|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
A lot of options depend on exactly what's in the house.
I mentioned the home gym and stairs, which not all houses have.
The was a scene in Almost Human where a smart house killed its owner by closing the pool cover while the owner was swimming laps. The rules say you can't starve them out, but I doubt they can unhook your brain from within the pool while also fighting for air.
Likewise, there's no robotic arms with which you could just stab them (or do more direct sabotage), but how much control do you have over the Roomba, exactly? Is there a self-driving car? Can you actually control it or just set destinations?
The restriction on, for instance, mashing them with a door raises the question of other safety features. Is spiking a treadmill from 7 to 11 mph in the same class as slamming a door with great force? Does the pool cover have a purely mechanical failsafe that the house can't ignore (like the pull cords to open a car trunk).
Do you have access to the internet and credit cards? For instance, could you buy more equipment? Even if you have to socially engineer someone into setting up for you.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rules say you can't close a door hard enough to cause injury, so you probably can't break a window this way.
I understood it to be the same motivation that drives Lex Luthor in Superman-focused narratives.
Grand Magus wrote:
If someone says "Fracking created an earthquake that destroyed my house." they may be semantically incorrect in calling it an 'earthquake' instead of a 'sinkhole' or something else.
That is not the part that should be focused on: they're more focused on the destroyed house than the exact geologic phenomenon that led to the destruction.
As long as we're focusing on semantics, you say a sinkhole is mere 'bad luck'. Well, no. 'Bad luck', like the term 'accident', implies no one is to blame, when there is a clear actor to blame (the companies using fracking.)
Grand Magus wrote:
The point is that 'earthquake' originally meant 'the earth is shaking'. Any definition involving tectonic plates has to have come later. Thus, there is a gap between what a layman might mean by earthquake and what a geologist might mean. That does not make the layman wrong. Merely less precise.
James Jacobs wrote:
What about a 'Necromancer's Handbook' that is more in line with the Monster Summoner's Handbook? That is, not a guide for a single wizard specialty, but bits and bobs for anyone dipping a toe into that school of magic.
(For that matter, it could be interesting to have something like that for other schools. 'Book Book of Explosions' would talk a lot about evocations, but also alchemist bombs. 'Complete book of wards' and so on.)
The Raven Black wrote:
Wondering why V needed this scroll and how its destruction will impact the adventure
Locate creature is a utility spell that doesn't depend much upon caster level, so it is the kind of thing that makes sense for a wizard to carry on a scroll rather than bothering to prepare.
If V had a specific creature and casting time in mind, s/he'd probably just prepare it for that day. (For instance, if the plan was just to try to keep tabs on where Xykon was, or to try to infer what was happening inside the Moot, there's no reason to put it on a scroll first.)
V also MAY be able to teleport the 5 remaining members of the OotS after resting?
V is an Evoker with Conjuration as a prohibited school. (Other one is Necromancy). Can't teleport. Back when this was first indicated, V pointed out that prohibited schools were selected in 3.0, when teleport was a Transmutation spell.
That's why they needed the orb in the first place.
Charlie Brooks wrote:
In theory, swarms should work like Golems. I find that is less true in practice. Against Golems, spellcasters can buff allies, look for SR: No spells, or cast spells that affect terrain instead of the golem itself. Or even Aid Another on the barbarian's Power Attack.Against swarms, a barbarian can...hope he's carrying enough alchemist's fire to make a difference, and that the swarm isn't immune/resistant to fire. Or if he has a magical weapon with +damage elemental enchantment, swing for 1d6 + 50% damage instead. Swarms also have the double whammy of being both hard to hid and hard to defend from. A spellcaster can fly/levitate out of reach or at least buff his AC to avoid a Golem's attacks while his teammates kill it. A swarm doesn't make attack rolls - it moves over you and you are both damaged and debuffed (Usually with nausea or similar).
Golems turn off some spells. Swarms turn off the d20 numbers engine that the game runs on.
DM_Blake also misquoted me slightly to shorten my quote. I don't think swarms are never fun. I pointed out that it is too easy for a party to be under-equipped to handle one, both in terms of gear carried and spells prepared/known. A GM who knows their party can certain counter this - if you have players who largely wing it, you can avoid swarms that would kill them. If you have players who obsessively make sure they have at least three of any given alchemical attack at all times, you can have more leeway.
But that's less than good for a product line that thrives on pre-published adventures in the form of Adventure Paths. Almost by definition, those adventures need to work with a wide range of parties, and swarms are too likely to simply be difficult out of whack with their CR against too many parties.
I didn't say it wasn't realistic. You make a great point for why swarms work the way they do.
