Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 17,562 posts (18,362 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 17,562 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

captain yesterday wrote:

If you're so busy you can't even remember your own child is in the car then you shouldn't have children, period.

Frankly if you treat a child like a handbag, or something else you casually forget in the car and something happens you should be held accountable, f&@+ the selfish piece of s**%.

No I did not read the article, I doubt reading it will change my mind and that is too heavy for a Monday morning :-)

So, when you suddenly become overwhelmed by other circumstances, what should you do with the children you already have?

This happens. It happens very, very rarely and it seems to happen to people nearly randomly. Stress and distraction in the moment seem to be the triggers. Should you only have children if you can guarantee that for the first (5? 6? more?) years of their lives you will never be busy or stressed or distracted?
That means no one would ever have children again.


Ceres Cato wrote:

I think it's more a sign of how society forces us to be constantly on the move, forgetting important things in the process. Sometimes it's the bus ticket, your trousers or your 9-month old child. As the article states, it happens to people of all social classes and it's not really that rare (or as rare as it should be).

Maybe the most difficult thing is separating the tragic mistakes from those (if they exist) forgetting their child on purpose. But I think it shouldn't be handled as a crime. It's a tragedy, yes, but not so much as beating or starving your 9-year old child to death. That's more of a crime, in my opinion.

The article says 15-25 times a year. That's well under 1 in a million children. Not at all would be better of course, but it's a long ways down on the list of things to worry about. Somewhere near "Struck by lightning".

So rare that it's hard to work on solving it. People don't think they need to worry about ways to avoid it, since they'd never do that. And they're pretty much right.

Apparently this used to happen less often, partly because we've moved to rear facing back seat child seats - less visibility. Of course we did that for safety reasons and moving back would actually increase risks.

We probably should standardize legal treatment of these kinds of cases, rather than basing them off of existing negligence law, which is what seems to be happening and which leaves lots of room for interpretation. Investigation and only prosecute if there's other evidence of neglect or abuse?


Basically the precursor to the 3.x Bard. Same general approach. Some spells, some skills/Rogue abilities, inspiration.
Much more like the 3.0 version than the 1E version.


wraithstrike wrote:
thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, but reactive Perception checks when you walk in a room don't fall under searching, do they?
Nevermind. I somehow missed that this was just for move action based perception checks.

I don't think that's the distinction. At least I hope not.

Even back in 3.x with Spot and Search, you could take move action Spot checks. It wasn't just spot was reactive and search was active.

It has to be the distinction. Otherwise you can't hear someone coming around the corner since you did not choose that area as an example.

Perception is also not just for the old spot search. It also covers listen.

So if you wanted to try to listen for something, you'd have to pick a 10'x10' area to listen in, since that's a active move action, not a reactive check? Or can you never do that?

Spot & Listen could be both reactive or active. Searching was just active.
Searching is a distinct thing, not just active vs reactive. At least that's my take.

I'm still not clear where the distinctions lie. If there's something in a room that's in line of sight, but difficult to notice - say a corner of a piece of paper sticking out from under a crate - Do you get a reactive check to notice it when you enter? And another chance if you decide to search that particular square?

I am not saying you can only hear noise from a 10 by 10 area. I am saying that if you apply the 10 by 10 rule to the reactive check that is what would happen.

I am saying that certain perception checks are automatic. Hearing noise is one of them. GM's just dont make you roll the dice for every check because it would be rediculous and just slow the game down.

Basically the only thing limited to the 10 by 10 area are your move action perception checks, but I still dont like the rule, and I will likely ignore it.

You're still missing what I'm saying.

I am not saying you should apply the 10 by 10 rule to reactive checks. I'm saying that it shouldn't apply to all move action perception checks.

Back in 3.5, Search was always an active check, but Listen and Spot could be either active or reactive. The same logic applies now, even though they're all the same skill.


Milo v3 wrote:

I'd use it just so I can have an eidolon without being a spellcaster.

Runelord Apologist wrote:
VMC is not a feat that you take, it's an option that reduces the amount of feats you'd normally get. So, no, you can't give an eidolon or a familiar or whatever a VMC.
Why wouldn't eidolons be able to take that option?

Because the don't have a character class. It's not a feat. It's a variant on multiclassing. You have to be able to class to do it.


wraithstrike wrote:
thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, but reactive Perception checks when you walk in a room don't fall under searching, do they?
Nevermind. I somehow missed that this was just for move action based perception checks.

I don't think that's the distinction. At least I hope not.

Even back in 3.x with Spot and Search, you could take move action Spot checks. It wasn't just spot was reactive and search was active.

It has to be the distinction. Otherwise you can't hear someone coming around the corner since you did not choose that area as an example.

Perception is also not just for the old spot search. It also covers listen.

So if you wanted to try to listen for something, you'd have to pick a 10'x10' area to listen in, since that's a active move action, not a reactive check? Or can you never do that?

