|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I know that the rules for reach weapons don't allow them to attack adjacent foes, but can I use the improvised weapon rules to say that the weapon my longspear most resembles is a club and therefore use it to attack adjacent foes? I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?
No you can't. They made an archetype to specifically allow it at the -4 penalty to start off. If they intended for you to be able to do it anyway they would not have made a special ability that allows you to do it.
The playing field is not all that level. The fighter picked up a caster. The wizard can grab a cleric, and that cleric(cohort) might actually be better than the fighter. The wizard with a cleric supporter just pulled farther ahead.
People are too focused on the word "rage", and read it as angry or berserk. It never says the barbarian gets angry. It is not much different than the focus you see in an MMA fight when one fighters gets the chance to go "ground and pound" on an opponent. They are not upset. They just enter a hyperstate of "finish the opponent".
As soon as the ref ends the fight those guys are back to normal again. I see no reason why a barbarian can not enter and leave such a state voluntarily.
The whole concept of being able to selectively turn your "rage" on and off is immersion-shattering. The real solution is for the GM to decide when the conditions are satisfied for a Barbarian to rage,
That is a solution for you. If a GM told me he had that houserule I would simply not play a barbarian, and that has to do with control over my character since I have never rage cycled anyway.
Resource management is the reason this play style started, and why it works, but the end result looks like arrogance and/or laziness.
How so? Would it be better to keep slinging spells and find yourself and the party in a bad situation because you wasted all of your useful spells on a fight that was already won?That is just smart gameplay. Even when I a martial I don't like casters blowing spells if it is not needed.
Nathanael Love wrote:
There is only 1 SR. There are many types of DR so it is not the same. They don't even work in the same manner. One is all or nothing, and the other is a reduction, but a caster can almost autobypass SR if he really wants to. Martials can't.
PS: Before you even ask me how. A caster can get close to +10 bonus to his caster level through various means.
Yes it is called the golf bag affect because in order to overcome DR you needed a weapon for every alignment(evil, lawful, chaotic, good). You also need one for piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing. You also need to over come silver, cold iron and adamantine.
Now some of these could be combined so you don't have to carry 8 or 9 weapons, but just like a golf bag you needed a different weapon(golf club) for what you need to do. It is less costly and more realistic to not have to carry so many weapons.
edit: As the rules are now one weapon can overcome almost all of them.
Would you prefer he play a caster and do a lot worse things?Btw cheese is subjective so it is not always obvious. This is not even all that powerful.
Matthew Downie wrote:
It does work by RAI. You not liking it does not make it RAI. Even if it was an unintended consequence it would still be RAI just means the RAW matches the intent, which it does. Being able to combine it with something from 4 other books for a greater affect does not make it NOT RAI. It might however mean a restriction is needed, but in this case I am not seeing the problem.
You have said nothing that proves rage cycling is a problem. So far all I hear is that you don't like it. What exactly is the problem?
In case the topic of the GM killing you after you held back comes up:
PS: "I" is not referring to me specifically. It is referring to anyone who is being told to hold back in certain situations.
Thank goodness this is a campaign trait; at least rogues remain viable outside of Mummy's Mask.
How does the trait make them less viable? If I want trapfinding I can just go with two ranger archetypes or a bard achetype. If another class having access to trapfinding makes a rogue not viable then it was not viable before this trait was created.
That is how I see it also. The rogue gets the best of both worlds this way. It would cost a trait, but it is only a trait.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Anything a normal person in our world might have trouble doing, such as punching people and turning them into stone, hitting the ground hard enough so that nearby enemies fall down and/or turning the area into difficult terrain because you punched it so hard = That must be magic so martials should not be able to do it to some people.
And saying play E6 or E8 is not what most people want to hear, and it wont help both sides resolve their differences in versimilitude.
I am all for extraordinary things, but as the game is now, the modular/optional approach is the best way to do it in order to satisfy both sides.
It seems the problem is like it was in 3.5. Some of us want our martials to be strictly martial, anything we consider to be magic or too far beyond "normal" makes us not like it. Others of us want our martials to be able to do extraordinary things and we can see accept that level X martials can do these things without being magic because they are that damned good.
The core game is not being rewritten, so an add-on system such as the mythic system or TOB's would fit. That way GM's/groups the want it can have it, and those that don't care for it won't have to worry about it.
