Knowledge Checks being once only...
I understand the meta-game reason (since it is effectively a free action a player could make multiple checks to "recall" everything about a monster during combat).
But I believe an "in combat/under extreme duress" special rule would have been a better approach.
I'm sure someone's probably already addressed this, but a Quarterstaff isn't a Bo Staff. It tends to be around 8-10 feet long, and was wielded in a very spear-like manner. (Including smashing people who got 'inside' the 'far end' with the 'close end')
The thing most people don't get about spears is that once your enemy is past the business end, you don't use a spear as a spear anymore. You use it as a quarterstaff.See DrDeth's post above mine, but there is a difference between a quarterstaff and a longspear besides the pointy bit. Even in the core rulebook, they are described as having a 3 foot difference in length.
One simply cannot fight with an 8-10 foot pole the same way they do with a 5-6 foot pole.
If an 8-10 foot stick is a quarterstaff, what's a full staff? :P
Also, Pathfinder has it different:
A quarterstaff is a simple piece of wood, about 5 feet in length.
So, for the purpose of the game, a quarterstaff is about 5 feet in length.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess a whole staff is 20ft.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Actually, it's a buck and a quarter quarterstaff, but I'm not tellin' him that!"
--Daffy Duck, Robin Hood Daffy
Sayeth Wikipedia:
A quarterstaff (plural quarterstaves), also short staff or simply staff is a traditional European pole weapon and a technique of stick fighting, especially as in use in England during the Early Modern period.
The term is generally accepted to refer to a shaft of hardwood from 6 to 9 feet (1.8 to 2.7 m) long, sometimes with a metal tip, ferrule, or spike at one or both ends. The term "short staff" compares this to the "long staff" based on the pike with a length in excess of 11 to 12 feet (3.4 to 3.7 m).
According to Wikipedia, it's called a quarterstaff because it was split from a larger piece of wood. Basically, that it is milled lumber, and straight, not just a long branch or a walking stick. Which also makes Pathfinder's 'free cause you can just pick one up' thing not really work.
It is not a quarter length of anything.
Glad some people got that it was a joke....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the one bonus ability point every four levels scales up to inconsequential, I started giving out two; now every GM I know houseruled it into their games as well.
We tried one every two levels, but they couldn't be in the same stat twice in a row. Try that.
One point every session. Max 5 in one stat.
Oh wait. I could do that just by handing out items...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One point every session. Max 5 in one stat.
Oh wait. I could do that just by handing out items...
True.... but honestly that is something we are trying to get away from in our games. The inherent NEED for the belt/headband +3/+2 etc...
If EVERY character needs a specific item... why NOT just make them inherent bonuses and have the CHARACTEr get better/smarter/faster...
Same thing with the +1 weapons and a few of the other 'common' magic items...
I HATE the idea of 'common' magic items. ;)
Tomes.
I hate the way two-weapon fighting works.
Having a weapon in each hand should not give you extra attacks. What it ought to do is give you an attack bonus, because what you are really doing is making the defender divide their attention between multiple attack options. And the attack bonus should be larger against someone wielding one weapon, since they can only block one. There should also be a bonus to Feint -- but Feinting is so broken, I don't know that it matters.
This is speaking as someone who is ambidextrous and has had several years of medieval combat training.
I don't blame Pathfinder for this -- at some point the belief that more weapons=more attacks caught hold in gaming at large. But it's one of my big RPG combat pet peeves.
You know, you are correct on some points, however I would instead do the following
1. Eliminate the full strength damage as you are splitting your back muscles effort and other body muscles to attack.2. Eliminate the minus to hit.
3. Instead grant some type of bonus to attack when both hands attack the same target with the same base attack (+2 maybe, but removed when using precision attacks like sneak attack).
4. I would also make the 2nd and 3rd feat combine with the epic feat from 3.5 to grant an additional attack at all stages bellow (Honestly they are not worth a feat individually).
According to Wikipedia, it's called a quarterstaff because it was split from a larger piece of wood. Basically, that it is milled lumber, and straight, not just a long branch or a walking stick. Which also makes Pathfinder's 'free cause you can just pick one up' thing not really work.
It is not a quarter length of anything.
Just a clarification...this is news to me.
The reason I was informed it was a Quarterstaff a LONG time ago is how it's wielded.
Or used to be wielded loooong ago.
The staff itself is split into four quarters. These are the basic grasps or grips of the staff. Each grip depending on which quarter your hands cover, basically cover how you are wielding it and what you can do. For example, holding it more on the end quarter will result more in a shoving or hitting with the tip, where as, in the center could be more of a defensive block.
With the quarters it also means that switching a handhold is as quick and easy as simply changing the position of one of your hands to another quarter section of the staff.
At least, that's how I was taught why it was a quarterstaff.
