| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the opposite side of the spectrum, which critters do you dislike?
Not sure if they count as templates but, the non-planar simple templates (such as advanced, young, and giant) tend to be pretty terrible in practice so after a little experimentation I tend to avoid using those in favor of traditional methods like HD advancement.
In the first bestiary (or the 3.x Monster Manual) there are precious few creatures I outright dislike, though there's a lot that I just don't include much or have never used (for example, I've never actually used Slaad, Skum, or Formians, despite having nothing against them and actually thinking the latter are quite cool). Other creatures, if I like them thematically but they're poorly designed I'll just redesign before using them (such as with my Revised Marilith and Balor). So the list of disliked creatures is probably going to be pretty small.
- Rust monsters. They're cute but I've never been able to really bring myself to like them after I realized what piss-poor design rust monsters are. They're basically monsters that exist to screw with your players and they make little sense beyond trying to be mean to your party's martials. I mean, rust monsters have to eat metal objects, but they can't make metal objects, so until metal objects were being constructed, they would simply have starved and died out. Further, they can't burrow or break stone, so aside from trying to eat the iron in surface dirt and stone, they have no way of getting food on their own in the wild.
- The Tarrasque. Similar to the rust monsters, these things are really gimmicky in that the thing that makes them interesting is their annoying-to-kill nature (liches do it better though), but the real bummer is they're incredibly boring and have an inflated CR. A fight with a Tarrasque is a battle with a big dumb brute at levels where you're rubbing elbows with godlike beings, and it's mostly just a slugfest (a slugfest that a solo martial of around level 20 will crush a tarrasque in). Putting aside a variety of ways to kill it (the most efficient means I know of being animate dead) it just isn't really an interesting or particularly fun fight.
- Linnorms. While I appreciate linnorms as an attempt to add more variety in the "big super dragons" category, real dragons are generally a lot more epic to battle because the linnorns are very gimmicky for their CRs. Most have little to offer an encounter aside from a breath weapon every so often (and a Tarn Linnorn's breath weapon may take as long as 8 rounds before its cooldown is over). The CR 20 tarn linnorn is probably the most egregious offender as it's CR 20 and the simple combination of resist energy and delay poison render it quite impotent. Each linnorn has some sort of curse which applies a special effect that would have been useful except it only applies after the linnorn's death, which generally means that unless you're dealing with an extremely high level encounter with multiple creatures, it's just a matter of killing the linnorn and casting remove curse before the curse ever becomes a real problem.
- Pre-revised Mariliths & Balors. These are two of my favorite monsters thematically, but as printed they are chumps. Neither live up to the mighty power and positions they are described as having, and most of them have precious little in the way of useful abilities and/or things that can actually challenge parties on their CR-scale. When compared to CR rivals like Pit Fiends and Planetar, it becomes really obvious how bad they are (planetar are so much stronger than mariliths and are actually LOWER CR than them).
- General fey. I don't use a lot of fey, for two reasons. Most are relegated to being caster sorts that have a lot of similarities between one-another (in the 3.x MM, there's several different types of small fairy-like fey that have a variety of SLAs and a couple gimmicks, such as Pixies, Nixies, and Grigs). Plus their creature HD hamstrings them into being casters (Paizo tried to make martial fey by either inflating their ability scores or deflating their ability scores and piling tons of HD onto them and neither provides pleasant results). Further, they often lack any common ties or explanations for being with other non-fey on a regular basis, so using them in mixed groups to fill out some roles isn't always reasonable. So generally the only fey I tended to use were things like dryads or nymphs.
As an aside: A lot of GMs I've seen that are fond of fey are so because of real life fey lore, but the way they end up playing said fey tend to come off as needlessly capricious and chronically attention deficient, which might have subconsciously off-put me from messing with them too much.
However, I've made a conscience choice to try to further define fey in my own games, because I'd like to use them more, and so I've tried to add a little more personality to them and make them a little more relateable.
- Inevitables. See below.
>except inevitables (because while I think individual inevitables are cool, I think their lore is ass on head stupid so when I do use them, they are heavily modified outside of their mechanics)
What's so bad about their lore? I don't know much, but I believe they were just a crutch to stop Golarion from collapsing into a tippyverse?
I'm going to frame this with the disclaimer that I'm going to be criticizing both their 3.x and Pathfinder lore as it's similar and will likely swap between them more or less interchangeably, as I'm not particularly fond of either representation.
