Skeld's page

I get confused by that grappling too. It's like being a U.S. citizen and watching rugby, and trying to figure out what even the heck is happening. I'm sure it's a good game, but I don't know what they're doing.

Or cricket. Geck!

-Skeld

For me, the biggest change that would come with 4e is that it would be the first edition that I wouldn't switch to immediately. My group and I like the 3/3.5e rules, we collectively have alot of books, and the 3/3.5e OGL means that there's definate potential for support well into the future.

If the Star wars saga Edition rules are any indication, 4e isn't that great a leap from 3e anyway.

-Skeld

Grappling. Nothing sends my group into frantic searches through the PHB like when someone starts grappling. The rules aren't very elegant and the devil really is in the details.

-Skeld

I just find the tite ironic. It's my understanding that Gleemax was an inside joke among magic players that WotC were possessed by an alien intelligence that forced them to churn out bad magic sets to get more money for their alien overlord.

If that's the case, then I'm impressed with WotC for even taking Gleemax on as the title for the gaming/DI site. Maybe it's a stupid decision, but it's ballsy.

I'm not impressed with the site. But, as has been mentioned, I'm probably not the demographic they're shooting for.

-Skeld

Would you still consider yourself in the market for 3.5 material after 4.0 comes out?

After some discussion, my gaming group decided that we'd only consider switching to 4e if it were OGL.

But even if it is, we'd likely continue playing 3.5 for a long while.

-Skeld

If I went this route, what protections would I have to protect me from enemy archers and spellcasters?

Blur might be handy. It's a 2nd level spell. It conveys concealment, which a 20% miss chance.

-Skeld

Just curious what other's thoughts are. I spent all of 2 minutes looking at it and didn't find much of interest.

-Skeld

PS: just as a warning: the color scheme could give you brain tumors.

Don't forget that your spell also causes 6 points of ability damage, whereas Bestow Curse cause 1d6. Very different. Another thing to consider is that (like you said) Bestow curse works against what the caster perceives as the target's weakness. This spell might or might not have a much more broad affect on the target depending on the raio of even numbered to odd numbered ability scores they have.

-Skeld

Bestow Curse is a Clr3, Sor/Wiz4. One of its effects is similar in that it causes 1d6 damage to a single ability score, whereas this one causes 1 damage to each of the 6 ability scores. Why not go with that?

-Skeld

I'm against guns as a part of the setting as well. But I would be all for an article on how to integrate guns into a later AP for the Pathfinder world.

-Skeld

The fact that there's an OGL Epic feat somewhat similar to this doesn't inherently mandate that it be the benchmark.

That would be correct. There is no requirement to benchmark it aganist similar feats. Regardless of any overhauls of the epic rules, it is helpful to benchmark it against something. Since the OGL rules are the core rules, accessable by everyone, and haven't "power-creeped," that makes them an easier comparison than a set of feats not everyone uses, from a book not everyone has, and came out later than the core set.

-Skeld

This feat is similar in flavor to OGL epic feat Overwhelming Critical. On a successful crit, Overwhelming Critial adds +1d6 damage, plus an addional 1d6 for each crit multiplier over 2x (+2d6 for 3x, +3d6 for 4x, etc.).

Your Supreme Critical feat would actually be more powerful when coupled with a weapon that does more than d6's damage. The prereq's for Overwhelming Critical are: Str23, Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Crit, Power Attack, & Weapon Focus (and the implied character level >20).

Using all this a benchmark, I'd say that Supreme Crit needs to be epic as written. If it were, the only real appeal would be for fighters that went the Weapon Focus/Specialization route, but didn't want to invest in the Cleave feats just to go down the Overwhelming/Devistating Critical path.

Alternatively, you could lessen the requirements match those of Overwhelming Crticial, but keep it non-epic. This would encourage a high-level, non-epic fighters to take this and gain the additional d6's granted by Overwhelming.

Hope that's helpful

-Skeld

This feat would be handy for letting a Rogue get sneak damage added to ranged attacks on a crit.

