|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts 
Wow cut into the party's rewards because you made a tactical mistake? I would never do this. What actual harm comes if you let them have the xp? You're hung up on the principle that challenge and reward have to be equivalent. If you're going to arbitrarily change xp values based on how hard you think they're trying/how well they're doing, why not just use the freeform experience variant Paizo suggests and not play games with the numbers along the way, potentially bugging your players?
Hate me for saying this, but you need to chill. This is a complex game and it bears mentioning that the Gamemastery Guide and Core Rulebook repeatedly advise GMs to adjust rules where necessary. This isn't chess and it isn't brain surgery. You're insisting on being rigid and complaining that the game doesn't hold up to your level of rigidity. If you don't like the feat don't use it. If you don't like the book, then the answer to your question is, don't spend your money next time. At the very least you could ease your tone on here a bit. They're not out of line for asking you to do so. You're being a diva.
Ustalav is probably my favorite location in Golarion. I love gothic horror and have been aching for more of it since the last time I ran Ravenloft. I've been wanting to whip up my own campaign there because I suspected, what with the Worldwound and all, that it wasn't at the top of the list of locations to get focused on. You made my night James. =D
I house-ruled back at PF's release that undead and constructs get a +4 to AC on rolls to confirm crits. I suppose fortification is probably a more elegant way to handle it. I had forgotten the game already included a crit-resistance type of mechanic and I might use that instead. At any rate, I agree with the OP that it still feels like there should be some kind of compromise. I feel like 3.5 was too far one way and PF is a little too far the other. In the end it's a minor issue, and I see where Abe is coming from too. These types of monsters do have mechanics to make them tougher to hurt than normal humans already, but imo it seems like some type of crit resistance would fit the flavor of undead and constructs, since one of their defining qualities is a lack of conventional weak points. A golem or zombie with an arrow through its chest/head isn't going to mind as much as that human whose heart/brain/achilles tendon/etc gets nailed, bringing him down immediately. I could understand houseruling it and I could also understand just leaving it as-is for simplicity's sake. It'd be interesting to see if the designers had toyed around with fortification or something similar before they arrived where they did.
It took me nearly a month to find out, as I've been going primarily off of my PDF of the book, but my copy of The Varnhold Vanishing is missing something close to 14 pages (as pointed out by my friend who wanted to read part 3 of the fiction bit only to find that it wasn't there). Would it perhaps be possible to get a fixed copy stuck in with the next subscription shipment? And purely out of curiosity, has anyone else had the same issue? We had a chuckle after scratching our heads for a while. Thanks for your time. Customer service aint always pretty I know. Keep up the good work. - Josh
Name: Gyorg Snowcrest
The party invested 2000gp in an elaborate funeral for the dwarf, generating enough publicity for an extra fame point. A hellknight, inspired by the memorial service, cast aside his helm and resigned from the order. Also, I chose the end of the funeral as a beautifully brutal time to trigger the events of book 4. =)
Stealth allows you to avoid detection, hopefully resulting in a situation where you are aware of the target, but the target is unaware of you. If you succeed on stealth, you can gain the benefit of a surprise round, in which you can potentially attack the person flat-footed (since they have not yet acted) for sneak attack damage. At least, this is my understanding. I'm not sure why this becomes so controversial, maybe because WoW players are picturing a middle-of-combat *poof*, virtual invisibility, and then an ambush, which makes little sense and is not how stealth works in DnD. Once your surprise is spent and the target knows you're there, you have finished stealthing and begun fighting. Whether the target sees you running towards them is irrelevant for determining whether you can sneak attack, and that's why the rules don't address it. If you attack the target before the target is able to act, you have effectively caught them off-guard (flat-footed) and get to deal your sneak damage. Stealth just helps you get the jump on your opponent (surprise round) at the start of combat.
Personally, I'd give the fighter who readied an action a perception roll when the sniper pops. If he makes it, he gets to take his readied shot (otherwise he didn't spot the target in time and so missed his chance to shoot). After the rogue takes his shot, if he wasn't spotted and wants to try to stay stealthed another round, I'd say let him have a try at -20 as usual to poof back behind cover. If he pulls it off (extremely unlikely), there could be any number of explanations as to why. Maybe he popped just as the fighter blinked or glanced down, or moved with the swaying shrub-leaves as a breeze blew by.... who knows. It's not like it's gonna happen that often. These are just my ideas for handling it. I know you're mostly concerned with the written rules though. I agree with you that stealth isn't and shouldn't be a middle-of-combat thing. I think it's intended to allow you to get the jump at the start of a fight by getting you a surprise round, or to get up close before you are noticed. In 99% of cases, I'd say once you're spotted there's no re-hiding. They know you're there. It's not about subtlety anymore. Just my two copper pieces.
One point worth considering. See PF #25 (Bastards of Erebus), page 46: Adventure path spoiler: Had I not read this I would have considered spiritual weap a nono for invis, but I guess it is lumped with other summoning spells. Still doesn't clarify much about flaming sphere, but seemed worth mentioning.
"While invisible, Palaveen casts spiritual weapon and directs it to attack a lightly armored character."
As far as that last quote goes, I believe Orc Blood, like Elf Blood, is for spells/items/abilities that affect certain races, like an orc bane longsword, favored enemy: orc, or the like. I don't think it's referring to anything beyond that sort of thing. As for the light-sensitivity being mentioned in the Bestiary and not the races chapter, I don't know. I would assume the core book is right in this case when it omits it. Maybe the orc subtype doesn't apply to all half-orcs, it's just listing its common uses. It might depend on how "half" the orc really is, what race it is mixed with, etc. Ultimately, I'd say go with your preference or leave it off entirely. I'm pretty sure it would be in the races chapter if it were intended to apply to players.
Srs passive aggression in this thread. People should take it easy. I'm not bothered by barbarians the way they are now. From a combat-centric outlook, I agree with the folks who say that fighters probably have more potential. Still, it's a role-playing game. It's about flavor and story as much as anything (at least to some people), and I don't think the gulf between the class power levels is even as large (or significant) as people make it seem. You can make a solid and functional barbarian at any level, and if it fits your playstyle and character concept I don't think it should stop you from playing one in any circumstances. Don't forget choosing a class also means differences in skill selection and the fact that, well, biting your enemies is hilariously cool. Frankly, if my roleplaying group started getting this concerned over numbers I would tell them to rethink why they're playing the game. Maybe my reasons for playing are different, but I think the strengths of the game go far beyond everyone being able to dish out the same dmg (in fact, that sort of environment sucks), and having classes exist with reasonable differences is a good thing.
Ok. If it boils down to a question of anatomy then I'd probably lean towards not keeping the attack for the same reasons you named. And from a rules standpoint it's just not very specific one way or the other. I'm probably going to drop it honestly. I can't justify it regenerating anything without having flesh. Thanks for the insight mdt =)
I'm building a manticore skeleton. The skeleton entry says the creature retains all natural attacks except those that can't work without flesh. Also says under special qualities that the creature retains any extraordinary special qualities that improve ranged or melee attacks. My question is whether the manticore keeps its Spikes (Ex) special ability. Seems like it probably would, but wanted to see what you guys think. Bestiary pages 199 (manticore) and 250 (skeleton) if you decide to flip to it. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