The problem I have with inevitable lore is that most of their existence is kind of stupid and/or pointless. It is very clear that magic is a natural force in D&D, possessed by so many creatures and beings matter-o'-factly (in the form of SLAs or even inborn spellcasting), and there are certain laws and standards for how magic functions (these can clearly be learned and manipulated or put to use), and so forth. However, most inevitables are tasked with deciding that one particular way of using the natural laws of the universe is unnatural and they exist to punish or disrupt that usage as perfect examples of order and reason while being often disorderly and unreasonable in doing so.
For example, Maruts exist solely to try to murder people who maybe should have died but didn't, and it notes this as any instance of unnaturally extending your life beyond the lifespan of your base race, but they're also noted as coming to kill you if your life was expanded because you ate food that you kept from other people who died. None of that is actually outside of the laws of the universe and the latter is just stupid. Perhaps hilariously, any creature that's naturally capable of things like lichdom or immortality via alchemy or wizardry (which they're noted as seeking out to destroy) is also going to roflstomp them. I guess despite being all about the natural order of things, they might have issues with druids (and either way, they're stupid).
Another example is a set of inevitables that have nothing better to do than travel around "punishing" oathbreakers or people who bilk on deals. It doesn't really explain what is considered important enough to warrant arrival or punishment. If it's a major betrayal, they just exist to ensure that a real story doesn't happen, and if it's a minor betrayal, it just comes off as petty and stupid (I'm going to use this word, stupid, many times while describing Inevitables).
Then there's the mechanical implications that they're rife with. They're constantly described as traveling through or across the edges of the planes to enact their idea of law and order on the universe (except when it's not their idea of law and order, such as the the Zelekhuts), except the vast majority of them don't actually have any means of traveling through the planes (only a handful can plane shift or anything similar), nor do they have any means of actually discovering or enacting whatever without some sort of outside aid to their missions (each would need a retinue of Arbiters to help with their commune to get anything worthwhile done), and since they're also wholly against making gates to travel between planes (to the point that the most powerful Inevitables make it their personal mission to smash, destroy, disable, shut down, or otherwise end any form of machine or magical gate that allows travel between planes), much of their lore makes no sense.
Their skills don't even reflect their lore a little. The guys intended to exist as punishers of oathbreakers are described as having encyclopedic knowledge of the customs and laws of virtually every race and such, but they don't even have Knowledge (Local) or anything except Knowledge (Planes) and no way of mechanically backing up that statement. In fact, if you actually asked them a question about a law or culture that has a DC higher than 10, they can't answer it.
These beings of absolute order repeatedly prove themselves to be exceedingly random, contradicting, and overly selective, and worse yet it seems that they rarely add anything to a story aside from a chance to see an inevitable. It's not particularly interesting when the guys that are important to a great story (like the betrayer king, or the thief of thieves, or the evil lich intent on conquering the continent) are supposed to just get random visits from these guys to save the day without the heroes (or insisting to work alongside the heroes at best), making them the Mary Sues of "I know this is none of my business but..."
Soooo...
So if I do use inevitables, I run them completely differently from their given lore. In my games, most are like mechanical wizened sages who watch the machinations of the planes through various means (usually through arbiter commune spells and magic items), attempting to map out current and future events by mapping the universe through lots of binary trial and error (such as using commune and augury tools to narrow things down with repeated Y/N questions). They keep watch over things like universes and galaxies and have connections to things like magical astrology.
They don't necessarily agree on much aside from the need for order, and some of them might decide that a better form of order is different from what others might think, so they can end up in protagonist or antagonist situations depending on things. The antagonistic ones are less about worrying if someone's cheating on their wife or happens to be a mummy, and more about things like ensuring that a preordained cataclysm comes to pass or other abstract notion of universal or galactic order being unobstructed even if it would cost people their lives (such as taking offense to someone moving a comet off course with a miracle spell), and in these cases they are clearly wrong to everyone except themselves as this is the vice of arbitrary rigidity and adherence to order without reason or exception.
Some particularly antagonistic ones function more like the Borg or something, trying to use military force to spread the same sort of mechanically "perfect" order of their own existence to the rest of the multiverse, while other more benevolent inevitables attempt to stop them from disrupting the natural order and balance of the multiverse and its peoples, which can throw certain subgroups of inevitables against one-another.
These things combined lead inevitables in my games to be a weird mixture of things like Skynet (Inevitables may actually attempt to do weird things like chronological or planar manipulations to ensure a specific route of preordained or desired result comes to pass), Transformers (with these mechanical alien beings often in bitter opposition to one-another based on interpretation or differences of ethics or ideology), and other such things.
