| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you describe a naked fighter being fully submerged in acid and surviving with no degradation of abilities?
Timothy Leary.
I don't blame that on the hp rules not making sense. I'll blame it on the getting dunked in the acid tank rules :D
Acid as an energy attack.
So you think energy damage should be resolved via a different system than the HP system? How is that not a problem with HP?
argh. Being attacked with acid breath is different than being submerged in a vat of acid. When being hit with a line of acid you can avoid taking the full blunt of the attack by protecting your vitals and somewhat dodging. Being submerged is a different story all together. There is no abstraction of that.
So you think energy damage should be resolved via a different system than the HP system? How is that not a problem with HP?
No just questioning why caustic materials are viewed the same as fire, cold, electricity and kinetic force.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter multiclasses wizard. Regardless of having to buy the spells or not, he still learns the same amount in far less time than his single classed friend.multiclassing in general is pretty silly.
I was born and raised in a barbarian tribe.
one day my friends and I fight a few giants.
I go home and rest.in the morning I have gained a level of alchemist.
WTF?
When we first migrated to 3.0 and its "weak" class system, I required backstories supporting it or training in it to justify a new class.
For example, we had an elf PC who was eventually a rogue/sorcerer/Arcane Archer. It was in his backstory all along that he had magic in his family, association w/ Arcane Archers, etc. It wasn't a "hey, let's take a dip."
If you wanted to add a level of monk w/ no previous linkage to monkishness to justify how you were "almost" a monk already, you had to train at a monastery.
It became apparent that wasn't how the game was being played anymore and I gave it up, though. I still think it was better.
Wow. Considering the amount of s*** I caught from some people on another thread for presenting the idea that just maybe you should have an in-game character reason, maybe a little in-character explanation, for developing new abilities.... it's really nice to finally see some posters who feel the same away, at least in regard to some character changes.
|
|
Bats should technically be moving at half speed in caves because they have blindsense, not blind sight , and thus can't move at full speed because of unobstructed vision.
Bats really should have 'blindsight' not 'blindsense'-- their natural sonar is that accurate and sensitive. Bats can track small bugs mid-air with complete accuracy and pick them off at full-speed, without ever being confused about the bug's exact position.
So you think energy damage should be resolved via a different system than the HP system? How is that not a problem with HP?No just questioning why caustic materials are viewed the same as fire, cold, electricity and kinetic force.
I've learned a long time ago that anything brought about by chemical change in the real world, is represented as energy damage in the roleplaying world.
chemical change = energy damage
It's an oversimplification to be sure, but at least it's internally consistent.
I'm continually amazed by the number of people who are confused by acid being an energy when it should be a liquid (right?) when all the while they think cold is perfectly fine as an energy type, when really, it's actually the absence of energy/heat and shouldn't be energy either. In the end, I find that people making these kinds of arguments are missing the point altogether: It's a simplified system meant for (immersive) ease of play.
Bats should technically be moving at half speed in caves because they have blindsense, not blind sight , and thus can't move at full speed because of unobstructed vision.Bats really should have 'blindsight' not 'blindsense'-- their natural sonar is that accurate and sensitive. Bats can track small bugs mid-air with complete accuracy and pick them off at full-speed, without ever being confused about the bug's exact position.
I know. I used to have to catch the little buggers in what was basically a black volleyball net with very fine thread. One little hole in the thing and they'd fold their wings up and fly right through it.
|
I feel as if elves ALWAYS have to be houseruled to explain why they dont rule the world. Its simply makes no sense that creatures that are naturally more intelligent, longer lived and basically better in almost every way would not figure out how to control the other shorter lived races.I've always imagined it as being because elves don't breed as constantly as the shorter-lived races. For every elf there are a thousand humans and a million goblins.
Hard to take anything over when you are such a small faction.
I always just figured it was because elves are all basically lazy and apathetic. The books say that humans' defining characteristic is our urge to conquer and build up nations-- maybe the elves are just content to sit back and let them do all the work. Sure, an elf COULD do just about anything better than a human, if they'd get off their chaise lounge and put down the wine glass. But why would they? Life's gone pretty good for them as is without having to go out and fight a war or do whatever.