The other interesting case I see is a fight between 2 Rogues. An 8th level Rogue can only be flanked by a 12+ level Rogue. Also, an 8th level Rogue can't be caught flat-footed. The only way another Rogue can get sneak damage against our 8th level example is to be a much higher level, or if he is incapacitated (paralyzed, bound, unconscious, etc.). With Telling Blow, he would have a better chance to get some sneaks in.

I'm not sure about this one, but if there are any creatures subject to crits, but not to sneak damage, they could potentially be affected with this feat (no creatures of this type come to mind however). That be a DM ruling.

I see this potentially being a handy feat for a higher level Rogue. It's utility really doesn't take off until the Rogue can make multiple attacks per round (with or without TWF) and keen weapons or improved critical. High AC opponenets, or those that can't be crit'ed will eliminate this feats effectiveness. Also, this feat will give a Rogue a little extra "umph" in situations were flanking is impracticle or impossible.

Juat some thoughts.

-Skeld

I believe what the Sage is saying is that taking the Telling Blow feat allows the Rogue to Change the Sneak Attack description in the PHB/SRD from:

"The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target,"

to:

"The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), when the rogue flanks her target, or when the rogue scores a critical hit."

If I were to adopt a houserule saying that a rogue who has this feat can double their sneak damage on flanked or flat-footed crit, I would definately add a minimum number of sneak attack damage dice to the prereq's (maybe 10d6 and make them choose between whether to take this or Savvy Rogue at 12th level).

However, I wounldn't add such a houserule. Double sneak attack damage on a critical hit is beyond the boundaries of good taste, IMHO. I mean a 20th Rogue with a Str10 and mundane shortsword who scores a critical hit against a flanked foe would deal 22d6 damage. The expected value on that would be 77 points of damage. On a single hit. Now imagine the Rogue has TWF, ITWF, GTWF, dual rapiers or scimitars and Improved Crit. The damage could be insane.

-Skeld

A 1 is still an automatic miss, but if rolled, the attacking character must roll opposed dex checks against all threatening foes. If any of the foes beat the attacker's dex check, they get an attack of opportunity (which counts against the foe's total for the round).

This is an example (not to pick on you, GregH) of part of what I don't like about critical hits/fumbles. In order to make it realistic or fun, it ends up being complicated. And by complicated, I mean extra rolls with opposed checks or Dex checks, attacks against AC20, or so on and so forth.

Personally, I think crits/fumbles as written add more than enough randomness or cinematic elements purely with the application of a brief, creative decription by the DM. No extra rolls required.

If one is concerned that critical hits require an extra confirmation roll and fumbles don't, simply eliminate the confirmation roll and say that all natural 20's auto-crit. It balances against the automatic miss of a natural 1 and doesn't add any extra rolls. Of course, this would make character survivability at low levels very dicey.

The other thing to keep in mind (this one just came to me), the addition of extra beneficial effects caused by critical hits and penalties cause by critical fumbles only serve to hurt the players' PC's when they are pitted against opponents immune to critical hits (undead, constructs, etc., etc., etc). That is something to consider also.

Just some thoughts.

-Skeld

So, question for everyone using weapon droppage rules: what happens when a caster uses a spell with an attack roll and rolls a natural 1 then fails his Reflex check? He has no weapon to drop.

Here's another one: what happens if a player is engaged in melee combat against an opponent with no other allies within his threat range, rolls a fumble, then rolls "damage ally" on the crit table? Does his weapon fly out of his hand and strike the nearest ally? (Thinking about it, this would punish the player in a number of "critically fumbled" ways: damage an ally and drop a weapon, not to mention the weapon would be dropped "way over there").

Critical fumble rules seem somewhat harsh to me. I feel like they untowardly punish the player for rolling poorly, especially any of the martial classes since they generally have many more attack rolls than casters. For fumbles that damage allies, these rules punish players that had nothing to do with the rolls. I could accept it better if they added something "cinematic" to the combat, but there's nothing cinematic about the hero tripping over a crack in the floor, falling down, and dropping his weapon (unless we're talking comedy).