I also tend to play up the mechanization parts of their anatomy, describing their fighting styles and such in ways that are likely reminiscent of General Grievous (swirling wrist joints, torsos and heads that can rotate 360o degrees, etc), and have them frequently skirt the edges of man and machine (especially when it comes to things like understanding emotions, and typically imply that emotions make them feel uncomfortable and are often seen as a sort of defect, and some dislike spending extended periods with other entities like humans because they find these defects "contagious").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the overall BBEG for the campaign I'm using the skill casting system in is a Mystic Theurge, and I think I'm going to have him use this for his encounter. I think this fight, even without stuff like this, is going to be super difficult in the new system. If they don't kill him in a single round, he can always retreat, use heal, and then come back to the fight.
With this setup, he could userighteous might to override alter self and turn into gargantuan mammoth, then, while buffed with other spells, fight in melee and spell combat. I might keep a herd of mammoths around for s#$%s and giggles and watch them get nervous as each mammoth is a potential host. Then fight the astral form, then the real body, then the clone, finally, the demonized version. Should be fun!
Cool! I'm always interested in hearing about how it's going. ^_^
How's the group been enjoying it so far, by the way?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the overall BBEG for the campaign I'm using the skill casting system in is a Mystic Theurge, and I think I'm going to have him use this for his encounter. I think this fight, even without stuff like this, is going to be super difficult in the new system. If they don't kill him in a single round, he can always retreat, use heal, and then come back to the fight.
With this setup, he could userighteous might to override alter self and turn into gargantuan mammoth, then, while buffed with other spells, fight in melee and spell combat. I might keep a herd of mammoths around for s#$%s and giggles and watch them get nervous as each mammoth is a potential host. Then fight the astral form, then the real body, then the clone, finally, the demonized version. Should be fun!
Cool! I'm always interested in hearing about how it's going. ^_^
How's the group been enjoying it so far, by the way?
They've liked it s far, especially since they're only level 1 and a half. The casters are really enjoying this fact they don't have to be 'not casters' after two fights because they're out of spells. I'm using the spell damage and ability burn as side effects for failing to cast, and one of the players failed 3 checks in a row. After taking 3d6 points of damage (barely surviving) and 3 wisdom burn, he suddenly found himself a lot more wary of spellcasting. The other casters were too as he nearly killed himself trying to cast his spells.
Suddenly, boosting your concentration checks became very important. In Pathfinder/D&D, if you fail, you simply loose the spell. In this system, failing the check may very well kill you.
I also get to throw more little fights and encounters at them because I don't have to worry about the healer running out of spells. This makes for more populated dungeons, and I fully intend to have some sort of party vs. Horde fight later on, so they can get that hack n'slash video game feel to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you think people like to argue on the internet more than they like to argue in real life?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you think people like to argue on the internet more than they like to argue in real life?
Well, I must admit I love a good argument (emphasis on the word good) in real life and won't hesitate to engage in some friendly debates or logic labyrinths, though IRL such arguments seem to last less time in general (mostly because I think it's faster and easier to keep the conversation on track and address specific issues, whereas online, it's very possible that four people are arguing quite passionately with each other but they aren't arguing the same things as each other, often without realizing it).
I think there are lots of individual reasons but...
I think one of the reasons people seem very apt to get into arguments online with greater frequency than offline is that it can entail the entertainment aspects of an argument, it's a form of mental exercise, and promote your thoughts, without the social repercussions or responsibilities that come with actually interacting with people rather than text on a screen (whereas trying to argue to everyone at your friendly local game store how wrong it is that Tina's sorcerer isn't evil 'cause he casts infernal healing, despite her being the most good member of a team, has more social repercussions).
Another reason (especially for me), is that in a digital debate like here, citing sources is a much easier thing. If you wish to bring up a point, you can frequently link to your references with a simple google search, whereas when out and about in a daily setting, it's impractical to carry around all the information that's relevant to whatever your subject is (even with things like smart phones being a thing).
When offline, most of my debating actually concerns religion and social politics (literally the best ways to ruin friendships if you're not careful) and I can say that sometimes it'd be nice if I could just hand someone a reference to an exact paragraph in - say - the bible, in five different translations, without having to try to remember the exact book and line. Online, doing this is pretty easy, even if you're in a discussion or debate in real time (such as over Skype, Discord, or an IMing program).