Spot & Listen could be both reactive or active. Searching was just active.
Searching is a distinct thing, not just active vs reactive. At least that's my take.

I'm still not clear where the distinctions lie. If there's something in a room that's in line of sight, but difficult to notice - say a corner of a piece of paper sticking out from under a crate - Do you get a reactive check to notice it when you enter? And another chance if you decide to search that particular square?


rainzax wrote:

As I see it, Spot/Listen is general and reactive, Search is specific and active.

I like the clarification. It uses base 10. What would be super clever would be if there was a chart that indexed size of room (as approximate # of 10x10 squares) by three time stamps: the time it takes to search it's entirety with a single roll, a take 10, and a take 20. Then you could read that to the players, ask them how much time they want to spend searching, roll dice (if necessary), and give results.

Ex. Given a 40x30 room
** spoiler omitted **

Take 10 doesn't take any longer than a single roll.


wraithstrike wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, but reactive Perception checks when you walk in a room don't fall under searching, do they?
Nevermind. I somehow missed that this was just for move action based perception checks.

I don't think that's the distinction. At least I hope not.

Even back in 3.x with Spot and Search, you could take move action Spot checks. It wasn't just spot was reactive and search was active.


Especially in your interpretation I don't really have a good feel for what falls in what category.
There are the things you could notice reactively.
The things you can find with a search roll.
And the things you have to open or otherwise move things before you even have a chance - at which point I'd assume you'd have both of the first categories again.


Joe M. wrote:
This discussion of Take 10 may be beside the point, since it came up as a question of saving time at the table. But again, there's not really much in this rule that requires the players to roll more dice at the table or Take 10 more often. "We search the room" can still be handled, in most cases, by a single roll or Take-10 (because there's no point in rolling for areas where you won't find anything). The only thing changed by the rule is that the GM now has a useful standard estimate of how long a search will take (in the rare case that matters).

The only question I see with the single roll method is what if there are multiple things to find? Obviously, you can still have the one roll applied to all of them, but it makes a little less sense.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It takes as long because the rule is 1 action for 10' square. No consideration for what's in it.
Yeah, but if there is something blocking line of sight, you by definition can't see it. So you'd have to take actions to open/move the item blocking sight.

So wait, you're suggesting that even with the "Search takes a move action to search a 10' square" rule, that doesn't touch or move anything and you still have to take more actions to move or open each thing in the 10' square?

Search isn't searching, it's still just looking?

Edit: That argument kind of made sense with the current rules of "roll on everything you can see, with distance penalties as single action".


TriOmegaZero wrote:
thejeff wrote:
On the other hand, you have to take just as long to search the nearly bare room as the cluttered one, so realism is still stretched a bit.
How do you figure?

I'm not sure which way you mean.

It takes as long because the rule is 1 action for 10' square. No consideration for what's in it.

It stretches realism because going through piles of stuff or shelves or desks or whatever and then checking the floors and walls for hidden compartments should take longer than just checking the floors and walls for hidden compartments.


Ckorik wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Lost In Limbo wrote:
That's of course assuming that for some reason for a big bulk job you've decided to roll every time instead of just taking 10.
Saying "I take 10" two hundred times isn't very entertaining either...

You don't have to - the only thing having a defined area does to search is give the GM the ability to *reliably* and *consistently* determine the time it takes to search a given area. Without the definition you get various interpretations - which is exactly why PFS should have this kind of definition - because it tries to eliminate table variance at all opportunities.

It does however stop the players from searching a 200x200 warehouse top to bottom taking 20 in 2 minutes... so it has the 'makes search a bit more realistic' thing going for it also.

On the other hand, you have to take just as long to search the nearly bare room as the cluttered one, so realism is still stretched a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

What's the average dungeon size?

36 squares by 24?

That's 864 squares.

And, with this new idea, you can only search 4 at a time?

That's over 200 die rolls.

I don't feel the need to spell out a concern greater than that.

You enter a room (60x60)

player: "I search"
GM: "take 20 or take 10?"
Player: "take 20"
GM: "alright it takes you 2*6 = 12 minutes to search the room"

When do you ever use dice to search a room? I get rolling to be surprised or notice something off - but on a search? In a hurry - take 10 the above becomes:

player: "I search"
GM: "take 20 or take 10?"
player: "take 10"
GM: "alright it takes you (2 move = 1 round = 20x20 = 3 rounds for 60x60) = (3*6 seconds) 12 seconds to sweep the room ....

Well, that's one problem, that will come up: Math.

60x60 isn't 6 10x10 areas, it's 36. So an hour and 12 minutes to Take 20. 18 rounds to take 10.

It also raises the question of what can be seen with a more casual look and what takes a search.


Claxon wrote:

For what it's worth, literally everyone can identify what a potion is (with the right skill).

Quote:
Identifying Potions: In addition to the standard methods of identification, PCs can sample from each container they find to attempt to determine the nature of the liquid inside with a Perception check. The DC of this check is equal to 15 + the spell level of the potion (although this DC might be higher for rare or unusual potions).