As for the HP system, it pretty much says in the Core Rulebook that hit points are an abstraction. If that abstraction breaks down when it comes to something like being dunked in acid, I'd prefer that over having to learn even MORE rules determining how to handle every situation that could crop up. It's bad enough that combat maneuvers all work differently from regular attacks as well as each other.
|
|
There's a lot of different things that bother me about the rules in PF (and D&D, going all the way back to the beginning)--
But I gotta admit, the fact that every elf is apparently extremely "developmentally disabled" really annoys me. And every theory expressed here doesn't answer that concern, unless elves simply are very very very slow learners or that elves have unbelievably bad memory, that can't retain anything until they leave the forest and start their adventuring life (and of course, no "muscle memory" or all those other things.
I mean, if elves spent that long physically maturing, they still ought to have learned a lot more in the process of growing up. If they spent that long, years studying each subject, then perhaps they ought to have lots of bonus skill points and the ability to ignore normal level limits on ranks in each skill (or some other such mechanism)-- instead, in over a hundred years of life... elves still learn and know no more than a human picks up in their very short lives so far... and elves are supposed to be intelligent? WTF?!
Someone mentioned Tolkien's elves... difference between fiction and games: all of Tolkien's elves are ancient bad-asses, ageless and effectively immortal so long as no-one kills them, whom very very few exceptional mortal men can even hope to match in battle, and have centuries or millennia of knowledge and experience added up-- but Tolkien wasn't worrying about game balance when making his characters for the story...
The house-rule applied that seems to work in the games I'm in-- is that all the races reach young-adulthood at around the same time, and initial aging depending on what class you're going into is more or less compressed for most characters (and yeah, maybe half-orcs start a few years younger, elves and dwarves a few years older, than your typical human character)-- it's just that some races (elves and dwarves and such) have much longer life expectancies so long as nothing kills them.
I suppose elves could consider active schooling cruel and unusual, and a detriment to a childs long term developmental health. (and seeing how screwed up humans are they might have a point) So they take it much slower and won't teach their children at a humans pace. they expect children to just "pick up" things passively as they go through life.
I suppose elves could consider active schooling cruel and unusual, and a detriment to a childs long term developmental health. (and seeing how screwed up humans are they might have a point) So they take it much slower and won't teach their children at a humans pace. they expect children to just "pick up" things passively as they go through life.
That's an idea.
Wow. Considering the amount of s*** I caught from some people on another thread for presenting the idea that just maybe you should have an in-game character reason, maybe a little in-character explanation, for developing new abilities.... it's really nice to finally see some posters who feel the same away, at least in regard to some character changes.Fighter multiclasses wizard. Regardless of having to buy the spells or not, he still learns the same amount in far less time than his single classed friend.multiclassing in general is pretty silly.
I was born and raised in a barbarian tribe.
one day my friends and I fight a few giants.
I go home and rest.in the morning I have gained a level of alchemist.
WTF?
When we first migrated to 3.0 and its "weak" class system, I required backstories supporting it or training in it to justify a new class.
For example, we had an elf PC who was eventually a rogue/sorcerer/Arcane Archer. It was in his backstory all along that he had magic in his family, association w/ Arcane Archers, etc. It wasn't a "hey, let's take a dip."
If you wanted to add a level of monk w/ no previous linkage to monkishness to justify how you were "almost" a monk already, you had to train at a monastery.
It became apparent that wasn't how the game was being played anymore and I gave it up, though. I still think it was better.
I always give in game reasons and expect it from my players.
if my ranger will take evil outsiders for a favored enemy its because we have been facing them or he has some other motivation and I spend a level or two saying that my character is researching evil outsiders or asking every one around to educate him. I will even take knowledge planes for a few levels.
in my games i dont really disallow much... but you have to have a valid excuse for it... unless i find it game breaking or something
|
|
I always give in game reasons and expect it from my players.if my ranger will take evil outsiders for a favored enemy its because we have been facing them or he has some other motivation and I spend a level or two saying that my character is researching evil outsiders or asking every one around to educate him. I will even take knowledge planes for a few levels.
in my games i dont really disallow much... but you have to have a valid excuse for it... unless i find it game breaking or something
That is the way I play, and also pretty much everyone I currently game with plays (in PF and in other systems). :D
(Seriously-- I really was feeling like a minority of one around here for a while-- TY, I appreciate knowing I'm not the only one).
|
Flat-footed before you act in initiative. Someone said this already - I am just seconding it.
I can make a Reflex save vs a still, silent fireball cast by an invisible mage during a surprise round (getting my full bonus from Dex), but I can't use any Dex at all to my AC if someone charges at me from 60 ft. away in the first round of combat just because I haven't acted yet.
You can use some of your Dex, just not all of it if you're particularly dextrous. I.e. when you are flatfooted you are not considered to have a Dex of 0, but effectively a Dex of 10 - i.e. when flat footed you react only as well as an average person.
