a roll of 1 or 2. Or they could have the shakes and suffer a -2 to ranged attacks and -1 to ranged damage. A boon would be various bonuses to skills. Finally, they will get a campaign trait, and possibly (undecided on this) two of the character traits. Here's the kicker though...I'm seriously thinking that I will have them use a 10 point buy for their stats. I want to keep the game challenging and deadly....otherwise, whats the point? :-) Is this too restrictive? Any feedback would be appreciated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