First of all everyone does not want the same thing from a rogue so I won't go into specifics, but the rogue talents need to be equal to or better than feats generally speaking. Rogue's do decent damage so that is not really a problem. They do need to be better with skills, and by that I don't just mean higher bonuses. I mean they should be able to, even if it means using talents, use skills in ways that others can't.
Maybe diplomacy can act like charm person for a limited amount of time*.
Maybe with UMD he can pick one class at the beginning of the day and emulate that class for the purpose of activating spells, using scrolls, wands, and staves.
Maybe gather information acts like one of the divination spells. The flavor could be that while he is gathering information he knows how to put the information together that is gained from talking to people. I am leaning towards the locate ____ spells.
The rogue could also have paths that make him better at certain things depending on the path.
Maybe bonuses to combat, another one could be really good with skills, such as from the above mentioned options. Maybe there could be a rogue focused on social skills.
*Please don't derail this with what are the limits of charm person. I am just giving examples.
Personally I don't think of any of this will happen but you homebrewers out there it is something to look at.<------Paizo fixing the rogue would take time away from newer projects and they are always tip toeing the deadline as it is to get products out.
Unless they had freelancers do the major revisions, and/or had a contest, and then worked toward smoothing out the edges I don't see this happening.
I really like what ToB allowed. I understand some did not like a pseudo spell system but the ability to do more than stab things was very nice. As for the "anime" argument the barbarian can fly with certain rage powers, and monks can ignore adamantine items DR. What is more anime than flying and punching through a wall made of the toughest material on the planet? O_o
edit: I don't see these as anime, but for those that use the anime argument I am pointing out that what some would equate to anime is already in the game.
I think high AC is a good thing, and it was not an exploit. An exploit would be something like RAW allowing ___, but RAI not intending for it to work that way.
Jason also knows we all play the game differently as shown by all the debates here, and nerfing/altering the game into "one true way", will likely hurt Paizo more than it will help them.
DM Beckett wrote:
Once you lose the prereq for a feat you lose access to that feat.
I do not agree that feats are special abilities by themselves. I see no support for it in the rules, nor have i seen any examples in statblocks that list feats as special abilities. I might have missed something though.
They can be special abilities but the poster did not quote the entire text. The text is saying cha is used to calculate special abilities, then it goes to list things like hit points, and DC of supernatural abilities. Figuring out the math for how an ability works is not the same as saying Cha can be used to qualify for something. Constitution is for things that are alive, and undead are not alive. They could simply errata that line to include the word "qualify" in some form if that was the intent.
The mechanics have a large affect on how it plays out. I like how psionics works, so telling me to use spell slot does not help at all. It is the entire system that is liked, not just the flavor for most of us.
Back when the psionics debates was popular this always came up, but it is not the same as the points. To me it does not fit. Psionics is not just about changing the name. The point systems works well, and offers a lot of flexibility with the powers you have.
The heat is still a factor, even with water, well for low level characters anyway.
And there is city in the desert for the Legacy of Fire game. If an entire city can survive without worrying about water then a small group show be able to get water.
Making up some rule to make the enviroment more difficult is not to everyone's taste. I would not mind, but I would make it optional, and not a part of the plot.
I have no problem with actions that make sense. My character does not have a PC tag that says "be nice to me".
The enemy stealing and/or using the bow would annoy my character, but not me as a person. The sunder would annoy me as a person, not because the weapon is broken, but because it would not make sense, even though my character would be happy, assuming he can get it fixed anyway.
The problem is not that the bard is too good, but that the rogue should be better. One problem(game wide benefit in my opinion) is that cross-class skills are gone. Some skills such as diplomacy, perception, and stealth were really 2 different skills in 3.5, so now the rogue have 8 skill points per level does not mean as much. You can have 6 skills points in PF and be just as effective as having 8 in 3.5.
I think the rogue should have gotten special uses out of skills that were almost or equal to magic as he put more ranks into the skill, even if the uses were on a X/day basis. As an example if you have 10 ranks in diplomacy you can get an affect equal to charm monster. Maybe at 15 ranks it could also be as good as dominate. I would change the duration to be shorter, but it would still be good.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
<2 thumbs up>
That is exactly the point I was making when I said the average person has an 8, and if you are one of races with a built in penalty then a large part of the population has a 6. I was not even rolling stats because npc's don't get to roll, but it works out the same way.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
People have played them. It is not theorycrafting. With that aside a decent monk can be made with enough splat books, BUT the builder needs very good system mastery or a nice GM.