Which is actually easier than the normal way (spell level instead of caster level). And it's Perception, which many people will have maxed.

Back in the day, this approach had consequences, especially if the "potion" you were trying to id was actually poison. Now, I'm not sure why you'd ever do it any other way.


SAMAS wrote:

Ah, I see. :)

It's a bit of a conundrum, isn't it? Personally, I say provide options for both. So if players want gritty Low Fantasy or high-powered shonen-style action, they can do so.

I'm not sure how viable that is in PF. Other than simple dividing it by low level and high level, which isn't really providing options. In general I agree, it's just that the high power stuff is too baked into the system to easily remove.

Pathfinder really isn't built as a generic system. It's designed as high to epic fantasy. Even the low levels aren't very gritty without work.

Just banning martials from having cool powers doesn't really change that.


BigDTBone wrote:

Right, which is kinda my point. The reason he is being coy is because Paizo intends to charge for a rule that was "accidentally omitted" in the first place. It tastes bad.

Or they aren't doing that, which means that the rule wasn't meant to be included all along.

"To charge for"? By which you mean, include as an option in a book along with a whole bunch of other rules, which will also be available for free in the SRD.

And, should be intended as an actual change to the official rules (for PFS and suchlike), probably addressed in a FAQ or possibly errata. Which will also be free.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Please. They weren't developing rules when they put the CRB together. They were editing an existing set of rules. Easy enough to miss something in the process of merging 3 skills into Perception.

Harder to belief it hasn't been noticed until now. Easier to believe they couldn't figure out how to errata it within existing word count.

Which only addresses half of my statement, and the half directly related to wraiths post.

So if we accept that it was a simple omission, then why the coy attitude? Why not just post in this thread, right now, for all to see, what the intended rule was.

If it just got lost in the transition, they probably don't have finalized rules text sitting around. Likely it never reached that stage.


Ckorik wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I haven't bought Unchained, and unfortunately if it's not made legal for PFS I won't be purchasing it.

All I do is PFS, and I have to budget my spending on hobbies accordingly.

I think what Mark is trying to say - is that they cemented it with Unchained (they did - it has exact area searched in a move action) - but they can't quote exact rules text before the 'official' release date. I would imagine the exact search area was agreed on by the entire dev team and as such this will be answered in a FAQ (making it not just unchained - honestly the exact area searched was not and did not impact the new rules mentioned, it was more of a way to put it in print). I expect them to put the information up as soon as Mark is able to quote the rule and thus make it standard for all of Pathfinder.

All that said I could be wrong - but that's how I interpreted it - which means regardless of PFS and the status of unchained - for this particular question I doubt you will need the book to answer it.

I base this on the quote from Mark in this thread and others that hint some of the longer standing 'nuance' questions about skills were intentionally answered in the new skill section - which honestly was a good move to make.

What is the rule in Unchained?

Sent PM - with very little time left on the 'embargo' I'm trying to behave and not invoke the anger of the staff ;) We are allowed to PM stuff so that is what I did.

Thanks. Given the amount of discussion already, I wasn't aware there was a restriction. Sadly, that means I shouldn't add it to the discussion.


Ckorik wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I haven't bought Unchained, and unfortunately if it's not made legal for PFS I won't be purchasing it.

All I do is PFS, and I have to budget my spending on hobbies accordingly.

I think what Mark is trying to say - is that they cemented it with Unchained (they did - it has exact area searched in a move action) - but they can't quote exact rules text before the 'official' release date. I would imagine the exact search area was agreed on by the entire dev team and as such this will be answered in a FAQ (making it not just unchained - honestly the exact area searched was not and did not impact the new rules mentioned, it was more of a way to put it in print). I expect them to put the information up as soon as Mark is able to quote the rule and thus make it standard for all of Pathfinder.

All that said I could be wrong - but that's how I interpreted it - which means regardless of PFS and the status of unchained - for this particular question I doubt you will need the book to answer it.

I base this on the quote from Mark in this thread and others that hint some of the longer standing 'nuance' questions about skills were intentionally answered in the new skill section - which honestly was a good move to make.

What is the rule in Unchained?


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.
While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!
So why be so coy about it here? Why not state right here in this thread what the intention is? If it was accidentally left out, why not tell us now?

I am guessing it has to be worded a certain way, and him saying it wont make it official, and if he does not have the final wording it might cause more problems than waiting.

To me, that sounds like more than an "accidental omission," and more like a "decision."

Edit: ie, it is an accidental omission to leave out "10 ft cube," which is unlike the decision to not develop a rule, not plan for the word count of a rule, not account for the pagination of that rule, and ultimately not publish a rule.

If the answer is more than 10 words then I have a hard time believing it was an "accidental omission."

Please. They weren't developing rules when they put the CRB together. They were editing an existing set of rules. Easy enough to miss something in the process of merging 3 skills into Perception.