My point is that they are not fun. I don't have a better answer - while a high-level fighter with a magic sword probably should be able to hurt a swarm, I doubt you'd ever get a consensus on exactly how much.
I don't know what the right 'solution' here it.
Maybe its to get rid of the swarm mechanics and live with the fact that a swarm of killer bees or a carpet of rats might be better of treated as a hazard than a creature.
Maybe it's to give better monster design guidelines so that a swarm's CR can be better calculated, and their HP set in such a way that the party is more likely to have adequate answers.
Maybe it's to create more and better area-of-effect powers for martial characters, and possibly to insert some of them as default class abilities (or just combat rules) so that martials have options to contribute.
Anything but telling a 10th level character who isn't carrying 5 of every possible alchemical item that there is literally nothing useful he can do.
How about the Swarm subtype? I love what it's trying to convey, but 'immune to weapon damage' means martials can't hurt it, and 'immune to effects that target a single creature' pretty much eliminates any chance they had to affect it with something other than an attack roll.
Even if you come equipped with splash weapons, you can easily use up your splash weapons before a swarm runs out of hit points. Or it might be resistant/immune to the energy type of splash weapon you brought (I'm looking at you, vescavors).
Changing the rules on the party is desirable, but swarms are the kind of thing that lead to arbitrary TPKs regardless of CR because you didn't bring enough specialized gear and eliminated the ability of half the party to meaningfully contribute. Or because the wizard's last fireball left the swarm at 3 HP and then the party was out of gas.
Male Human Trap Breaker Alchemist 3
Argus looks grimly pleased with his bomb's results. Orcs and bandits...these he is equipped to handle. Burning alive is a terrible way to go, but those who live by the sword, die by...volatile semi-magical chemistry. Anyway, they started it.
He'll shoulder the big crossbow (move action) and launch a bolt toward the Orc harrying Lisbet (standard action).
Masterwork heavy crossbow, precise shot, point blank shot: 1d20 + 5 + 1 + 1 ⇒ (4) + 5 + 1 + 1 = 11
And 'toward' is probably the best that's gonna do.
Damage, just in case: 1d10 + 1 ⇒ (1) + 1 = 2
I think there are some players that lean on race/class to define their characters than others.
By which I mean, it you have a 'race of warriors' (Klingons) in your setting, there's going to be some people who will only make Klingon Barbarians - because if they're playing a fight-y type, they want to use the fight-y race. Even though you could make a human barbarian too.
I'd think that the human ethnicities would be actually great for these players - because it means you can play a Spartan, and not just a Klingon. But if you've already decided humans are boring, you'll never look.
I think the lesson of 'don't prep plots' isn't actually 'don't prep plots', it's 'don't prep fragile plots'.
Don't make plots that rely on the PCs making extremely specific decisions or succeeding on a single skill check. (Three clue rule.)
Don't make narrow assumptions about PC motivations to move from one part of the adventure to the next.
Don't plan 'cut scenes'.
Basically, Occam's Razor - make the minimal number of assumptions about what the PCs will do. But you do need a plot - otherwise your adventure sight has an assumed motivation of 'I dunno, we went to kill some kobolds/goblins/whatever.'
I also suggest that PFS also ban the Conjuration school of Magic. As well as Augment Summoning. And Elementsls off Summon Monster list. A Conjurers who specializes in calling Elememtals to me at least can be just as distriptive as the old summoner.
I'm not sure that being disruptive was the largest problem. I think it was the difficulty of auditing an arbitrarily complex eidolon.
It's required in PFS because PFS is a different animal than an Adventure Path. I trust the campaign leadership when they believed it to be an actual problem. If you're playing an AP at home, no one can make you do anything. Use the old summoner. Do what you like.
And in the context of Organized Play,a perceived problem is almost the same as a real problem. If you have a swath of players, or worse of GMs, who cringe when they come to the table with a particular class (summoner, gunslinger, necromancer, whatever) the fact is they're having less fun, even if there isn't a 'good' reason for it. That can drive down attendance (or, if the problem is GMs, fewer tables for the players who DO show up.)
Louis IX wrote:
Also, removing posts? Are you going to remove this thread, too? Ban me, even? Delete these forums because people express their opinion? Meh. I'll know if you do, and I'll sit back and remember the days of T$R.
If you're going to throw yourself on your sword, it's usually more effective if you make sure the sword actually exists.
A reminder that being Powered by Love is not always a good thing.
Don't think that happens? Just look at Prone Shooter. Originally, if I recall the statements made by the design team correctly, it was designed to give a bonus to hit while firing from prone. Then someone who didn't realize that the rules for firing while prone had changed between PF and 3.5 decided to change it so that it instead negated penalties that didn't exist,
Yeah. Multiclassing is basically broken (as in does-not-work, not 'too-powerful) for spellcasters, and the fact that it sort-of functions for non-casters just illustrates why those classes lose their luster at high level.
