If it fits the world, and the character, and he get's no continuous benefit from it, hand wave it and go for it.
For example, if you have a dwarf gunslinger, and he wants his guns to have been a ceramic MW heirloom his grandpappy baked for him when he was born, then go for it. Same weight, same stats, small increase in cost for rarity.
Yes, he may get some benefits down the road (like it not reacting to a magnetic spell or field), or having some extra resistance to fire or something (with a corresponding vulnerability to sonics). But basically, it's just a hand gun made of ceramic instead of ironwood or steel or mithral or whatever.
Now, what if he wanted a handgun made of 'extremely light but high tensile ceramics' that would be easier to wield? Sure, slap the cost and modifiers for Mithral on it, and call it 'Ghost Ceramic' or something. Want it to have a 20 hardness? Slap the price mod for Adamantine on it and call it 'Resolute Ceramic'. Same thing for weapons and armor. If a druid wants a set of full plate made from ceramics... fine with me, same as if you did iron wood or dark wood. Just pay the extra cost you would for ironwood/darkwood armor and call it ceramic.
Oh, I don't disagree. We weren't happy with the 'in media res' opening, but the way he handled it was bearable, if not optimal.
Had he mentioned this beforehand, I would not have recommended cavalier over paladin for my wife. My choice may or may not have changed, since my character had already determined he would have a light armor backup.
As a little bit of self defense ToZ, do remember you and your wife missed the first game. The first game was everyone being offered the job on the fishing fleet, deciding to take it, and making arrangements for care of animals and storage of un-needed equipment. Had you made the first game, you could have declined to go on the ships in the first place (indeed, the entire group could have declined the job), which would have changed what happened. Since you missed the first game, you had a choice of being in the fishing fleet when it crashed, or changing your characters.
It still would have been a valid way to gauge new players either way. People who would have thrown a hissy fit about not having a horse or pouch or something else would have thrown it when the job was offered, not just because they joined the second game. Wasn't trying to single you and your wife out in the example above, but you were the only two new players, so it was sort of a given you'd be my latest example.
I tend to like to isolate the PCs if it's a new gaming group. For example, shipwrecks are great for this. It lets me put the characters in an isolated situation so I can see how the players react to having their expectations changed. For example, is the cavalier player going to throw a hissy fit that his horse is back on the mainland in a stable or drowned? Is the tank character going to whine and moan if his heavy armor got lost at sea? I'd rather know about the players up front and who's going to take things in stride and who's going to throw hissy fits. It also let's me concentrate more on the player's the first game or two, to get to know them.
If it's a group I've been GMing for, or playing with, then I don't have to do that, and I start them off in various ways. I've used the 'small town friends' intro, which is where they are all from the same small town and things are going wierd. Or the 'same big city' intro, which is where they are all in the same big city and answer the same recruitment ad. Alternately, 'all on the same vehicle' works well, be it a coach or a ship, which is attacked by bandits/pirates.
I expect they will market Guardians of the Galaxy as a sci-fi movie rather than a comic book one.
Sorry, I meant the characters are not main stream enough. If it does get made, I expect it might end up being a Pixar type animated movie, in 3D, and designed for kids.
...The few dwarves that managed to stay in their home city when they cut it off got warped by a plague, and inbred until they are nearly mindless savages, diseased from birth and insane from the constant pain, only undiseased flesh eases their suffering...
NPCs usually use a stat array, rather than point buy or dice roll (although major NPCs should be fully statted out like a PC in my opinion, including PC class levels).
Also, NPCs use different Wealth By Level amounts.
Remember, if you give an NPC PC wealth that adds one to his CR. Same thing applies to giving him PC class levels instead of NPC class levels, another +1 CR.
Please note that the entire 'He's my brother... he's adopted' thing took place on the helicarrier after Loki was on board, and after his staff was on board. It didn't just affect people in the room with it. Cap going off to break into storage rooms was not in character. The paranoia that suddenly started cropping up was directly related to the staff.