Another reason I enjoy online debates is because of Quoting. It's very handy to be able to address specific points of an argument, and have a clear backlog of what has been said, which helps minimize confusion and nail down those who aren't interested in truth or reason but acting like weasels. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, outside of formalised debates, arguing/debating IRL has that small issue of tangents and interruptions. Online, someone can, typically, create their entire argument in a single, or at least their counter argument, rebuttal, whatever. Online, you can address everyone of a person's points, individually, and use their post as a reference to make sure you don't forget.
You usually can't do this in person. There's always interruptions, and someone always nitpicks one aspect of a point until you end use going down tangential paths.
In addition, emotions flare using more in person. You can quickly end an argument by looking your cool and yelling or getting upset. Flaring emotions often lead to the interruptions and tangents mentioned before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
>(whereas trying to argue to everyone at your friendly local game store how wrong it is that Tina's sorcerer isn't evil 'cause he casts infernal healing, despite her being the most good member of a team, has more social repercussions).
Still salty about that one, I take it?:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
>(whereas trying to argue to everyone at your friendly local game store how wrong it is that Tina's sorcerer isn't evil 'cause he casts infernal healing, despite her being the most good member of a team, has more social repercussions).
Still salty about that one, I take it?:)
I've been salty about that topic ever since Sean K. Reynolds argued that it would be more good to burn a scroll with an [Evil] spell on it that could cure a child of cancer, than to use the scroll which also destroys it in the process.
Seriously, I don't even...I can't even...just...gah!
EDIT: Thinking about it, I think the reason it bothers me so much is that deep down, I kind of expect better from people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>(whereas trying to argue to everyone at your friendly local game store how wrong it is that Tina's sorcerer isn't evil 'cause he casts infernal healing, despite her being the most good member of a team, has more social repercussions).
Still salty about that one, I take it?:)
I've been salty about that topic ever since Sean K. Reynolds argued that it would be more good to burn a scroll with an [Evil] spell on it that could cure a child of cancer, than to use the scroll which also destroys it in the process.
Seriously, I don't even...I can't even...just...gah!
EDIT: Thinking about it, I think the reason it bothers me so much is that deep down, I kind of expect better from people.
A friend of mine gave a good explanation for this-developers wanted to create a world where casting Evil spells was an objectively terrible idea(I.e. casting an Evil spell would always end up in horrible disaster that is worse than whatever Good you achieve with it) no matter what, but failed.
We discussed it some, and only managed to find one book that properly describes a universe that works like that. It is also, coincidentally, the sort of universe nobody would ever want to find themselves in.
>The Tarrasque. Similar to the rust monsters, these things are really gimmicky in that the thing that makes them interesting is their annoying-to-kill nature (liches do it better though), but the real bummer is they're incredibly boring and have an inflated CR. A fight with a Tarrasque is a battle with a big dumb brute at levels where you're rubbing elbows with godlike beings, and it's mostly just a slugfest (a slugfest that a solo martial of around level 20 will crush a tarrasque in). Putting aside a variety of ways to kill it (the most efficient means I know of being animate dead) it just isn't really an interesting or particularly fun fight.
Okay, this has been bugging me the whole day. How do you efficiently permakill a Tarrasque with animate dead? I am usually quite good at coming up with ways to do such things, and I have nothing. Do you make a minion and order it to stab it once per round until the end of time? That's not very efficient, since all it takes is someone evil to come by and kill your skeleton for the monster to revive itself, not to mention it cutting into your animating HD limits.
Also, just stumbled upon your "Make them Cry!! - The DM's Diabolic Book of Mean Mean Things" thread, and wanted to add an example somewhere without commiting a horrible sin of necromancy.
I AM THE SWARM
Some animals are surprisingly cheap. For example, a Thrush(a flying diminuitive critter) only costs 1sp. This means that, for a small price of 100gp, you(or any enemy you put in your dungeons) can get 1000 thrushes. Other notable examples include house centipedes(dazing poison, 10k per 100gp), squirrels(+8 to attack, 100 per 100gp), cats(Tiny animal, 3k per 100gp), Canaries(tiny flying critter, 2.5k per 100gp).
"But all those animals are completely useless" I hear you say. "A centipede would never hit anyone, poison DC is horrible, and they are mindless vermin to boot. A squirrel has +8 to attack, sure, but only 3hp and can't ever deal more than 1 nonlethal damage."
"Tsk, tsk, tsk."-I answer-"Individually, in a flat white room, they are useless. Individually, kobolds in a flat white room are useless. You just aren't thinking deviously enough."