Harder to belief it hasn't been noticed until now. Easier to believe they couldn't figure out how to errata it within existing word count.


Nefreet wrote:

And I don't see why there needs to be a "final word".

How does the chart, found in the Perception skill, not cover this already?

I'm honestly flabbergasted at what is trying to be said, or what Mark thinks was "omitted".

Because if there *is* a predefined area that's meant to be searched, there's nothing in the rules currently that even hints at what that area is supposed to be.

Because they apparently accidentally omitted it, probably in the process of merging the Spot, Search and Listen skills into Perception.

Which suggests it's most likely meant to be the same as in 3.5. Unless they intended to change it and that didn't make it into the final draft. Does seem strange to only notice this 7 years later though.


Veldan Rath wrote:
Spellcasters with touch of idiocy ruin my day when I dump CHR.

Why?

Sure, your Charisma drops to 1 for a few hours. You're unlikeable, but you dumped Charisma anyway, so you're not relying on it for anything. Annoying, but how is your day ruined?


Coriat wrote:
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, Sherlock Holmes walks into the room, looks around and tells you to check the 3rd book on the second shelf because the disturbance of the dust suggests it's handled most often. And he's right, because he's Holmes.

Perception includes search. It teaches you what to look for and trains you to notice patterns.
Your 3 minute search is Taking 20. If you're good enough, you don't need to do that.

This reflects both the rule as I understand it currently to actually be, and the flavor I would like a searching rule to ideally carry. One move action, plus one move action per object that needs to be manipulated to carry out the search (for example, if you are in a locker room and need to open ten lockers, ten more move actions).

Scotland Yard grunt walks into the room with the DC 30 secret door activated by pulling that one fake book on the bookcase, and never even notices it. Doing a really thorough search for these guys takes a lot longer than even just normal taking 20 - they have to take 20, arrange a lot of aid anothers, maybe have some masterwork equipment delivered to them from the lab, and do it all from multiple vantage points to make sure they aren't taking distance penalties. All that extra time spent scraping for bonuses is necessary because their own modifier is low.

Scotland Yard veteran might be able to work more on hunches and his own abilities, but he still needs time and a thorough search to find the first clue. He can do it just by taking 20, possibly from several vantage points to avoid penalties, but he might not need to wait for all the backup.

Sherlock walks in, takes 10 once, and spends the rest of the time trolling the detectives before finally pointing out the bookcase catch.

Pretty much, though it depends on the DCs involved.

And if there weren't any detectives around (or even Watson), Holmes wouldn't have to waste time trolling. :)

It's just that's what a good Perception skill/roll means - you know what to check first, you see the subtle clues that lead you to look in the right place.
Taking 20 is the careful kind of search that opens and checks everything. And if that doesn't work, breaking the cabinet into splinters usually finds the secret compartment - though it won't find the message scratched into the door.


SAMAS wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Of course, suggestions of weakening casters get shot down as quickly as the yells of "OMG ANIME WEEABOOS GET OUT".

Anime spellcasters toned down? What anime have you been watching?

I don't think I've seen an anime in the past ten years where the caster wasn't, in Pathfinder terms, a Full BAB Magus/Bloodrager/Spellslinger with a firepower rating around "Modern Main Battle Tank" at the very least by around a third of the way through the first cour.

Not what I meant, though I guess I said it sloppily.

Rephrased:
Suggestions for weakening casters are rejected just as quickly and vehemently as suggestions for boosting martials are met with "OMG ANIME WEEABOOS GET OUT".


Isn't the same true for a new edition? You can keep using the old rules. You can adapt new adventures for the old rules or old adventures for the new ones.

The more significant rules changes appear in optional material, the more they'll split the user base. Classes, races and abilities are probably the least significant, since they can be dropped in or out individually.

And sure, they can reference the new rules and material in the adventure. That lets you not buy the book. Which is easy anyway since it'll be online. You still have to rewrite it if you don't want to use the rules.


memorax wrote:
I still maintain that they either stick to publishing the current edition. Or something new. A rehash is simply not going to be as attractive as it once was. Why would a significant majority by the same product twice. Even if they did then some would rip Paizo a new one for releasing a rehash then accuse them of a cash grab imo.

No one's going to want to buy a rehash, if that's all it is. OTOH, what if the "rehash", while not completely different, is a real improvement?

Same basic framework, but fixing many of the basic issues inherited from 3.x?


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

I think Unchained is how to do new editions. You don't release a new edition - you evolve a new edition.

That way people who like the original don't have a bookshelf full of dust gatherers and the new stuff is not so different you can still work with it, allow it or disallow it.

For people who like all the new options then it's "happy, happy, Joy, Joy".

But that approach has it's own problems. Do you continue to support the new material? Do unchained versions of the classes show up in adventures? Does PFS make use of it - not just the classes, but the alternate rules?

Adding a bunch of one-shot variations that are never referred to again doesn't evolve anything. Using those "optional" rules as the baseline going forward doesn't make the originalists happy.

