|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Saying an eagle can't use its talons when on the ground would be a pretty sharp departure from the rules, IMHO. It would raise a ton of odd questions: How can an octopus swim at all if it uses all its tentacles for attacking? How many does it need to move? Etc...
Well, there is another episode that qualifies. We played a group of seriously dysfunctional superheroes in a Mutants and Masterminds game. Part of the concept was that the story we told was a comics story.
One day, we had taken a few hits including humiliation, a breached homebase, and so on, from a woman named Nightmare. She had dream powers, and a completely amazing regeneration. You can probably guess where this is headed.
Once we finally track her down, we slaughter her zombie minions like dry leaves, then turn to her. We found pretty quickly that she was completely unkillable. This did not prevent us from trying our darndest, though. She was repeatedly torn into tiny gobbets, massacred, burnt, splattered across the walls... but she regenerated even from these dire fates. So we started getting extreme. Among the highlights was my character (a big strong tank) lifting the two-ton lid of a stone coffin to smash down on her every time she started trying to regenerate, splattering her blood and body all over the floor, us, ceiling...
It ended when we finally realized we couldn't kill her. So we put her in a massive safe torn out of a wall for the purpose, squeezed it together to keep her body from regenerating more than a little, flew across the world, and dumped the safe in the Marianer trench.
After this episode, with every comics panel filled with rivers of blood, the comic book got a new, far more restrained cartoonist. Everyone followed this.
Just a hint, though... if you even start considering mythic rules, all the above get far, far worse. For summoning-focused characters, they get summons as standard actions and even swift, meaning two such spells per round, each with either +1 creature (if summoning more than one) or mythic templates (if summoning just one), epic DR... it gets monstrous pretty quickly.
No, it's going to be 12-24 Con. Even that is if all of the stirges attack the same target, all hit (even touch attacks aren't automatic), the target isn't immune to ability damage and whatnot, and so on. The stirges can probably all start in the enemy's square. However, doing significant damage to one target after several rounds, that depends on a variety of factors to function, that can be mitigated actively by the target or his allies, using a level 3 spell? Sounds about right to me.
Thing is, that happens with one creature. Once they did their attack, anyone else they attack gets an AoO against them, which should kill them handily at level 5+. Yes, touch attacks hit most of the time, yes, Con damage is scary, but all in all? 1d4+2 Con damage means 4-5 Con, meaning around 2 hp/HD of the target in damage. For a d8 HD monster, that is a bit less than half its hp. Can be powerful, but generally situational.
I don't think so, really... Using adaptive tactics, changing situations and fast combats is a valid style for everyone, it just happens to be one that hits the summoner hard. The lantern archon is scary because it has a light ray touch attack that passes through DR. Remove its ability to pass through DR and you'll find the dynamics around it change, if it is a problem. See, the damage isn't that impressive anyway.
Let's just say this: If he summons a grig, he can get it to cast entangle, but it will have less effect and take longer to do than if he simply cast entangle himself. The pseudodragon has no reach, so needs to be in someone's square, and though its Stealth is absurd and it has a decent poison attack, it's not what I would worry too much about as GM. Fauns have sleep DC 14, can be upped to 16, but it's just as limited as the spell.
Elementals are pretty decent at low levels, but that passes faster than you'd think. Flooding the place with earth elementals is not tactically relevant for long.
Aurochs are okay. The big cats are wonderful (dire tiger in particular). Bralani azatas with their lightning bolts are good. But lantern archons remain relevant for a long, long time.
Uh... no, a summoned eagle can start on the ground next to a target goblin and proceed to shish-kabob that goblin with its three attacks. No hover, flight or anything else necessary. At low levels, though, the range of the spell isn't too good, so you will need to stay within easy fighting distance. Nor do you need any Handle animal checks, languages or anything similar. The eagle will do what you want it to, so long as it doesn't have a choice. Once the first gobbo is dead, it's going to be pretty much random where it attacks next.
When dealing with summon-focused characters, it ia important to understand the restrictions they come with. Mostly, this means alignments for clerics (no casting spells opposed to their own or their god's alignments), and everyone has to consider the long casting times - you're not going to be much help unless your powers come online too late to help out. Considering that most combats are reduced to clean-up in round three at the latest, one round casting times are BRUTAL. There is mostly one way around it, Sacred Summons, which applies ONLY to creatures with the correct subtype, which doesn't include the celestial/fiendish animals. In fact, most alignments get only three creatures eligible for Sacred Summons over the nine levels of monster lists. Another campaign specific feat is Academae Graduate which has its own problems. Summon Evil Monster gets shorter casting times, unlike the Good and Neutral feats.
Summoners get their standard action summons, but as noted above, the primary caster classes can summon far more. Their nova capacity is really only a problem at very low levels.
As you get up in levels, the utility of almost all the possible summons drops quickly. To keep them relevant a little longer, you can use Augment Summoning and Superior Summons. The Summon Good Monster feats give you a few more Sacred Summons options - all in all, summoning creatures is feat intensive. The higher level you go, the less the available summons are going to do. Sure, you can bring in more creatures, but that, again, costs you TIME. Which we already established was the most vital resource of summoners everywhere.
How to counter a summoner? It's not as hard as you think. Hit fast. Give monsters decent AC and hp. Change the environment. Ranged weapons. Area spells. Cunning enemies focusing on the summoner. Indeed, ANY situation except letting the summoner stay protected in the back and have lots of time to flood the battlefield works.