It is a lot more difficult than it should be, and it should not require splat books. Certain archetypes are good, but as a whole the class needs help.
As for the OP you should let someone play one in your games and adjust for your groups. What works in one group might not work in another.
There are no rules for what a 7 is in any score other that the modifiers or carrying capacity for strength. Beyond that it is subjective. As I have stated before other than the half human races a substantial percentage of the other races have a 6 in a score and their societies still function.
The average person has an 8 for a base score. Then then is a chance that their negative racial modifier will be in that same score. As an example 1/6(16.7%) of dwarves and elves will have a 6 in charisma and constitution respectively. By the way some people talk the elven population should have a higher need of doctors than the other races.
richard develyn wrote:
It has been shown that realistically the ecology of the monsters in D&D/Pathfinder can not be realistically supported. If NPC's are built like PC's then many of them will have the best options and some wizard with the immortality ability should have taken over the world a long time ago. The game world falls apart if you use the rules to write a story. That is why the story comes before the rules. If you try to write a story based on rules and support an entire setting it will fall apart somewhere.
There is a limit, I know, but I believe that building logical sandboxes provides a more satisfying RPG experience than writing narratives where the players have a very limited choice about what they do.
I agree, but the rules dont suport teh story like you want them to
I don't really think the writer should be telling his story, I think the players should be telling theirs.
That is entirely different than try to incorporate every possible rule into the story. Often tactics more than certain abilities determine the outcome of the battle. Your giant idea show that. That is why your giants will die in my game as I have shown before.
You can, of course, push the job of papering over the cracks in your setting logic onto the GM, but I don't think that's very GM friendly, especially as he's likely to have to do it on the spur of the moment in the middle of a game session.
You can not cover every possible player tactic or question that comes up in a setting. You are one person. This has also been proven by us not agreeing with your one giant assualt idea, and one poster use real life example of animals(a lot dumber than giants) picking people off. A large giant could eat a medium sized person, not even needing a cow. A cow would be ideal for more than one giant unless it was a huge giant. Even then the cow may be enough for one giant.
Equally I try very hard not to put a GM in the position where he's more or less forced to say: "sorry - this adventure doesn't cater for that; this isn't a perfect simulation of fantasy reality, please do something else."
If you are writing an adventure the GM will have to adjust things. No one adventure as written works for every group. Once again your lone giant idea shows that. If he is half way decent and the story makes sense he will not have to say "do something else". I have never seen that happen. There is also not perfect simulation of fanatasy reality because everyone has a someone different idea of what it should be. The lone giant works for me in a novel or book, but not in writing backed up by rules because I would expect for him to die by the rules, but in a novel I can make up my own reasons as to how he can take over village or hamlet. I am sure you if you present your other writings here someone will find holes(in their opinion) in your writings, but others might love the story/adventure.
And although I know you can't keep everybody happy about where logicality lies, it's a worthy aim, and as such it's worth canvassing general opinion before you put pen to paper.
I will try to find it.
edit: Click me for the example
richard develyn wrote:
You basically have two options.
1. Suspension of beleif, and not worrying too much about rules when writing. If the players insist on the NPC's working like PC's built to survive then the fantasy world died long ago, and there is no campaign setting.
2. You can realize slumber and other things are acceptable risk. When you do anything in life there is risk assessment. As I have said before the chances of a witch existing, having the slumber hex, not running and not dying, and having commoners brave enough to not die is so small that the chances are likely 1 in 10000 or worse. That makes them a non-issue and non-issues don't change game worlds or any other world.
You said you are doing this to set up your writing, but we have pointed out that the minute a lone giant attacks a village directly we will be questioning the stupidity of the giant. In a movie CR and such things don't exist so maybe you can say the giant's skin is so tough arrows dont matter. He may even allow himself to be stabbed as he laughs at those puny humans, but you want your story to use game mechanics and giants attacking villages head on will die, even if witches never exist.
The arrows from the militia are the real concern since the giant will be getting targeted from over a 100 feet away. People are real quick to out logical errors a lot faster than any logistical ones<----Read movie plot holes if you want examples.