I think the one bonus ability point every four levels scales up to inconsequential, I started giving out two; now every GM I know houseruled it into their games as well.We tried one every two levels, but they couldn't be in the same stat twice in a row. Try that.
Personally, I prefer to give a +1 enhancement bonus to 4 different attributes (in addition to the normal +1 attribute), so characters basically get a +2/+1/+1/+1 attribute boost every 4 levels. That keeps things close to characters getting a just the normal +1 and buying belts/headbands of attribute.
I also give characters a +1 deflection bonus to AC and a +1 resistance bonus to all saving throws at 2nd level and every 4 levels thereafter, thus removing the need of Rings of Protection and Cloaks of Resistance.
I'm still not sure about how to remove AoNA... I suppose I could give characters a +1 enhancement bonus to natural armor at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter, but that would mean low level character have really high AC.
These bonuses are innate to the character and can't be removed by any means. They don't even disappear in an AMF. I only keep the bonus types so they don't stack in unexpected ways with spells, class features and gear.
This helps to tone down the "Christmas tree effect" and encourages players to grab flavorful gear instead of buying more +1s every time. I
|
I did a chart/thread for that a long while ago. Really need to get around to trying it out in a long-term game.
|
I've been thinking about something like that too. What I'm stuck on is estimating what people NEED. Everyone knows that PCs are assumed to have a certain amount of stat-boosting things or they won't be able to cope with encounters of their approximate level. But just how much bonus are they assumed to have?
Are these primarily bonuses to (casting) abilities, HP, saves, to hit, damage and AC? Or are there other things that are assumed - defenses against certain attacks that come online at later levels? At what level is a PC supposed to penetrate what kind of DR or other special defenses?
Pageant of the peacock.
I strut around dancing and all of a sudden I know the middle name of the Song Pharaoh.....
If you use perform acting as your bluff, I can see it.
To convince someone at a party you know what you're doing, sure.
But to write their name out???
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pageant of the peacock.
I strut around dancing and all of a sudden I know the middle name of the Song Pharaoh.....
If you use perform acting as your bluff, I can see it.
To convince someone at a party you know what you're doing, sure.
But to write their name out???
To be fair Pageant of the Peacock is a SUPERNATURAL (CAPS FOR EMPHASIS) ability; I like to see it as you think you're pulling s!!% out of your ass but you're actually subconsciously connected to the ever present by rarely seen omniscient hive mind of the universe, and as such you supernaturally happen to imagine and guess what is exactly right.
Or you could just supernaturally trick reality into acting as your lie, but your "lie" is out of game whatever the Bestiary actually lists for the monster. Going by the second explanation, Pageant of the Peacock might be why Vampires die in daylight instead of moonlight and why Orcs are a monstrous race instead of Elves.
Either way, it ain't natural. It may be supernatural even! If it was only good for convincing people you knew what you were doing when you don't, how would it be different from a Bluff check?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pageant of the peacock.
I strut around dancing and all of a sudden I know the middle name of the Song Pharaoh.....
If you use perform acting as your bluff, I can see it.
To convince someone at a party you know what you're doing, sure.
But to write their name out???
The power of ACTING!
My first reaction while reading the Hunter's "Animal Focus" ability was this:
Grapple is a bit absurd in its general complexity.
The way magic works in the system seems very odd, though I know that's by design.
Alignments. Few game mechanics have created more conversation than this topic alone.
Grapple is a bit absurd in its general complexity.
The way magic works in the system seems very odd, though I know that's by design.
Alignments. Few game mechanics have created more conversation than this topic alone.
What part of the magic system are your referring to?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
6 oz druid in batform using agile manuevers to judo flip a 20 ton dragon into a grapple.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The item creation rules for mundane items. Some of the time requirements are nonsensical.
The way alignment is handled; alignment is 100% fluff as written, yet even Pathfinder is hardcoded for it. It creates unnecessary arguments.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed: "100% fluff" and "hardcoded into the game" are exclusive concepts. Hair color is 100% fluff. Gender is mostly fluff. But alignment directly interacts with powers and spells that are available at first level. That makes it very much not fluff.
You're still entitled to think it is absurd and/or unecessary, but describing it that way is something like saying "The race of my character is just fluff, but Pathfinder hardcodes in bonuses and penalties for it!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who said I'm dismissing it?
I'm stating the way it is written now makes it absurd due to the fact mechanics depend on it, but so much of it depends entirely on the opinions of the GM and players as to what each alignment actually deals with and what is a point that causes an alignment change.
I think there's a better way to handle it than this. Especially since there's arguments in some groups over whether or not murdering children just because they happen to be of an evil race is an alignment violation between some people (with some arguing that letting the children live is a violation).
And, LasarX, I didn't ignore it's a major part of mechanics; I outright stated it. Thanks for backing up my point before trying to put words in my mouth.