Potentially it's fracturing the fanbase, just like a new edition, except maybe even more, since it's adopted in smaller pieces.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Neutering the spellcasters entirely" is strong. The point of looking at genre examples is to look at ways it's been done in stories with an eye towards seeing if it could be done in RPGs as well.

It obviously can't be done in PF without changing the rules in some fashion. If you want fighters to remain mundane (or become even more so), then you have to weaken casters. It doesn't have to be to "rainbow rabbit puppet dance" level, but it does have to happen. Especially if you require fighters to be limited even by mundane standards - there's nothing that requires magic about having more skill points or better saves, for example.

Of course, suggestions of weakening casters get shot down as quickly as the yells of "OMG ANIME WEEABOOS GET OUT". My suggestion above to limit casters more by school was dismissed immediately as removing their legendary versatility - which was exactly the intent.


Trogdar wrote:

I... am really at a loss as to how your missing my point. Are the magic users in any of the instances you mention anywhere remotely as powerful as full casters in this game? Will cleverness and gumption work out more often than not if you are a good sword fighter engaging someone flying, invisible, and summoning the Seven friggin incarnations of all hell to crush you?

I don't care what happened once in a story somewhere, its not relevant because we aren't playing story time. There is no way for a fighter to face down a wizard with that kind of power and win in any sort of realistic sense, so throw realism to the curb so that we can play out the narratives of the stories you mention without feeling like we had to throw the game rules out the window to make it happen.

And you're right about that. You've been talking at cross purposes.

You can certainly have mundane fighters on an even basis with magic users, as seen in much of the genre literature.
You can almost have non-mundane, but not blatantly so, fighters in a game with PF style magic, but it doesn't really balance.
You really can't have completely mundane fighters in a game with PF casters - unless you make them NPCs past around 5th level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty much the defining trope of "sword and sorcery", from Conan on. Our hero defeats loathsome demons and foul wizards with nothing but his strong swordarm and his indomitable will*.

That's partly because those casters aren't like PF casters, but it still works in the genre.

*You know what. I'm house ruling, from now on, that fighters get good will saves. Genre rules say so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
of course there are fantasy heroes in novels without magic, but we aren't playing a novel. The reason the magic user in a lot of novels don't ultimately defeat the hero are pretty contrived in most cases, and you'd be hard pressed to make that fly at a gaming table without a number of players feeling pretty butt hurt about it afterwards.

It's also fairly common for magic to not be that good in a direct fight. More of a subtle tricks or powerful rituals kind of a thing.

It's easy to make magic not overpowering at a gaming table. Harder to make it actually balance, I'll admit.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The problem with that is that the Evoker does evocations better. He doesn't do other spells worse—except for being able to cast slightly fewer spells of two other schools, but even that doesn't reduce their potency, just their number.

Basically, the Pathfinder wizard is the 3.5 wizard if all wizards were super-awesome Universalists.

Strictly limiting what casters can do outside their school would be a good way to limit their versatility and even power, while still keeping the basic PF framework.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I think I mostly have an issue with people talking about a game system and conflating it with a fantasy narrative that they read in your average novel, when the two really are very dissimilar(within the context of pathfinder) if you care at all about equivalent experience of the player base.
I think you're misrepresenting me here. I'm not talking about a narrative. I'm talking about settings. And I'm pointing out the flaws in "Fighters should be able to do A because wizards can do B." It's creating a False Dilemma; acting like either a setting is all-magic or all-mundane.

But we're not making settings we're making games. You can make a setting where casters are gods and martials just suck. Such exist in the genre.

But in a game, it's not fun for most people to play a martial in such a setting. Because you suck.

As I said before, you can also play with much more limited casting and keep martials more grounded. But that's not the PF ruleset.


yronimos wrote:

A collection of William Hope Hodgson's classic weird-fiction "Carnacki: The Ghost Finder" pulp stories, about a spritualist-detective... it's kind of like Ghost Busters meets Sherlock Holmes.

I recently finished a collection of Robert Aickman's ghost stories, a collection of Dunsany's fantasy stories, and a collection of Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars novels (now that I've finally read them, the John Carter stories are a very obvious inspiration for Dungeons & Dragons - far more so than Tolkien's work!)

They're definitely part of it. What particularly struck as inspiration?

There's some things that come directly from Tolkien. Probably as much or more the Hobbit than LotR, though there's stuff from both.

I'd say Conan was probably a bigger influence than either. At least it feels that way to me. And Lankhmar.
Alignment out of Moorcock.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I guess the point, then, is that if you want to run a game within that sort of context you would need to take magical classes off the table in terms of player character choice.

And this is the core of the problematic argument, assuming you're talking to me. Why is it impossible to have gritty fighters in the same setting as magic-users?

Of course, it would still require major modifications. At the least, changing the Falling rules and the sort. Second, heavily nerfing magic users (or giving martials more "ordinary but good" abilities, like higher HP, bonuses to skills, maybe taking away arcane casters' good Will saves and giving 'em to fighters). But just the fact that magic exists doesn't mean non-magic people can't.