When I DM'd, I ran crits and fumble per RAW (it keeps things simple and it's fair to everyone). Currently, another group member is DM'ing and running WLD. He uses crit/fumble tables where you only roll off the table if your confirmation roll is a 1 or 20. It doesn't happen often, but everyone cringes when there's a natural 1 (or 20, for that matter). By the way, this is also the same DM that uses a 600 item Rod of Wonder random effect list from somewhere on the web. *Shudders*

-Skeld

I would be all over a Gamemastery subscription. Especially so if the issues were at a discount from retail (like Pathfinder) and could be bundled with Pathfinder to cut shipping costs.

Glad to hear it's at the top of some folks' to-do lists.

-Skeld

No, because those are Wizards of the Coast IP. You're certainly welcome to add them to your campaign at home, but we cannot touch them. In the same vein, you won't see beholders, mind flayers, umber hulks, yuan-ti, or any other creature, class, feat, or spell that isn't in the SRD.

On the other hand, Pathfinder won't be encumbered by WotC material that has "power-creeped" over the past couple years, or by weighty setting specific histories/organizations (ie, Harpers, Red Wizards, Chosen, etc.) that clog the framework.

Personally, I'm looking forward to a fresh, clean setting with enough "empty space" that I can add what I want to it without having to shoehorn things in sideways. For those that don't have the time or inclination to generate their own setting, this is appealing.

-Skeld

Their individual humanoids aren't really all that cost effective (this hasn't stopped me from buying them for some reason), you'd be better going to a website that sells individual DDM figs, besides which their bases are too large (why hasbro did this considering it owns both Heroscape and D&D, I don't know). Which means you either squash them together or have to cut them off and put them on new bases. But what I have found a good deal is their large creatures, especially the packs with their dragons. You don't have to take them off their base, just glue the whole thing to a large square base and they are good to go.

I buy the Heroscape figures because I like Heroscape. The fact that I've been able to use them for D&D is icing. The Heroscape figure bases aren't compatable because they aren't/weren't meant to be compatable since they are completely different gaming systems. I think Heroscape is meant for younger gamers as a gateway. Personally, I think the Heroscape minis are higher quality than D&D minis. The fact that they aren't blind purchase I also find appealing. I agree about the dragon packs; they were some of my first purchases becuase they were so readily usable a thte game table.

-Skeld

Heroscape. Every time.

-Skeld

I don't know if anyone else has looked at these, but I've used them for gaming before: Heroscape minis. Heroscape is a board game from Hasbro that uses a multitude of different minis from various fantasy genres and time periods. http://www.hasbro.com/heroscape/ is their website. The minis are prepainted, non randomized. A booster pack of 5-7 figures runs about $10 at most big-box retailers.

-Skeld

The Complete Idiot

(Sorry, just surfing the WotC boards and I couldn't resist making this stupid joke).

Subtitle: A Guide to Near-sighted Foolishness

-Skeld

I tend to think the Powers might be inclined to make the full pdf unavailable until the book has hit the shelves for a few days; I wouldn't be surprised to learn there are a lot of integrity-challenged (pirates) just waiting in the shadows...

Understood. I guess it comes down to 2 questions: 1) will PDFs be watermarked to discourage sharing (I like this idea), and 2) will Pathfinder be available (ie mailed out) to subscription holders before it hits the general public's shelves?

I'm curious as well ... will the setting be Paizo proprietary, or will it be open content as well?

-Skeld

Would you be willing to wait for delivery of your Pathfinder because the GameMastery module hasn't arrived yet? (Or vice-versa.)

I'd happily wait on one to save on shipping as a bundle.

For those that have a Pathfinder subscription, my understanding is that the PDF will be available when the issue is ready to ship, so if Pathfinder is delayed a couple weeks, we'd still be able to download the PDF on-time as normal, correct?

If ther is a Gamemastery subscription, might there be a downloadable PDF for subscibers similar to Pathfinder's PDF service?