Having said that, 4e did change this rule. Only in the surprise round, and only if you are actually surprised, are you considered "flat footed" (in 4e the equivalent is grant Combat Advantage). In a regular fight both combatants expect then neither starts flat footed / granting Combat Advantage.
There var like millions of humans, and most don't live much past 50. A wizard mentor or school will just pick the most talented students, because there's a huge availability and it doesn't make sense to take on a student that will take 30 years to learn the basics.
Elves var much rarer, live in small societes but live a long time. A wizard mentor might only have one or two potential students in it's village, and flunking them because it might take an extra decade of two is counterproductive.
First)
A mid level matial class has a decent chance to trip a charging rino or can just beat it to death with a club.
Just plain big animals are way to easy to kill.
Second)
Armor should make you harder to damage, not harder to hit.
Third)
No getting tired, worn out, or just beat down. Joe the fighter can battle an army all day long. As long as he has a hitpoint left, there is no degradation in his abilities.
I can't help thinking of the thread on a gunslinger wielding a collosal sized pistol, imagine that going "KABOOM!" next to you, or for that matter the game where another player fired a shotgun right next to my characters ear to try and kill a snowman. He failed and it ate him but that's another matter.The gunslinger class as a whole. After I read it, I asked myself "Have the designers ever spent any time on a range and fire a weapon?"
Biggest problem I had was no rule-set on what happens when your ally shoots his gun adjacent to you in close-combat, ever hear a gun go "BOOM" or the muzzle flash, especially on a black powder muzzleloader ?
you cannot do this. Guns still follow the core over sized rules. Sean faqed this 2 weeks ago.
How do you describe a naked fighter being fully submerged in acid and surviving with no degradation of abilities?I wouldn't use HP for that scenario. if he's got no way out, or to hold himself against the side, or anything else, he'd dead.
If a PC was placed on a guillotine that was in the care of a reasonably-qualified guillotine-maintenance expert and the blade drops, he dies. I'm not rolling damage. I'm not calling it a critical hit. He dies.
Gygax defends using HP in an obviously certain death scenario involving a blue dragon, but his scenario isn't as certain death as what we're talking here.
that's called a coup de grace
In other games I have enjoyed the HP/Vitality mix with HP representing the dodge/take-the-hit-but-keep-going type stuff and vitality representing life essence. You're only dead at 0 vitality and HP is just a buffer before vitality starts ticking off from 'normal' attacks. Vitality can be directly hit bypassing HP with certain attacks. I'd prefer it if HP in PF was kept the same with the whole "0 hp to neg con" amount being vitality. So, a 1st level 14 con d8 hit die character would have 10 HP with 14 vitality points. You're dead at 0 vitality regardless of hp or other conditions. Normal attacks chew through HP then chink away at vitality. Daily rest restores full HP but only a single point of vitality per day. Getting knocked unconscious is just a failed check, no harm to either hp or vitality unless that's part of the point (clubbed over the head versus a choke hold, for instance). Other tweaks are obviously necessary but that's been one of my 'what if I could change this' items.
I wouldn't use HP for that scenario. if he's got no way out, or to hold himself against the side, or anything else, he'd dead.
If a PC was placed on a guillotine that was in the care of a reasonably-qualified guillotine-maintenance expert and the blade drops, he dies. I'm not rolling damage. I'm not calling it a critical hit. He dies.
Gygax defends using HP in an obviously certain death scenario involving a blue dragon, but his scenario isn't as certain death as what we're talking here.
Um, historically speaking guillotines were far from guaranteed kills. There were instances where the blade wouldn't pass through the neck and the person would be alive but flailing and screaming with blood spurting everywhere. The base design of the contraption doesn't allow for consistent operation even if it's "reasonably" maintained. There's a reason why it is considered a cruel punishment and is nowhere to be found in 1st world countries or at least the U.S. So, to represent this in-game, it would most certainly be a critical hit. Even if it didn't outright kill you, you can still fail your fort save and still die.
...That said, of course I know what the original poster is actually trying to say, since a roll of 15-23 bounces a 1 damage attack just as effectively as a 1500 damage attack and that's probably what they're really wanting to complain about.
Yeah, I probably could have explained it alot better.
You can use some of your Dex, just not all of it if you're particularly dextrous. I.e. when you are flatfooted you are not considered to have a Dex of 0, but effectively a Dex of 10 - i.e. when flat footed you react only as well as an average person.