Individually, a House centipede is pretty much never a threat. But you can get 10k of them for chump change. So, imagine a dungeon that has tiny holes in the ceiling, with every square covered in centipedes(4 can fit into one square). If PCs kill a centipede, a new one drops from the ceiling, and there is pretty much no way they will kill all of them (10k individual attacks? good luck with that.) Now, what good does that do? Well, centipedes have one attack per round, and one AoO per round. This means that for every square the heroes move through, they will suffer 4 attacks. Any single attack may only have a 5% chance to hit, but since there are 4 of them, there is a 20% chance to take at least 1 nonlethal damage for every square the PCs go through. How many squares are there in a dungeon to go through? 200(40+ nonlethal damage per PC)? 400? That damage will add up quickly. Plus there is a non-zero chance of a daze effect happening somewhere in there.
Individually, a Thrush is useless. But do you know what it is? It is a flying diminuitive critter that costs nothing, can learn tricks and can attack. What good is that? Two words:Aid Another. All thrushes in your collection learn one and only one trick:to aid actual combatants against whatever enemies enter the room. I don't see any time restrictions on tricks, so they can be ordered to do that in the morning, with no additional orders necessary when the battle starts-ordering animals around takes really long otherwise. When the battle starts, thrushes fly at the enemy and start aiding. Each of them only has a 45% chance of providing that +2 bonus, but there can be as many as 25 of them in every square, giving an average maximum bonus of +22.5. How does +22.5 to attack or AC sound for something that costs 100gp?
P.s. Pathfinder house centipedes are Tiny vermin, which means they are the size of a cat. Australia has nothing on Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you animate the Terrasque or something? I never considered that...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you animate the Terrasque or something? I never considered that...
It would have to be dead first I would imagine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It says that if you drop it with a death effect it will rise again in three days in its regeneration stat block. I would assume it would be a fair target at that point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It says that if you drop it with a death effect it will rise again in three days in its regeneration stat block. I would assume it would be a fair target at that point.
Ooh, that's a fair point. And it might not be able to raise if it is animated, so you not only take care of the threat, you also get a kickass mount.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I mentioned this as the most efficient way to kill the tarrasque on the boards a few years ago. Due to the unique way that the tarrasque's regeneration works, if it dies because it fails a saving throw, it's actually dead for a few rounds and then it springs back to life.
During this window of it being dead, you cast animate dead on it, and turn it into a mindless undead. This strips the regeneration ability from the tarrasque, at which point you can destroy it for realsies.
So all you really need to kill the Tarrasque is a martial and a middling level cleric. Or, a high level cleric (just pop your karma bead and cast gate) to summon a Solar. Despite being 2 CRs below a Tarrasque, a Tarrasque has no hope or prayer of ever defeating a Solar. It can beat the Solar into pudding, coup de grace it, then use it's miracle to replicate the effects of an animate dead spell and end the thing forever.
Because Solars are gods.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I meant "beat the tarrasque into pudding", not "the solar", because that would be hilariously impossible for a tarrasque. :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to note that there's something poetically appropriate that the only way to disrupt the perfect life-power of the tarrasque is with necromancy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is your favourite RWBY soundtrack? What if various remixes by fans are also included in the comparison?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is your favourite RWBY soundtrack? What if various remixes by fans are also included in the comparison?
Oh geeze, that's a tough one.
Give me a bit to think about it. I don't even know what the 3rd season's soundtrack is like because I've been avoiding it like the plague since I had intended to watch it with my brother, but the lil' flake is taking so long that I'm probably going to just cave in and watch it alone. T-T
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
> I don't even know what the 3rd season's soundtrack is like
In my opinion third season is all over the place and is generally worse than the other two. They introduced a bunch of characters who only participate in about one scene each. Fight scenes are very unpredictable because of this, which makes them not very interesting to watch. Just my opinion though. Music is also "eh", since no Monty Oum.
>Wonders why nobody asks any easy questions like "What's the meaning of life?".. T_T
Well, if you insist. What's the meaning of life? How about the secondary meaning of life? Tertiary?
What is your opinion on gluing/tying alchemical items together? E.g. suppose a player bought some alchemical glue, a flask of acid, a flask of alchemist fire and a burst jar, then glued the latter three together, and then threw that at the enemy. Would that work? Would the target take 1d6 points of acid damage and 1d6 points of fire damage, not to mention sonic damage? Or would something else happen?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clear! Satchel charge incoming!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
>Wonders why nobody asks any easy questions like "What's the meaning of life?".. T_T
Well, if you insist. What's the meaning of life? How about the secondary meaning of life? Tertiary?