I am not gonna ask why the witch did not use or have the slumber hex. I am going to ask how did the giant make it into the village alive in broad daylight unharmed, why is he killing instead of stealing(less likely to be killed).
The amount of resistance to the terrible logic of the giant's solo raids means you should worry about logic/tactics more than class abilities.
PS: It seems you did not reply to post explaining why a direct attack is a bad idea. Another poster had a great writeup on it. :)
Other than that all I can say is write it how you want. It is YOUR story, but just know if monster X takes action Y you may get resistance.
Erick Wilson wrote:
You have to be within 30 feet, a few monsters types are immune to it. You get one chance per monster and being within 30 feet if the save is made could get you killed. It is good, but not as great as you think it is.
Personally I think evil eye is better. Evil eye is mind affecting but it still affects more things than slumber does. You can keep trying, and even when you fail it takes affect. Dropping saves, attack rolls, AC and saves can cripple a monster. You just die over the course of a few rounds, but dead is dead. This is real game experience not theorycrafting. I found evil eye to be much more annoying as a GM.
edit: Spellcasting is a class ability. That is better than slumber. Familiars and Animal Companions are also class abilities. They are better. Eidolons are class abilities. They are better.
edit2: If I am late because I am still reading then give credit to whoever thought of these first. :)
richard develyn wrote:
Actually they are still acceptably low by the way I would run a giant because my giants are not dumb. Basically, like I said before you can't argue slumber changes anything "across the board/for mostly everyone" like you say it does, because we run our games and tell our stories differently. In your world it is a problem because you think it is logical for lone giants to attacks hundreds of people, and others of us do not. There are also other disagreements we have on logic. So at the end of the day it boils down to perception. My giants would kill your witch, and your giants would die or be run off in my game world.
They are not looking for stray witches because the slumber hex is not good enough on its own to be world changing. Not only do you need a witch, you need witches with the slumber hex. Then you need a low level witch that won't run away. Giants were not pairing up, on purpose but they were in groups.
They ransacked a mansion together
I am interested in hearing how you feel "your" world hangs together, and other people's too. All I'm trying to do is to get a view about fantasy world logicality.
Not every PC class is an adventurer so they are less likely to have combat spells abilities, unless they are fighters and similar classes. Some witch serving the community might have some combat abilities but they won't be optimized for it unless the village/town is an area of constant raids. A 1st level witch is very unlikely to have a slumber hex.So first you have to have a witch as opposed to a cleric, oracle, or druid, which considering the rarity of PC's classes is already low odds. Then you have can go to my above post to see the liklihood of a witch even trying to cast slumber.
Then when the attack takes place even if a witch can put a giant to sleep, there are other giants to deal with. As soon as the witch is deemed a threat then they will focus fire and kill her. Killing one giant won't likely stop a raid, so the chance of doing a coup de grace mid combat is unlikely. Most people wont take a chance at death unless it will be of great significance.
It seems witches with the slumber hex are more prelevant in your world, and the chance of a low level witch dropping a giant bothers you. I dont think that the threat is consistent enough to be world changing for several reasons, and that would be even if every witch had slumber. For the sake of argument if every witch had slumber it would just push giants to attack as a group, which I think they would do anyway. I don't think one giant is taking on a militia, so the single giant problem never happens in my gameworld anyway, unless they stumble upon lone travelers on the road. Even then it would have to a low number of people, or the giant has backup.
For the purpose of this post adventurer=anyone with combat skills. I know that does not make them an "adventurer" but it is just a way to seperate combat classes from the normal people..
As for the rest of your post if outlying farms were left virtually undefended that may change dynamics so that a single giant would attack, but if single giants are attacking that means slumber is not really influencing that world.
If the farms were in the village, and not far( too far to get decent help) away, which means a considerable defense could be put up against one giant, the I don't see one giant, not even a hill giant raiding on his own. Even animals understand size and numbers.
In short you would need a giant dumb enough to raid on his own, when it is easier to hunt. I am sure the deer(insert other food as needed) is not as dangerous as a humanoid settlement.
PS: With all of this aside I would like a HD cap for thematic purposes, but it is not really world changing to me.
richard develyn wrote:
If it plays out the giants die less than 1% of the time. If that is world or game changing to you then we(you vs other posters) have different ideas on what that means.