So everyone's paranoia and hostility and defensiveness after Loki was on board becomes suspect behavior. I'd mark down Thor's defensiveness about Loki more to the staff than anything else.
I saw it in 2D and don't feel like I missed anything. I had to stop and think afterwards if there were any scenes that felt like they were meant to be in 3D. Took me a while to even come up with one.
I've a suspicion the ** spoiler omitted **
That sequence absolutely nailed the old school comic book feel of a great big ol' superhero team fight.
Pregnant pause...
Sucker Punch!
And we laughed. Oh, how we laughed.
I honestly don't think there was more than 15 minutes in any stretch where people didn't laugh in our theatre. I swear I never expected the story to have that much humor, and still be action packed, much less tell a decent story.
I saw it in 2D and don't feel like I missed anything. I had to stop and think afterwards if there were any scenes that felt like they were meant to be in 3D. Took me a while to even come up with one.
I've a suspicion the ** spoiler omitted **
That sequence absolutely nailed the old school comic book feel of a great big ol' superhero team fight.
Make your own wands (or pay to have them commissioned), and specify that all wands are clubs. Clubs are long wooden stick weapons that can be used in one hand. A wand is a long wooden stick that can be used to cast a spell.
Voila, now you have a wand that can be used drawn any time a weapon can be drawn.
Note this makes them heavier than wands, and they still don't count as a magic weapon.
EDIT: Well, if you had a magic weapon spell in the wand-club, I suppose you could use the wand to cast magic weapon on itself and then brain people with it. :)
A charisma of 7 means that you and the troll have the same base chance of influencing someone's starting disposition toward you. The crusty jerk of a dwarf with 7 probably has an indifferent, while the troll probably has a hostile. However, if both can talk fast enough to get a minute with diplomacy, they can try to influence the farmer. If the Troll has a diplomacy of +15, and the dwarf has one of -2 (no ranks), then what's likely to happen is the Troll can talk his way into not getting treated hostilely, and the dwarf is likely to flub it and tick off the farmer and get run off.
However, they are both inherently uncharismatic to the same amount. There's a reason why people consider dwarves to be dower grumpy little gets.
By the same token, take a fighter with a 7 int, and a troll with a 7 int, and absent some training, both of them are just as slow at dealing with situations. They both have the same cognitive ability, they both have the same penalties, and neither one is what one would consider a rocket scientist or a brilliant conversationalist. Both probably ignore such niceties as grammar and subtlety.
Now, if the troll has spent his few points on Knowledge (Local), while the fighter hasn't, then he's going to be a lot better at knowing where he can go and what he can say without getting in a fight than the fighter does. By the same token, if the fighter puts some points into diplomacy, then he can at least come across as that really nice guy who's just not too bright.
Either way, it is perfectly correct to say that a 7 Int is the same as a 7 int is the same as a 7 int. Doesn't matter if it's a human, a dwarf, an elf, an outsider or a troll. They all have the same basic level of cognitive ability. Same for every stat. Nobody would be insane enough to argue that a 17 str on a troll would somehow not be equivalent to the same 17 on a human I hope. All stats are the same for all characters (PC and NPC) if the numbers are the same.
A lot of the fluff on trolls acting like jerks is, just like dwarves, socialization and nurture, not inherent 'I am a jerk because I am a troll'. It is more 'I am a jerk because I was raised by jerk trolls'.
There were scenes that showed this to good effect. Cap is always the first to act, to take up the fight. Nice work there. I would have liked for Cap to do something no-one else would consider, for the others to rally behind. For example ** spoiler omitted **
I think you missed entirely that...
Spoiler:
...Tony's 'sacrifice' would never have occurred without Cap. It was Cap, who's uniquely qualified as a 'real hero' that even Tony Stark can't minimize in his own mind, that remonstrated with Tony and basically called him out on being a shallow get who is really a selfish jerk who's only out for his own ego. Without that being thrown in his face, by someone he can't ignore, I don't think the Tony Stark as portrayed in the movies up to then would have sacrificed himself. Thus, it was really Cap who inspired that, which no other character could have wrought.