It doesn't work too well for Pathfinder (though fans of the system could probably work something out). I'd call it Gritfinder or something. Or just go play Swords and Wizardry.

You can do it of course. It can even work fairly well in low level Pathfinder (or E6 or something similar).

Beyond that though you're right. You need another game.
High level PF is a game of superheroes and demigods. Playing "just a guy with a sword" isn't going to work there unless you let the guy with a sword be superhuman in some way. Which default PF does, just not really enough to keep up with the magic people.

But yes, there's nothing theoretically wrong with normal people competing with wizards and others. Genre fantasy does it all the time. It's just that PF magic is really high end by fantasy standards.


Limeylongears wrote:

I don't think I've had Celestial Seasonings, but I have drunk Yogi Tea, which has several dozen different varieties, all of which taste identical. Serves me right for buying something with 'Yogi' in the brand name that doesn't have anything to do with bears wearing trilbies.

I think Mate is made from coca leaves...

I drink several of there Herbal/Medicinal teas, which don't taste at all the same to me. I haven't tried any of their actual Tea teas though.

I really like the Ginger one.


Lord Snow wrote:

Finally finished reading Lord of Chaos (The Waste of Time #6). I am actually somewhat dazed for having finished the book today and watching the Avengers: Age of Ultron right after, so I'm not even sure what I'll read next. There are a couple of endless series that I have neglected lately (Repairman Jack and The Dresden Files), a couple of trilogies that I am one book away from finishing (Revelation Space, The First Law) and of course a few dozens of other books I would be interested in reading. I think I'll sleep on it tonight and decide what to read next tomorrow.

** spoiler omitted **...

Spoiler:
That battle does turn out to have pretty dramatic consequences for at least the next few books and in some ways the rest of the series.

I can see how it sort of came out of nowhere though. And the rest of the book was really setting up plots that didn't pay off in it. Frustrating.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I guess we have different values of unrealistic. Knocking out a rhino unarmed isn't likely, but someone with sufficient skill and strength could probably do it. Moreover, it's a hell of a lot less blatant. Fridge logic is very different from "I HEADBUTT A HOLE IN THE MOUNTAIN".

Less blatant certainly, but far beyond "isn't likely". "Sufficient skill and strength" would be well into superhero level, which is where PF puts you by the middle levels.

By the same argument "someone with sufficient skill and strength" could wield oversize weapons with little penalty.

"Different values of unrealistic" is the point though. Different things break different peoples suspension of disbelief. Which is fine, except that it's used as an argument to keep martials from being effective at high levels in the base system.


gatherer818 wrote:

So, I see a lot of people going "Vital Strike for 1 act is OP, but Vital Strike for 2 acts is useless." How about Vital Strike costs 1 act, can only be done once per turn?

So, if you're "full attacking", it's Vital Strike / attack -5 / attack -10; if you moved once, you still get Vital Strike / attack -5, which isn't bad.

You can also customize Vital Strike to taste, whether you rule it to be 1 or 2 acts, by deciding it doesn't count as an attack for your iterative penalty. So maybe the right power level for your table is 2 acts, Vital Strike at -0 / attack at -0. Or possibly, Vital Strike / attack -0 / attack -5.

Another possible customization is allowing the Vital Strike chain to step down over iteratives.

So if you've taken the whole feat chain and find yourself in a position to full attack, you could Greater / Improved -5 / Vital Strike - 10. Or, depending on your table, you might be able to choose a normal attack at -0 instead of that last Vital Strike at -10....

Vital Strike should just go away in this system. Or be rewritten entirely to do something else.

The whole point of Vital Strike was to be used when you couldn't full attack. And it was already pretty lousy at that role.

Hmmm. Rethinking... To preserve something close to the original intent: Vital Strike can be done in one action, but it precludes any other attacks. So you could use your other actions for movement or buffs or whatever else, but you could only make one attack when you use it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:


People know this instinctively. The Hulk, for example, can't just reach out and pick up a tank.

Why? Because the center of gravity is under the tank. What would happen is that he'd reach out, sink his hands into the armor, clench his mighty biceps...and lift himself off the ground, because he's lighter then the tank. He's end up upside down, 'lifting up' himself instead of the tank, because of center of gravity.

But the Hulk does just reach out and pick up tanks. He's done it for decades.

He also can't make those mile long jumps - the ground isn't sturdy enough to resist the kind of force you'd need. It would be like jumping in mud.
But he does.

Because comic book physics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:

Suspension of disbelief?

Did you even read Jiggy's post?

Also...giant flying firebreathing lizards!

If physics is your problem, all dragons must have their wings rip off like wet paper.

Suspension of disbelief. Ha.

Of course I read it. This is a counterpoint.

Giant firebreathing monsters are inherently magical, break tons of rules. Great!