I think there's a better way to handle it than this
And that is...?
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, in my experience the alignment "issue" hasn't been an issue except in that rare and infrequent instance when I have to take a player aside and have the "there's a difference between chaotic neutral and chaotic evil, so please stop trying to bypass the intent of the 'no chaotic evil PC's' rule".
Most people I've played with can pretty quickly and readily intuit the various alignments, and other than the chaotic neutral alignment, I don't think any table time has been lost debating what is or is not Lawful, Chaotic, Good, or Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a better way to handle it than thisAnd that is...?
Something that if I had an answer to, I would be under an NDA with WotC to not talk about. Also something that if I didn't have an answer to would not be an item to negate the reasons I posted for adding it to the list, especially since the replies to what I said already have proven my point about it causing unnecessary arguments.
Either way, not something I am capable of posting here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm stating the way it is written now makes it absurd due to the fact mechanics depend on it, but so much of it depends entirely on the opinions of the GM and players as to what each alignment actually deals with and what is a point that causes an alignment change.
Pretty much, if you game with mature players, alignment change is something that the player and DM agree upon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, in my experience the alignment "issue" hasn't been an issue except in that rare and infrequent instance when I have to take a player aside and have the "there's a difference between chaotic neutral and chaotic evil, so please stop trying to bypass the intent of the 'no chaotic evil PC's' rule".
Most people I've played with can pretty quickly and readily intuit the various alignments, and other than the chaotic neutral alignment, I don't think any table time has been lost debating what is or is not Lawful, Chaotic, Good, or Evil.
Same here. Yes, with immature or new players, the real problem alignment is CN.
Pretty much, if you game with mature players, alignment change is something that the player and DM agree upon.
I'm stating the way it is written now makes it absurd due to the fact mechanics depend on it, but so much of it depends entirely on the opinions of the GM and players as to what each alignment actually deals with and what is a point that causes an alignment change.
Agreed. In general, I don't have problems with it at the table. Unfortunately, I don't limit my gaming to the table, and I've seen problems with it crop up a lot more online. Which is the same place I see the majority of complaints about it.
The item creation rules for mundane items. Some of the time requirements are nonsensical.I particularly like the fact that I could use, oh, say arsenous oxide to create green paint in an afternoon's work, while using it to create poison means weeks of slaving over the old cauldron. ;)
Sorry. I was not ignoring this post or your call for the moving on.
One of the things I have noticed is that some of the items don't match up to real-world times a lot. Leaving off the weapons and armor, notice how it can take a full day just to do the equivalent of mixing random veggies and water into a large pot and setting it to boil, which in real life shouldn't take long at all. And yet, cheese apparently takes only a day, despite a more complex creation process.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, alignment is a rule that you find absurd and/or necessary. You and several others. Noted!
Let's go on to other examples! 'Alignment' has been noted. Over and over. And over.
So what I'm hearing is that you want to continue the discussion about how bad alignment is?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this thread back?
Okay, one of the rules I find Absurd is actually a lack of a rule--people who cast Raise Thread don't get warnings/infractions/bannings like they do on other forums.
as far as I'm concerned, it's a feature, not a bug.
I like the fact that discussions can be picked up, and history of threads is preserved.
I do think some kind of warning sign could enhance the forum experience and prevent accidentally replying to a comment written 15 months ago however.
Is this thread back?
Okay, one of the rules I find Absurd is actually a lack of a rule--people who cast Raise Thread don't get warnings/infractions/bannings like they do on other forums.
According to (I think) the board Gninja, thread necromancy is not frowned upon with this forum, but she is going to relay the suggestion about a warning sign about how long ago the last post was in a particular thread to those who end up necro-ing a thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this thread back?
Okay, one of the rules I find Absurd is actually a lack of a rule--people who cast Raise Thread don't get warnings/infractions/bannings like they do on other forums.
Not most other forums. And not many worth going to.
It's frowned on in many places but unless the mods are dicks you won't get infracted for it because that's just dumb.
Charging rules.
Why should the attack be in a straight line? Why should it HAVE to be towards the "first square you can hit your opponent"? Why should it be a full round action? Why should allies prevent charging?
So much stupidity that was dummied out in 4e.
Is this thread back?
Okay, one of the rules I find Absurd is actually a lack of a rule--people who cast Raise Thread don't get warnings/infractions/bannings like they do on other forums.
as far as I'm concerned, it's a feature, not a bug.
I like the fact that discussions can be picked up, and history of threads is preserved.
I do think some kind of warning sign could enhance the forum experience and prevent accidentally replying to a comment written 15 months ago however.
Is that not what the time stamp in the top right is for?
Why should it be a full round action?
Because it's a double move (full round action), with an attack tacked onto the end.
The other rules you gripe about stand as balances to that.