Normally I wouldn't say these aspects come in any particular order, but I'll order them for ease of reading with some notes...
The Primary but Subtle Purpose
IMHO, the primary meaning of life is growth/improvement. Our experiences shape us, and obstacles, hard times, and challenges exist to temper and make us stronger. If we are unable to overcome those obstacles and flee from them, the obstacles will repeatedly manifest elsewhere in our lives (often with more potency). Overcoming obstacles grants us strength of character and those obstacles fail to be significant in the future. All of life is a chance to grow and improve as a human soul, in a transformation that's comparable to iron becoming steel or coal a diamond.
However, this is kind of an overall thing, and something that's rather "under the hood" as unless you're actively thinking about it or looking back on how much you've grown in life, most will never notice it.
The Meaning
The secondary aspect is joy, and this is one of the trials of life in and of itself. Many obstacles and bad things occur in life, but many good things as well, and learning to embrace the good while not being broken by the bad makes you stronger in ways too. Taking a moment to enjoy simple things and acknowledge to yourself how much you enjoy those simple things (like sharing a cup of tea with a friend, or watching RWBY, or rolling dice and slaying dragons) goes a long way towards reminding you how beautiful and wonderful life can be if we notice it.
That life is enjoyable, and we can learn to be happy even when things seem tough. We can love, when we feel unloved. We can smile, even as we're dying. Because, if we take time to appreciate it, it's just that good.
The Results
The tertiary aspect is refinement, closely connected with the primary and secondary aspects. Refinement means not only improving and growing but also removing impure elements that bring us down, such as self-defeatism, greed, hate, and other nasty aspects of human nature. To be replaced with things like confidence, generosity, love, and so forth.
As we are refined by the trials of life, we become greater human beings. We become tougher, wiser, kinder, more patient, less gullible, you name it.
The Alternatives
If we continue to fold to our obstacles, give in to despair, submit to weakness, or run from our challenges, we end up in deeper messes than we began in (strung out on drugs, filled with self-loathing, hateful and bitter, etc), and life's lessons will continue to pile up until we either break or have an epiphany. If we break, it's time to be recycled back into the forge to begin reforging.
What is your opinion on gluing/tying alchemical items together? E.g. suppose a player bought some alchemical glue, a flask of acid, a flask of alchemist fire and a burst jar, then glued the latter three together, and then threw that at the enemy. Would that work? Would the target take 1d6 points of acid damage and 1d6 points of fire damage, not to mention sonic damage? Or would something else happen?
It's a tough subject honestly. On one hand, it makes some reasonable sense (most of the alchemical weapons are only 1 lb., and the upper end of thrown weapon weight is around 4 lbs., so throwing x4 alchemist fire bundles would be akin to throwing a single tanglefoot bag in terms of difficulty) and seems like a good idea, but then there's the aspect of how to rule that mechanically, which is where it starts to get sticky.
See, alchemical weapons are already really strong for what they are. They're essentially purchasable energy touch attacks, which means they get the benefits of things like Point Blank Shot and bonus damage from things like Favored Enemy, Smite, etc (Paizo dropped the ball with Rogues but you used to be able to apply sneak damage to them as well, but Paizo is Whaizo). Energy damage ignores damage reductions (including DR/-) and being touch attacks make them very easy to hit with, especially against large foes.
Individually they might not seem that strong (they deal 1d6, or 1d6 + 1d6 a round later) but they quickly become very potent when used in succession (as an example, take four kobolds with point blank shot and have them all firebomb something with alchemist fire and see how effective that is).
If given the ability to combine multiple alchemical items into a single attack, they would be the god-weapon during the low levels (they'd still putter out as resistances became commonplace but...), literally being able to simply execute most anything you encountered (tie 4 alchemist fires together, deal 4d6 on impact, 4d6 on round 2, pretty much destroys anything up to CR 3 in a single hit).
It would be worse if NPCs do it (because they'd have no reasons not to, as alchemical items are cheapsauce and most low level NPCs really have nothing better to spend their 260+gp on after some basic gear) and make for a lot of dead PCs really quickly.
So if it was to be allowed, there would need to be some sort of diminishing returns. Maybe it just increases the AoE of it, but only applies the damage once. I mean, I wouldn't really mind players tying multiple alchemist fires together to douse a 10 ft. or perhaps even larger area in fire that burned anything standing in the area for a couple of rounds.