Fighter types swinging around swords are not defined as accessing magic. Vir bin haben problem. Either give them magic or you break my suspension of disbelief.

And for all the realism factors I noted. I don't care how much magic you're talking, dual wielding greatswords or using a huge sword in a 10' corridor IS NOT GOING TO WORK. It's dumb. Size is only unrestrictable in big open areas.

Without a magical/exterior explanation, center of gravity remains a thing, as does inertia.

And as soon as you change the rules on how the latter two work, you introduce magic into the core of combat, instead of the accoutrements.

==Aelryinth

Dragons are probably a bad, though iconic, example. Precisely because they are magical.

Are Rocs "inherently magical"? Are giant insects "inherently magical"? Are giants "inherently magical", for that matter?

Is there a non-circular reason to conclude that? They must be magical because they wouldn't work otherwise is circular logic.

By that same logic, that fighter with the oversized blade must be magic too. Just like the one who knows he can jump off a 200' cliff into the battle. Or the one who can punch out the rhino.

It's a fantasy world. It runs on fantasy. That includes the fighters.

If the big swords break your sense of disbelief, don't allow them. If the other things don't, run with them. But don't try to keep it out of the rules so that other people who do like that kind of game can't use it.


Scavion wrote:

Seriously?

I've always known it to be whatever is within line of sight with the given penalties for distance.

If you need to search drawers, bookshelves and chests that takes more time since you have to open them up and junk. It's probably best if it's left vague. Putting rules to something as variable as a 'so and so ft area' seems ineffective and contrary to the simulation.

Just as an example...

I walk into the room and look for anything of interest.
Bookshelf, Desk, Chest.
Bookshelf takes 3 minutes, the Desk 2 minutes and the Chest 1 minute. Books are leafed through, the Desk's papers are riffled through and the drawers are opened and the Chest just need to be opened.

vs

I walk into the room and look for anything of interest.
Bookshelf, Desk, Chest.
All takes 3 minutes because they're in their own 5 ft squares.

How to put this...hmm

Unless the clue/stimuli is hidden, Perception shouldn't really apply to the situation.

OTOH, Sherlock Holmes walks into the room, looks around and tells you to check the 3rd book on the second shelf because the disturbance of the dust suggests it's handled most often. And he's right, because he's Holmes.

Perception includes search. It teaches you what to look for and trains you to notice patterns.
Your 3 minute search is Taking 20. If you're good enough, you don't need to do that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KSF wrote:
Krensky wrote:
* Sends you the bill for a bottle of Excedrin Extra Strength.
Sorry :)

As X-Men continuity goes, that's pretty simple.

If you really want to hurt him, explain the Summers Family Tree. :)

Edit: Late 70s to Mid-80s for me, though I only caught the first part of that after the fact. Phoenix through the start of the massive explosion of X-titles. Mutant Massacre or a little before.


fictionfan wrote:

Why is everyone stuck on laser pistols. Being about to fabricate modern materical that we can make, but are hard to make would be more useful.

Such as carbon nano fibers.

Because laser pistols are cool.

But sure, if the GM wants to allow it. Decide what properties you want it to have. Decide whether it falls under the Technology category or not. I'd say yes, but your mileage may vary. If so, use those rules. If not, determine a price for it. Remember that prices are set for utility and balance, not on supply and demand or what you think the raw materials should cost. Then come up with a DC, pay half the cost in raw materials and go to town.

Remember there's nothing special about you. Anyone else who can make the Craft roll can make the stuff too.


Cheapy also said in that same thread

Quote:
Oh yea, I was pretty happy with finally defining how much space you could search.

But he didn't say what it was.

So is there a rule for that in some of the new skill material in Unchained?


master_marshmallow wrote:

The swift action is a bad mechanic because of how limited a resource it is and the implications it places on game design.

Anyone who looked at the final version of the warpriest and the magus understands this, there are too many things you need to do with it than you have time for, and the main reason to do such a thing is so that you can take the full round action. But you don't want to take that full round action unless you can manage to get both of those abilities that you can only take one of.

By shoehorning abilities into this mechanic, for the sole purpose of not taking away a martial classes full round, they limit how much the class can actually do with their class abilities. As a warpriest I have to decide between buffing my armor/weapon OR casting a very important buff spell (Divine Power most likely). This is because I am limited to only one swift action per turn. In a system that does away with that (this one) I can do both, and still get two swings in the same turn, four swings with Two Weapon Fighting.

How are you getting both (at 1 act each, I believe) and two swings, also at one act each?

Aren't you facing the same basic limit? Either 2 both buffs and attack once or just do one and full attack (or attack twice in the new paradigm). Of course, if you're TWF, each attack is two swings, which it wouldn't have been the old way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Personally, I think the more "absurd" martial powers should be considered Supernatural abilities. It's pretty easy to houserule, too.