Oh, and by the way, the one truly scary summons is the lantern archon. Odd that nobody mentioned that yet.
Have them fail at something. Put them before a choice with bad costs either way (though they don't know that). Have something big and hairy kill someone tougher than them. Imprison them for a while, then have them released. Let them get their hands on something powerful, but let them trade it away for survival. Let them find situations they would have been able to deal with if only they were a few levels higher. Have them fight something and barely win, then face them with several of those at once.
Lots of different options.
133, "We have a problem, sir."
This got 21. From the The many things adventurers do that are really weird thread. I believe it is my highest... But there are a few posts to check. :-)
This is going to come off as "get off my lawn", but... It is an attitude problem, not just for people who got burned. So many on these boards have an attitude that if a GM steps out of the rule-covered areas in the least, they would leave the game, and any situation that would require GM adjudication is to be avoided at all costs. It is a deep divide in gaming style, and I don't see it changing.
There are actually other ways to mitigate SR. Dweomer's Essence or Sure Casting (use with Quicken Spell), or anything which increases caster level.
Well, the first is 500 gp per spell. The second is a spell you need to cast, bombing your action economy. Increasing caster level is always a good idea, of course.
It is a good thing that, while getting acceptance for other things being biological with us humans is difficult, the idea that our sexuality is biologically determined is spreading.
As for the idea that it is a choice... seriously, what would the motivation be? "I need to decide if I am straight or gay... hmmm, either I choose to be straight, with no particular problems relating to this... no, I think I will become gay instead, with all the ill will and poor understanding that comes with being gay! Brilliant!" It is also heartwrenching to hear what some of the anti-gay campaigners say... "We must all stand firm against the temptation of committing homosexual acts!!!1" Somehow, I think there is a problem there...
You guys aren't really talking about house rules so much as GM rulings, as I see it. The difference is that a ruling is meant to be a one-off, for a rare situation you need to resolve. Indeed, 1st edition is pretty heavy on the rules, but doesn't attempt to cover every eventuality. Later editions have less simulationist roots and in effect limit the things the game can be about to avoid the situations without rules. Fourth edition was particularly egregious in this. Think about it this way: Which edition would be easiest to make a fully functional computer game of? Ironically, that would be fourth. Every single power and spell and so on has its language trimmed to be easily defined. Third edition has most of these numbers conforming, but certainly not all, especially legacy elements. YMMV, of course.
If there is a large change coming, it would seem like the most reasonable attitude to wait and see. The changes that are made all come with costs and have consequences. If the change slows down, you need to evaluate to see if you still want to push in some direction. To do that, you need to find some definition of equality that makes sense.
It was a decent question, and I did answer it as I understood it. Please tell me if you think I misunderstood it.
FLGS is pretty much a dead or at least dying concept, just like every other kind of specialized hobby store today. Yes, there are cigar shops in places, but not many. The business model for shops today is generalist, that is how you attract customers. Even the generalist shops today have single shelves for specialized interests. RPGs are not going to escape that. Given this, I see #6 above as the starting point, with the alternative distribution models as adaptations. YMMV.
I think I would choose the occasional great sex. Constant sex is not a pretty thought.
Become undead to protect your children from a coming disaster that would annihilate them at a point where you are already dead, or cause the same disaster yourself earlier through your actions, though you survive?
Using a p value of 0.05, you will find a significance for every 20th correlation studied. Thus, what you need to find a significance is to make a few dozen studies looking at just the stuff you want to prove. Which wouldn't mean much if there were other people doing related studies, looking at the other stuff... but there really isn't. The ones with the grants will be the ones producing studies, so those grants need to be free of bias. If they are not, everything in the field will always be suspect. Further, you need to know if there are conflicts of interest among the researchers (in this case, it would be involvement in groups advocating women's rights, wouldn't you say?), the studies would have to actually be replicated (something I don't remember seeing often if at all), and so on and so forth etc etc etc.
If you WANT to fub science, you can. The issue is with the wanting.
Any form of research where you can actually determine if you've done enough, I guess. To do this would require measurements that were better than "only you can know if you have been discriminated against" and similar slogans. And just to stave off a suggestion: the proportion of men and women in a sector is not in and of itself a valid measurement.
What I asked you for was the end point. I.e. what criteria would you accept as reasonable to state "further work against discrimination against women in the hard sciences is not necessary"? We have agreed that specific numbers are useless. What else? Never? When no women complain about being discriminated against? Please, make a suggestion. "When we look specifically for it and don't find any" will happen as soon as all the anti-discrimination center people decide they do not need a job.
Especially if you have large grants to centers researching discrimination, I assume.
Well, the problem is using any sort of number (which WOULD be arbitrary) as a goal, isn't it? And if you don't use a number as a goal, what WOULD you use as the signal that you can stop pushing for more women somewhere?
Oh, and regarding this,
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
A lot of this is further complicated by the fact the a massive number of the perceived differences are societal, not physical.
I would very much like to know what you are basing this claim on.
The question is more how much pressure you need to apply to even out the numbers, and what else happens due to that pressure. Every action has consequences, and some of those could well be catastrophic. The goal is not everything, and as you say, thejeff, having a number as a goal is in itself wrong. Oh, and which social and legal obstacles are you talking about that apply to a woman working in the exact sciences?