On a different tack...
Some other things that I really enjoyed about the movie :
I like how Tony was actually the one who was approving of Banner, as a whole, not just as either Hulk or Dr. Banner. I honestly kind of feel like that would have been better coming from Cap though. But there was no reason for Cap to spend so much time with Banner, while Stark did, so it made more sense from an access point of view.
I think Hawkeye's first half of the movie actually made him a much stronger character. I've always thought of him as the weak link on the team, but by showing what he was capable of with when he has no concerns about hurting innocent bystanders, it really brought home just how dangerous he can be, even if he's only a human.
Some of my favorite scenes...
Spoiler:
"My secret is... I'm always Angry..." <smile>
"Puny God!" <Snort>
<Long uncomfortable male bonding silence ending with sucker punch>
"Oh, so that's what it does..."
"So, I can put an arrow through his eyesocket..." <paraphrased>
Aha! That may be it. I just get thrown by the fort save houserule is all.
Well, it's a houserule because I've never been able to find anything about waking up. There's a perception penalty for being asleep, but nothing about perception allowing you to wake up. So I've always just used a fort save with a DC based on the perception DCs/etc.
I could switch to perception instead, no skin off my nose. :) Of course, you'd sleep through a hurricane with that +10 penalty for being asleep.
Very perceptive of you. ;) I've just rolled with it, and I may be conflating separate encounters into one.
Damn gnomes.
I think the confusion is about who's making the perception rolls. I roll to see when it occurs at night, and I usually say 'Make a perception roll' without specifying who. The only perception roll that counts is the people who are awake at the time. I just don't specify that at the table. Since I'm usually looking at the creatures to refamiliarize myself with their abilities right before they attack, I don't realize you're expecting your perception roll made while asleep to mean anything.
I have a DM that requires a Fort save to wake up, after a successful Perception check. :(
That's not me is it? I usually just require a fort save to wake up, not a successful perception check and a fort save. If it is me, talk to me at the next game, I think there's some confusion going on.
Good Min/Maxing : Minimizing your weaknesses and maximizing your strengths without disrupting the game.
Bad Min/Maxing : Crippling your character in one aspect in order to utterly dominate in some other aspect, then whining to the GM that it's 'metagaming' whenever you encounter something that exploits your crippled aspect. Also includes disrupting the game, or utterly obliterating the power curve of the other players. (Note all of this really equates to disrupting the game).
Good Roleplaying : Getting into your character's head, playing out his personality, making choices that your character (not you) would make.
Bad Roleplaying : Making a character who is self crippling and doesn't contribute because 'that is your concept', making choices that disrupt everyone else's game because 'that is your concept', which is often related to making your concept be at odds with everyone else's concpets. This also can be reduced to 'disrupting the game'.
Except you would never do this as Martial Versatility is a fighter only feat, and as a fighter, you are already proficient in all martial weapons.
Please note the bolded bit Dork.
MDT wrote:
Just a note to Dork,
It is not true to say only fighters can take the feat. There are archetypes that call out they may take feats as if a fighter of a certain level based on their own. Those non-fighter classes might not have martial weapon proficiency.
Now, please read the response to your post (the one quoted up above, you know, the one with the bolded bit).
RavingDork wrote:
Name one that doesn't already have martial proficiencies.
Now, note this reply of yours. This is where you go off the rails. Either you are changing the goal posts on purpose, or you are still referring to your original post. If the former, it's bad behavior on your part. If the later, then you are still referring to your original statement, which was all martial proficiencies.
MDT wrote:
Monk
Martial Arts Master (Ex): At 4th level, a martial artist may use his monk level to qualify for feats with a fighter level prerequisite when those feats are applied to unarmed strikes or weapons with the monk special quality. This ability replaces slow fall.