Having said that, 4e did change this rule. Only in the surprise round, and only if you are actually surprised, are you considered "flat footed" (in 4e the equivalent is grant Combat Advantage). In a regular fight both combatants expect then neither starts flat footed / granting Combat Advantage.
I misspoke. I didn't mean that you are treated as if you have no Dex, but that you do not get the bonus.
Flat-footed as a whole is messed up. The actual wording is "... loses his Dexterity bonus ... " (emphasis mine) so if you have a penalty, it still applies. So if I am unaware of being attacked and I am dextrous (say, 16), I can't use my Dex to dodge (treated as having a 10). But if I am unaware of being attacked and I am clumsy (say, 8), then I take my -1 (still treated as having an 8), despite the fact I am just as unaware of the attack in either situation.
See above, you still keep your Dex to your Reflex save (which is honestly the most "reflexive" thing in the game). It just doesn't make sense.
-------
Another thing is learning skills (which is related to the multiclassing point). My GM and I had this discussion.
You can be out in the wild and haven't seen civilization in months, and if you level, you can technically throw point in Linguistics and learn a new language or you can put a point in a Knowledge skill despite not having any source to learn anything new. When this was first brought up, my GM said he would just say you can't do that.
The problem arises when you consider other skills and also particularly skillful classes (i.e. rogue).
The logic here is that a character wouldn't have gotten the chance to attain the "right to increase a skill," since they couldn't apply the skill whatsoever over the course of that level. However, if a rogue just happens to go through an entire level without having to use the Disable Device skill, should he be restricted from dropping one of his many points into it? Some classes have such a high amount of skills, that if you follow this, the players might be shoehorned into going and doing random stuff, just so when he levels he can put his points into the right skills.
And to continue that logic, consider the rogue I mentioned earlier. He maxes all of the skills he uses from level 1, except Escape Artist (never saw a use for it), so it has 0 ranks. Then at level 5, he gets tied up once and uses the skill. He then realizes he might need it, so at level 6, since he has qualified for putting points into it, he fills it to max ranks as well. He is now just as good at Escape Artist, of which he only recently even thought he needed nor tried to, as he was at Acrobatics, something he has been practicing his whole career.
EDIT: I forgot to make the link to the multiclass discussion. It's pretty obvious - if you follow the logic of requiring a reason, then you run into all sorts of problems. That being said, I don't necessarily believe you shouldn't require stuff. I was just pointing out the flow of logic.
I don't get the fuss about HP. In my game, if you have AC 18 and the enemy rolled a 17, close call. Roll is a 19, you get hit, as is "you are wounded".
Your 6th level fighter is dumped in acid? He's going to die quickly, even with his high HP if he can't get out. His toughness gives him a few more escape seconds than a 1st level fighter would have. I see no problem here.
Your 10th level barabrian is about get his head chopped of by a guillotine? If he makes his Fort save vs. coup de grace he probably has a nasty cut in the neck. Then he rips the whole thing apart and dices the executioner with the guillotine blade as an improvised weapon. Seriously, a high level character can do more than pooping in the woods and kicking dogs.
PCs are not normal people. If I want to play someone normal, I can just play myself. Lame.
I don't get the fuss about HP...
Not to threadjack, but...
It gets really difficult as GM to keep describing those kinds of situations without things becoming really silly. I've got my own solutions so that I can keep HP but things are a bit more consistent. But HP abstraction is a very common complaint about the system for a good reason. I'm not saying you have to hate them, just explaining the "fuss".
|
|
Stuff about hp and physical damage
Well, you see, some of us started before 3.x. WAY before. And some of us tend to see it the Gygax way. I could dig up the old DMG and quote 1e on the subject, but the long and the short of it is that only a handful of hit points represent actual physical damage, most are luck and skill at avoiding injury, with hit points lowering as the character gets fatigued. Hit points in D&D before WotC were a very abstract thing. Gygax even pointed out there's no way a human is taking as much physical damage as an elephant (or something, I forget the exact animal used in his example).
So, whatever. Some of us prefer that to "wuxia John Woo badass who can take a s%++ ton of physical punishment".
Healing is the problem. HP are actually defined in the book as abstract.
There is just no way I can continue to avoid plugging the Strain-Injury HP variant.
Bringing it back on topic, the fact that HP are abstracted damage and that they heal as though every point was literal wounds makes me scratch my head a bit. For a short while during the beta test, it looked like the heal skill was going to be reworked to deal with this, but... not so much. Ah well, that's what the above house rule is for!