-Skeld

Just a thought, but if OGL is cancelled for all third parties, then Paizo (and Pathfinder) are screwed too, becoming merely a retailer. Perhaps if OGL is scrapped for the majority, a few companies would still be allowed to use it, so that Paizo will be OK- and the fans as well.

Thinking further- just throwing ideas out- what if OGL isn't scrapped, but WotC (because of their masters) say, right, you (third parties) now have to pay to use the OGL. I could imagine that the fees would rise higher and higher until noone could use it anymore.

Obviously I hope that none of this comes to pass.

I believe that WotC can only choose not to update or release OGL's in the future. They can't revoke what's already out there. What's already out there is there to stay.

Touche. ;)

This isn't speech, it's text. ;P

-The Gneech

Does anyone else find it ironic that a thread named "Stunned speechless" has 364 posts (as of now)?

-Skeld

Personally I'm hoping that at least one subscriber is a lawyer and files a lawsuit against Paizo over this as that bogus conversion math won't fly in court with a judge or a jury particularly if a secondary retailer like Amazon can do a better deal moving this Pathfinder "Book".

The above statement and action would only hold water if Dragon/Dungeon subscribers were forced to roll their subscriptions over to Pathfinder. Since Paizo has supplied a number of options (the most obvious being a refund for unsent issues), a lawsuit would be akin to a customer screaming "I don't like the choice I made." This is bolstered by the fact that a Pathfinder subscription could easily be cancelled after one issue if said customer didn't like it or changed their mind.

Sounds to me like Paizo is providing a (more or less) low-hassle method of rolling Dragon/Dungeon subscription overage into another product. If someone wants to spend that money on Pathdinder, they don't have to go through the process of receiving a refund and signing up for a Pathfinder subscription separately. You can take care of all that stuff all at the same time.

-Skeld

I am a Paizo fanboi

I can definatively say that I am not a Paizo fanboy. I base this on the fact that I have never bought a single Paizo product and can count on one hand how many times I've picked up an issue of Dragon and/or Dungeon at the bookstore and flipped through it.

I like the idea behind Pathfinder and decided to order a month-to-month subscription so I can give it a whirl.

-Skeld

Strike One: When switching to monthly from bi-monthly Paizo tried to sell long-time subscribers on fuzzy math. We ended up with much less content than what we paid for and only after we complained loudly did they throw us a small bone by adding a couple extra issues to our accounts.

Strike Two: When asked face-to-face at GenCon before I signed a new 3-year subscription if Paizo planned to change Dungeon, Eric Mona told me they were not. Shortly thereafter Polyhedron was added and took away Dungeon content to add Scooby-Doo the RPG. As a long-term subscriber I was faced with losing my subscription or continuing to pay for a magazine I didn't want.

Wow, I see where you're coming from. You've gotten screwed over big time. If I were in your shoes, I'd cancel my subscription and get the full refund. Don't buy Pathfinder, since it's so obviously not what you want/need. Finally, you could log-off the messageboards and refuse to readthem or post anything else. Tha'll show them.

So I'm watching the news this morning, and they're telling a story about a teen somewhere who broke into the same jewelry store four times in one month and was caught on video surveillance every time (althought the store's alarm system failed every time). Anyway, during the entire story while they're showing the surveillance video of this punk smashing glass cases and grabbing jewelry, he's constantly referred to as 'the suspect'. Suspect??? I thought a suspect was someone who MIGHT have done something wrong, but if that someone IS doing something wrong right there in front of the camera for everyone to see, he's no longer a suspect but instead a perpetrator. Right? This is confusing.

Since the legal system in the US is based on "presumed innocent until found guilty," he's a "suspect" who "allegedly" commited a crime until he's convited.

It seems silly in today's world of video surveilence, but it's a cornerstone of a fair and just legal system. Of course, he'll be found guily, tried, and convicted in 1) the court of the media, and 2) the court of public opinion. But as far as the legal system goes, he is (and should) be innocent until convicted by a court of law.