You asked for one, again, referencing back to your original post. So I gave you one. A non-fighter class who uses their level as if they were a fighter for taking fighter feats. This class could indeed use the Martial Weapon Proficiency (Greatsword) along with Martial Versatility to get martial weapon proficiency with all weapons, which you poo-poo'd originally because all fighters already have full martial weapon proficiency.
RavingDork wrote:
Monks have martial weapon proficiencies, of which short sword is one. You fail, mdt.
;P
And here, you changed the goalposts fully, going from 'all martial proficiency' to 'any martial proficiency'. Do note that your change of goalposts still completely invalidates your original premise that nobody would want to use the feat as specified because they already have full martial weapon proficiency.
MDT wrote:
You fail Dork.
Monks are proficient with the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shortspear, short sword, shuriken, siangham, sling, and spear.
Monk's are proficient with specific weapons, just like a rogue is, or a druid, or any other class that doesn't get blanket martial weapon proficiency.
:)
Reading helps you know, and knowing is half the battle!
My response, pointing out your moving of goal posts, and how it didn't match your original posting.
RavingDork wrote:
You should heed your own advice.
I never said they got blanket martial weapon proficiencies, just that they did get martial weapon proficiencies at all (of which the short sword is one).
:P
And this is you persisting in rejecting reality and substituting your own. Which brings us to this post, pointing out your original premise, how it was wrong, how you changed your goalposts, how you completely ignored the fact that your changed goalposts invalidated your own original supposition, and finally pointing out that like Adam Savage, you are rejecting reality and substituting your own heavily edited version of it.
If you start a full attack, you can choose to stop after the first one so that it's just a normal attack standard action, and then you can still take a move action.
Also, you can distribute the attacks in a full attack among any number of foes however you choose.
Add to that that if you are taking iterative attacks (Not two or multi-weapon fighting), you can choose which weapon to use with any iterative attack at no penalty.
For example, if a half-orc monk had a bite attack, IUS, a +1 keen temple sword in his left hand, and a +1 ghost touch dagger in his right hand, he could use any or all of them in combination in a standard iterative attack.
If he were level 15 (+11 BAB), he'd have 3 iterative attacks, and could make any of the following legally...
Kick to an ogre, sword chop to a drow, and dagger to a ghost.
Sword chop to an ogre, sword chop to a drow, dagger to a ghost.
Bite to an ogre, sword chop to a drow, dagger to a ghost.
Kick to an ogre, bite to a drow, dagger to a ghost.
or any other combination, as long as the first attack was made at +11, the second at +6, and the third at +1.
Primus, it makes it easier to keep track of the article than favoriting it.
Secundus, it makes the count grow, thus alerting other posters that it's a vibrant thread.
Tertius, it's an indication to others who might skim the thread that a lot of people found it very useful, thus raising the likelyhood those skimmers will pay more attention, as they might also find it useful.
I do this with my halfling. I paid a few GP to have torch-mounts placed on my armor. One on my chest, one on my back, one on each shoulder. Then just attach everburning torch to mount. If someone sunders it, ready another everburning torch as a move action (or while moving if you have a+1 or higher BAB since a torch can be used as a weapon). Then mount it again to a different mount when you have a standard action free. Leaves you free to use two-handed on your one-handed weapon. Also works well for shields.
This works well with Ashiel's hightened permanent light spells as well. Just use a regular piece of torch shaped wood. You can put it in a bag of holding or a sack when you're not wanting it to be seen, and put it on your armor when you want to make sure you've got light and don't mind being a giant target.
Ye Olden Swiss Army Fannypack
One belt pouch.
One flint & Steel
One roll of twine
Three sticks of Chalk
One roll of fishing line
One Dozen Fish Hooks
One Dozen metal sinkers
Two Cork corks
One Knife
One Steel Mirror
One bottle of oil
All SORTS of mischief for about 12-14 gp (2-4 gp if you leave out the steel mirror)
I understand that, but a whip IS a melee weapon with reach. So it does take off the opponents head? its just.. .hard to imagine. I mean a weapon like a whip striking an opponents throat and taking off the head?