It's one of those things that pop up and you have to measure the benefit of rewarding cleverness and actually keeping the game fun to play. Because once something becomes the weapon, well everything just devolves into shooting each other with melta guns. :P
>Wonders why nobody asks any easy questions like "What's the meaning of life?".. T_T
Well, if you insist. What's the meaning of life? How about the secondary meaning of life? Tertiary?
Normally I wouldn't say these aspects come in any particular order, but I'll order them for ease of reading with some notes...
The Primary but Subtle Purpose
IMHO, the primary meaning of life is growth/improvement. Our experiences shape us, and obstacles, hard times, and challenges exist to temper and make us stronger. If we are unable to overcome those obstacles and flee from them, the obstacles will repeatedly manifest elsewhere in our lives (often with more potency). Overcoming obstacles grants us strength of character and those obstacles fail to be significant in the future. All of life is a chance to grow and improve as a human soul, in a transformation that's comparable to iron becoming steel or coal a diamond.However, this is kind of an overall thing, and something that's rather "under the hood" as unless you're actively thinking about it or looking back on how much you've grown in life, most will never notice it.
The Meaning
The secondary aspect is joy, and this is one of the trials of life in and of itself. Many obstacles and bad things occur in life, but many good things as well, and learning to embrace the good while not being broken by the bad makes you stronger in ways too. Taking a moment to enjoy simple things and acknowledge to yourself how much you enjoy those simple things (like sharing a cup of tea with a friend, or watching RWBY, or rolling dice and slaying dragons) goes a long way towards reminding you how beautiful and wonderful life can be if we notice it.That life is enjoyable, and we can learn to be happy even when things seem tough. We can love, when we feel unloved. We can smile, even as we're dying. Because, if we take time to appreciate it, it's just that good.
The Results
The tertiary aspect is refinement, closely...
You can start your own cult like that)
>See, alchemical weapons are already really strong for what they are.
Which is exactly why I was wondering about making them even stronger) Tucker's kobolds aren't going to make themselves even scarier, after all.
>they'd still putter out as resistances became commonplace but...
Are you sure about that? A friend of mine carefully read through the equipment section on the archives of nethys, and apparently thowable alchemical weapons can deal fire, acid, cold, lightning, sonic, holy, unholy and nonlethal damage, depending on what is needed at the time. I don't think there is anything in the bestiary that has resists to all of that. Even tarrasque is weak against sonic, for example.
>So if it was to be allowed, there would need to be some sort of diminishing returns. Maybe it just increases the AoE of it, but only applies the damage once.
Which would work in case of X alchemist fires, except then I would ask what would happen if two different things were tied together, like an alchemist fire and a smokestick. Or a sack of foaming powder and a vial of holy water. Basically anything that produces two radically different effects(fire damage and LoS breaking, Holy damage and creating difficult terrain on the floor) on contact with the enemy/destruction of the flask.
Basically, my two main questions are:
1 How do you balance things around players coming up with ideas that make sense, but are kinda overpowered in relation to the rest of the system?
2 How would you handle a character inventing stuff in general? Be it combinations of things already there to produce interesting results or entirely new things(Like, say, a crossbow-like launcher that shoots trained delivery squirrels with Alchemist Fires strapped to their backs) altogether? What skills, what rolls, how long it would take to make everything work?
One thing to think about is that, even with vials of stuff, though it's fragile, the thing is that the more stuff you put together, the more your impact will be lessened - this means that vials are not going to shatter as well.
It's the same principle as sleeping on a bed of nails, in reverse. With a single nail, it pierces the skin because all of the force (in that case weight) is focused around a singular point (the tip of the nail).
With a large group of glued vials, you have one (maybe two or even three?) that shatter, but at some point, you're going to start running into diminishing returns. So the "first" one (if a singular vial hits) shatters normally, but the collective (especially where the glue connects to the other vials) begins to absorb much of the shock, which distributes it to the other vials in relatively equal measure.
Another example of this is the iPad principle. I don't know if you've ever seen this, but an iPad can take a lot of punishment - weirdly so, in fact. But if you drop it on a corner, that screen will just shatter (well, crack nastily with minor glass slivers everywhere).
The amount of force that you put into the throw will, of course, change how many will shatter. But, that's just kind of a "given" - if you put enough force into anything in D&D/PF, you'll beat the Strength check necessary to break it.