That said, dual-wielding greataxes? Not really that much more absurd than a human being able to get a 30 Strength, or survive a fall into laval, or [arrow-related gripe]. Heroes are heroes. Choose your battles. Save your overthinking for the "I can split a mountain with my sword!" or "I can cause earthquakes with my hammer!" abilities.

odd that the mountain-splitting and earthquaking are seen as less possible while the bearded invisible flying guy calls in angels en masse to battle cthulu.

why cant everyone be a heroic demigod at high levels? at the upper levels you are regularly worldhopping and wheeling and dealing with planar overlords, why the hell CANT i play a properly Fantastic martial? Why do I only get to affect the world only within the reach of my weapon, while the wizard can wave a hand and vaporize a city. or summon an elder god. or change the weather. or stop time. or or or or OR OR OR

why is any of that absurd when the party wizard can just up and turn into a dragon when he wants.

Yes I'm mad.

Wizards can do that because they are using magic. Fighters can't do that because they aren't. Can we please try to remember the difference? Reminding people of it gets old and detracts from the real point.

*Climbs up on soapbox*

There is a thematic difference between a wizard being able to cast spells—something explained within the setting and game as a magical effect, established as a sanctioned exception to the laws of physics—and a nonmagical fighter being able to "fart fireballs". Magic is a specific conceit of any magical world. Fighters farting fire is not. This is a conceit specific to certain styles of fantasy, such as the aforementioned mythologies and weeaboo animes. But if...

Except, as it also gets old and distracting to remind people, even without the flashy fireball farts, the martials are all well beyond "non magical" by mid levels anyway. Just in ways that aren't quite so blatant. You know all the examples. I'm fond of "punching out a rhino".

If you really want your martials to stay below the superhero level, you've got to keep them low level. Or rewrite the base system.

Adding a few feats here and there that do flashy things doesn't really change that.
"Wizards have magic and fighters don't" isn't an answer.

That said, as I've said all along, play it how you wish, but don't try to keep things that don't fit your style, but might fit others out of the game.


Malwing wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

from what i understand so far, a houserule i think my table will be using (until we can put our heads together for a more elegant solution) will be:

-everyone gets 1 'swift' action free on their turn, additional swift actions cost one action.
-casting a spell (even modified with quickened spell or similar abilities) always costs at least 1 action, unless the spell is a swift action to cast to begin with.
-other exceptions to this rule exist, such as the magus or warpriest's class abilities (ones that bundle a spell to another action)
-'paired' natural attacks (such as claw/claw, wing/wing, etc) use a single action, similar to using the two-weapon fighting feat.

helps un-bone classes and monsters that got left in the lurch by the economy shift, still keeps spellcasting in its new less-mobile state.

thoughts?

also, im unsure how to handle vital strike-at one action it's strictly better than a single attack (slightly weaker than twf, i think), but at 2 actions it's FAR worse than just attacking twice.
i've also considered letting classes use their immediate/reactionary action for the turn instead of granting the free swift action.

.

edit: also @the t-rex comment(s) earlier: it's too bad crane wing is dead now, huh?

I would say something against spells being 1 act. It seems the paradigm is that anything that is a Standard or attack action turns into a 2 act action while anything that can be an attack or replace an attack is a 1 act action.

I think the more 'fair' house rule would probably be to have swift actions eat your reaction.

While the ruling pattern would make Vital Strike a 2 act action I would find it more fair to make it function like TWF where each feat handles a different iteration of attack actions. It functionally becomes a two handed weapon version of TWF under this system only slightly worse in exchange for the extra damage. Add in a generic dex to damage feat and they're about even.

Why would you ever not use Vital Strike in this system? An extra damage die for no penalty except the feat cost. Goes a long way towards keeping 2HF on top.

Of course, the reverse is also true, why would you ever use Vital STrike if it took 2 actions? I guess if you were very likely to miss at -10? Bonus to damage on your first attack, then a normal one at -5? Probably not worth the feat tax most of the time.


Kudaku wrote:
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:

Would a good houserule for the system be to make those swift-actions class features involve a single attack following normal BAB rules? So that a slayer can, for example, move, Studied Target (which includes an attack at full BAB), then attack at -5 BAB? Or Studied Target and then two attacks, for a total of one attack at full BAB, one at -5 BAB and one at -10?

I feel this reasonably covers most cases.

I think you're onto something here, but there are a ton of different things that use swift actions - hard to get a good idea of what would and wouldn't be covered. Off the top of my head I think style feats, studied combat*, studied target, smite evil, instant enemy, bane and judgement* would all work with that house rule. Martial Flexibility is iffy, since there are times when you want to pick up a feat preemptively.

I'm really looking forward to play testing this system, but I'm still leaning towards making the first swift action in a round not take an action. It seems like the easiest way to fix the problem.

** spoiler omitted **

Even if you're allowed to make an attack with your (thing that is currently a swift action), you wouldn't have to. But yes, I don't think there's much of a difference between allowing an attack along with the swift and just making the swift not take an action.

With the possible exception of quickened spells.

1 to 50 of 17,562 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.