Just think of it as the last foot wrapping around the victim's throat, and when it's pulled back, it snaps the neck off and twists it until the head pops off like a rotten grape.
Kind of like the end of Johnny Mnemonic (granted, laser whip, but still...)
Alternately, they could set up a 'hierarchy' of spell levels.
Creating Potions, Wands, and Scrolls
When determining the cost and level of a spell for creating a spell completion item, use the level and cost of the spell per the first class on the following list that has the spell on it's default list.
1) Wizard
2) Cleric
3) Druid
4) Bard
5) Paladin
6) Ranger
7) Lowest level/caster level other 9 level casting class
8) Lowest level/caster level other 6 level casting class
9) Lowest level/caster level other 4 level casting class
Note that Sorcerer is left off, as they get spells one later level, and wizards get access to all spells a sorcerer does.
A 1st level spell isn't actually available to a Ranger until level 5ish... so how are they making potions at level 1 if they can't cast the spells yet? Can a level 1 Wizard craft a potion for a 3rd level spell?
Potions of Delay Posion are firmly listed as 300gp in the rules. I guess that sort of makes the point.
PRD wrote:
Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, his caster level is equal to his ranger level – 3.
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level – 3.
They've got a disconnect between the posted rules for potions, and the cost tables. A ranger and paladin are caster level 1 when they get some of those spells (see above).
They really should re-write the spells to give each spell a 'base level' to avoid this. Additionally, some spells that are level 5 or 6 for wizards/clerics/sorcerers/druids are level 4 spells for paladins and rangers, making them valid potion spells.
The cost of a potion should be independent of what class makes it, and what level they get the spell at. Each spell should have a 'base level' and 'base caster level' that is used to calculate the cost of potions, wands, scrolls, staves, etc. This would remove 80% of the complexity of such items, and simplify the cost table to one column.
It's free, it allows strength bonus to damage, it has good range and everyone can use it (worse comes to worse you can pass it to the wizard if need be) -- besides you aren't likely to get extra attacks at lower levels anyways (at higher levels switch to a bow of course -- but keep the sling).
A few ranks in craft(leatherworking) means you will just about always be able to make a sling and therefore have a quick means of getting rearmed if you happened to be captured or something.
Also, unlike bolts & arrows, a sling only has a 30% miss chance on things like wind wall.
For those who want to avoid the 9-iron issue, there is a reasonable solution.
Assuming you get simple weapon proficiency, you can keep a morningstar in your back pocket. This is actually one of the niftier weapons in the book. It is not all that heavy (6 lbs), has a very nice base damage die (d8), and is both Bludgeoning and Piercing (thus taking care of two types of DR). Combine this with a slashing weapon, and you've got all your basic damage types covered. If you only have simple weapon proficiency, then I suggest a Sickle to go with it, as it's a decent weapon, and has a trip ability.
Monks have martial weapon proficiencies, of which short sword is one. You fail, mdt.
;P
You fail Dork.
Monks are proficient with the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shortspear, short sword, shuriken, siangham, sling, and spear.
Monk's are proficient with specific weapons, just like a rogue is, or a druid, or any other class that doesn't get blanket martial weapon proficiency.
:)
Reading helps you know, and knowing is half the battle!
It is not true to say only fighters can take the feat. There are archetypes that call out they may take feats as if a fighter of a certain level based on their own. Those non-fighter classes might not have martial weapon proficiency.
Name one that doesn't already have martial proficiencies.
Monk
Martial Arts Master (Ex): At 4th level, a martial artist may use his monk level to qualify for feats with a fighter level prerequisite when those feats are applied to unarmed strikes or weapons with the monk special quality. This ability replaces slow fall.
Just a note to Dork,
It is not true to say only fighters can take the feat. There are archetypes that call out they may take feats as if a fighter of a certain level based on their own. Those non-fighter classes might not have martial weapon proficiency.