A giant will not win vs 150 villagers(some will have actual class levels) no matter if you use actual game mechanics or simulate in a novel fashion so one giant against a village is a terrible idea and that is the stupid giant that dies anyway.
Cows would be valuable and that giant would not just walk off with one. If you want to play it out the giant dies or is wounded bad enough to not worry about stealing. He is better off killing a deer in the wild.
More likely it is a group of giants like I said, but at that point if a giant is put ot sleep there is a strong chance his buddy wakes him up and another buddy kills that annoying witch.
The two balors are smart enough to know anyone not in armor is likely a spellcaster and take measures to get rid of the problem. Now you might just run your monsters differently than I run mine, but that goes back to my last post which says it is a problem in "your" world. In my world those balors are likely to never see battle, and to me if it is not an actual problem then it is not a problem, and not a changer at all.
The point is simply this-->This scenario can not play out enough times for it to be a game or world changing event without GM Fiat. Every case that is mentioned requires some miracles for the witch to survive, or extreme stupidity on team evil, and now that we know cackle and slumber can not be combined it makes the case a LOT weaker than it was, and even then it was struggling.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
There is more than on thread on this spell. It is not because noncasters can do these things. It is easy to pump skill modifiers, and there is no save. There is also no taking into account the character's personality. Even dominate and charm person which have limited per day uses allow for an escape clause if the act is against the victim's nature.
So you are saying you want the very powerful monsters to be able to do suboptimal(almost foolish) actions and still be able to come out on top?
If I played that module with George I would likely find out what happened to him, and if the giant played as if his intelligence was 4, then I would call it out as a GM using narrative power to make it happen. Just to be clear I am not saying a giant can never lose. I am saying the chances and times of it occuring are so small that instead of thing "we need to worry about fledgling witches, the other giants will think "George was an idiot".
In order for you idea to work you need to have slumber, the extra hex feat, and cackle. <-----I assumed that combo which is not likely for every witch to have, for my previous post. So even with a cookie cutter optimized build, which not every NPC will be, which further lessens any real problem the witch fails. Actually an NPC witch has lower stats than a PC so the giants have a much better chance or surviving.
So you need a cookie cutter witch, not just any witch.
That is a lot of odds stacking. If something needs that much help to work, then it is not game changing.
James Risner wrote:
RAW =Rules as Written. Do you have a quote that shows "7.5"?
I have quotes that support 5 and 10(2 squares used for diagonol).
If you don't then you are not following RAW, since it is not written.
If you as the GM want to write the stories without narrative power so mechanics matter then that 1st level witch is still going to die fast against such monsters. I understand he theoretically has the potential to win if he has a fighter with him, but if you use mechanics and use the monster's normal mental stats or natural abilities that witch and fighter still die.
I have an issue with a first level paladin's smite bypassing epic DR of some demon lord so I kinda see your point. However, I also know that paladin won't be facing any demon lords so I won't to worry about explaining how some noob even managed to draw blood from such a creature, which is a feat(not game term) in and of itself.
If you tell me you wrote a story where a 1st level witch and the fighter did not die to a dire tiger I am going to ask how. I will fully expect that the dire tiger was set up to fail before you even start talking though.
I think your players, who sound like an old group I used to run for, will find a problem with the witch coming out on top.
PS: The game's mechanics are not made to support a narrative story, and in this case you actually still need GM narrative to make the 1st level victory look even remotely plausible so it is still not a big deal.
me: Why do they notice so much? <smiling on the outside, while trying to make up excuses because of things I did not notice.>
The Beard wrote:
It bears repeating! CR isn't always an accurate measure of power. That owlbear sitting in the corner is technically a CR 4. Ever see what happens to the party fighter if it gets ahold of him? Ya probably don't want to. Aboleths are similar to this. They don't "seem" imposing. ... Until they mind control the raging orc barbarian and it cleave spams your party to death.
Their(aboleth) combat abilities are not that great. Just like the succubus it has a high DC for a dominate type spell but beyond that they don't do a whole lot. They work better if you place minions in front of them, and I think they were designed to be used that way.
Personally I don't think their CR and their scariness from an in game point of view have to be connected, and a CR 7 is still strong for most adventurers. Players are looking at things from a PC and/or metagame point of view.