The 'multiclass' PrCs like Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge were band-aids for the problem, before the decision to just go all-in with new base classes.
I think a lot of the issues people have raised regarding firearms kind of miss the point of firearms in Pathfinder. They're SUPPOSED to be powerful (there's a reason firearms replaced every other weapon), they're SUPPOSED to be rare and expensive (only one country on Golarion makes them, and as a result they get to set the prices), and they're SUPPOSED to be tricky to use (early firearms were notoriously unreliable, and it took a lot of skill to get good with them). I think it's ludicrous that DMs ban firearms entirely because they don't want to deal with them; I just enforce the setting rules and limit them to early firearms.
They should be powerful - I've love to see them as increasing the Crossbow progression, and offering a high-damage alternative to using thrown weapons or a composite longbow with a strength bonus. A gunslinger should be a ranged character that can actually dump strength - while an archer still wants an 18 for his Str + 4 bow.
But targeting Touch AC - in a system where the base assumption was Touch AC is a gate to effects (spells, supernatural touch attacks, etc.), not repeatable high damage - makes them very powerful.
(In the base game, Touch AC is sufficiently secondary that a ring of protection and an amulet of natural armor cost the same, despite one increasing Touch AC while the other does not. If you have lots of guns in your game, ring of protection should cost 50% more.)
Not necessarily broken - not every encounter is a Dragon, and not every problem can be solved with bullets - but it is disconcerting that firearms get to completely ignore a +30 natural armor bonus. It takes a mechanic that was supposed to ignore a chain shirt, or at most +14 for +5 full plate and takes it to a ridiculous level. At a certain point, armor should become 'good enough' to stop or slow down a pistol shot. But the current rules do not reflect that.
SKR has an essay somewhere about absolute mechanics. I don't agree with everything he says, but I think the important takeway is that absolute effects very easily degenerate into absurd situations (Fire Giants walking on the sun, for instance.) Often those are corner cases, or thought experiments only (When do the PCs go to the sun? If the God of Locks shows up in an adventure, a few words could be spared to shut down knock. Whatever.) But a Gunslinger's ability to get a free (better than) brilliant energy weapon comes up all the time - there at lots of big, tough monster with low touch AC.
Elves and dragons should be able to witness the bulk of human history. (And the planetouched races have elven lifespans instead of parent-race lifespans has been subject to debate.)
But You're right - moving a decimal place is just mostly easier to remember. Dividing it in half still works, and means that Ancient Osirion goes back just about as far as Ancient Egypt. And it handily puts the right number of millenia since the calendar was at zero.
If spell preparation is doing 99% of the spell, then a wizard should be able to cast any spell he knows at any time by doing then long-form out of the spellbook. An preparation takes, what, an hour at the start of the day? If you're doing 99% of each spell ahead of time in that time, the long forms can't take *that* much longer.
The wizard CAN do this. It's why people leave a couple spell slots open and consult their spellbook.
Maybe this is a good time to admit that the rules around tunneling in stone, like the Craft/profession rules, are at best an extremely rough approximation of reality, intended to cover corner-ish cases like hacking down a door (instead of picking the lock or forcing it with a Str check.) Adamantine weapons are meant to be used for sundering and occasionally as 'master keys', not as burrowing tools.
They are rules of convenience, like how Burrow speeds almost never leave a usable tunnel.
The more your game focuses on these out-of-focus rules, the weirder things get. It doesn't matter if that's because you have an Alchemist PC who can churn out potions daily, but still takes weeks to make basic alchemical items.
Well, clearly he's wrong, since Roy does. But, Durkula mostly likely knows of the move because Roy told him (well, Durkon) about it sometime after his resurrection (he was already talking about it here).
Durkon/Durkula clearly doesn't actually know the move. But he's old enough to at least know OF the move, just as Wreclan does.
Ross Byers wrote:
In the other thread, someone actually put this really well
Doomed Hero wrote:
There's a lot in the combat system that clearly made sense when it's Orc vs. Human, but gets progressively weirder the more you move away from medium-sized creatures hitting each other with weapons.
Again, this is usually ruled in my games to be "you can see normally in dim light". In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone specifically address the range low-light vision stops working even in organized games.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Lighting is determined in a radius from the light source. Do you mean that Elves simply have no concept of 'dim light', seeing without penalty 40 feet from a torch, with darkness beyond?
(The amount of nitpicking being done here, sheesh. None of this really effects my problems with the rules in question).
It's because when you complain about a rule you're ignoring or changing, it sounds like someone complaining about a food they've never tried, or claiming a recipe is bad after making an unlikely substitution.