Small Town :
Central Square/Market
One or Two Inns
A handful of Stores
Government Building
One or more Churches
Blacksmith
Large Town :
Central Square
Multiple Inns
Market Area
Government Buildings
Churches
High Town (Rich area)
Poor Town (Poor area)
Mid Town (Middle Class area)
Small City or Larger :
Many Inns
Market Quarter
Government Quarter
Religious Quarter
High Town (Rich area)
Poor Town (Poor area)
Mid Town (Middle Class area)
Add Docks/Warehouses if it's on the river or ocean.
My own suggestion for 'cheaper than AOMF' has always been monk wraps...
Monk Wraps : These leather wraps come in pairs, and must be worn either on the hands (taking up the gloves slot), or else on the feet (taking up the boot slot).
They can be enchanted in the same way an amulet of mighty fists is enchanted (enhancement, melee special abilities, etc). The cost is based on the final effective bonus level. Wraps, like an amulet of mighty fists, does not require an enhancement bonus before melee special abilities are applied. The wearer can only gain the benefits when making unarmed attacks with the two appendages that are equipped with the wraps. For example, if a monk were wearing a pair of wraps on his hands, and wielding a sai in his left hand, he could flurry to do damage with the sai and his right hand, but not his left. Although they come in pairs, the wraps are enchanted as if one object.
(+1) 4,000 gp, (+2) 16,000 gp, (+3) 18,000 gp, (+4) 64,000 gp, (+5) 100,000 gp
Again, as the FAQ points out. It has nothing to do (in PF) with how long it takes the spell to Manifest. The feat only cares about the type of action required to cast said spell. If it's one full action or less, then it can be quickened. If it's more than one full action to cast, then it can't.
How would you split up the sentence to get to that conclusion?
Quote:
When you gain a level in a favored class, [you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank instead of choosing either one or the other benefit] or [you can choose an alternate class reward.]
You've parsed it correct, I simply don't think you're seeing it the same way I do.
[you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank instead of choosing either one or the other benefit] : Benefit of feat. Telling you that instead of having to choose between the two, you can take both.
or [you can choose an alternate class reward.] : Giving you an alternative to either half of the previous choice. In other words, I read the or as applying to each half of the previous option. For example :
A & B Or C : Can be read as you do, A list whose valid members is [(A & B), C]
A & B Or C : Can also be read as a set of [(A & B), (A & C), (B & C)] if the C part is actually applying the Or to A and B, not to A & B (IE: Or C applies to A, and Or C applies to B).
The problem is, the sentence is so poorly constructed that it honestly can't be said to be valid for either interpretation. Ergo, both are equally valid.
Again : Sentence needs to be taken out, shot, burned, chopped into bits, and buried at a cross roads with a silver stake through it's heart.
Well, as I posted, they would always go first in a surprise round, and have a full action. I don't think any other class get's a full action in a surprise round now.
They already have the ability to charge through difficult terrain. You might want to give them the ability to change directions during a charge at an earlier level (or, they could take that as a rogue ability, if I remember correctly).
The rules do state that you can declare a full attack action, take one attack, and then switch to a move instead of completing.
This I would accept as sound reasoning for my GM. Despite not really making sense to me.
"RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LETS GET THESE GU--*umphs!*... well, I guess I shake my head off and be battle ready, after getting dismounted and stand up. All in six seconds."
If it makes you feel better, you could envision it as the guy falling off his rearing horse, landing and rolling back to his feet all in one motion.
Exceptional Reflexes : The swashbuckler's sense of danger and reflexes have become honed to a hair trigger. The swashbuckler always acts first in combat, and may make full actions in the surprise round. If two or more swashbucklers are in combat together, they roll initiative normally to determine which of them go first between them.
The rules do state that you can declare a full attack action, take one attack, and then switch to a move instead of completing.
That would say to me that declaring a full round charge, controlling the horse (first half) then after being knocked off changing to a move to stand up would be just as valid. Granted, it's RAI since it's not spelled out exactly, but the whole book would be Star Fleet Battles if we required that level of detail when ruling.
Posts