Some sort of similar check or effect could come into play, here, as well. Strength DCs plus the likelihood of suddenly equipping your foes with the weapons you threw at them, after afflicting only piddly damage seems like pretty solid reasons for many people to avoid doing exactly that thing.
Are you sure about that? A friend of mine carefully read through the equipment section on the archives of nethys, and apparently thowable alchemical weapons can deal fire, acid, cold, lightning, sonic, holy, unholy and nonlethal damage, depending on what is needed at the time. I don't think there is anything in the bestiary that has resists to all of that. Even tarrasque is weak against sonic, for example.
I was curious, so I looked: the d20pfsrd didn't have anything like that (nothing that deals more than 1 sonic damage), but, The Archives has the Shriek Bomb (2d6), and Stormstone (1d6).
It also seems that there are some shockingly potent items, there.
That said, five CL 3 spells (at most) will make you immune to all but maximum damage (or special forms of attack), even on the relatively strong things, with the exception of holy water and unholy water.
(Creatures that have natural resistances will get away with fewer.)
That means that any given undead with said spells will have little to fear from such, and a construct (usually the most susceptible to such tactics) will be effectively invulnerable. Even a living creature doesn't have to worry too terribly much - minor healing spells really pack a wallop against non-lethal effects, and enchanting stuff so that effects are automatic isn't that big a deal.
Delaying the inevitable "meh" is a thing, but it's not as much as one as it might seem at first glance.
As a random example, a demon with a wand of resist energy and a wand of cure light wounds (1500 gold, or CR 5 or higher) is pretty good to go against everything except the holy damage, unless you allow nuclear-like stacking damage options, and even then, you'd basically use the one attack and you're done - if you miss, you're out of luck, and they're still running... not to mention, they've probably brought friends.
Buuuu~uuuuuuuuuut, that's just my take, and I've not run the numbers through actual DPR calculators, so... salt, grains, and taking them.
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe make a general rule about not being able to throw bundles of alchemist fire, but using multiples with a fuse is okay? I figure you should be able to do something like that for internal consistency if nothing else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe make a general rule about not being able to throw bundles of alchemist fire, but using multiples with a fuse is okay? I figure you should be able to do something like that for internal consistency if nothing else.
That might work, but the question I would then have would be "Why?". You can do that in the real world, so why can't you do that here? Does the universe teleport anyone who attempts such an act into a Sphere of Annihilation?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can start your own cult like that)
*cough*
It's like people don't know we exist. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe make a general rule about not being able to throw bundles of alchemist fire, but using multiples with a fuse is okay? I figure you should be able to do something like that for internal consistency if nothing else.That might work, but the question I would then have would be "Why?". You can do that in the real world, so why can't you do that here? Does the universe teleport anyone who attempts such an act into a Sphere of Annihilation?
I would hazard a guess that, technically, per RAW, you can't because the game says throwing a splash weapon is a standard action. Therefore, you can't throw multiples of any combination because RAW says so. Also, technically, if you had 100 alchemists fires detonate somehow, it still deals damage as 100 alchemists fires. So resist every fire 10 will negate all of the damage because it is 100 separate instances of 1d6 damage each.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The increase to damage from the alchemist's bombs could be flavored as adding another stick of dynomite to the bundle.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would hazard a guess that, technically, per RAW, you can't because the game says throwing a splash weapon is a standard action. Therefore, you can't throw multiples of any combination because RAW says so. Also, technically, if you had 100 alchemists fires detonate somehow, it still deals damage as 100 alchemists fires. So resist every fire 10 will negate all of the damage because it is 100 separate instances of 1d6 damage each.Maybe make a general rule about not being able to throw bundles of alchemist fire, but using multiples with a fuse is okay? I figure you should be able to do something like that for internal consistency if nothing else.That might work, but the question I would then have would be "Why?". You can do that in the real world, so why can't you do that here? Does the universe teleport anyone who attempts such an act into a Sphere of Annihilation?
This is what I meant about resistances eventually making them kinda putter out (because resist 10 more or less immunizes you to all but critical hits with most of them, and you're really unlikely to take damage (only on a roll of 11-12 on 2d6) on a crit. By high levels, resist 10 vs most everything is a pretty solid investment simply because of things like fifty kobolds with acid (or fighting in pools of acid, or on burning ground, etc).
Which would work in case of X alchemist fires, except then I would ask what would happen if two different things were tied together, like an alchemist fire and a smokestick. Or a sack of foaming powder and a vial of holy water. Basically anything that produces two radically different effects(fire damage and LoS breaking, Holy damage and creating difficult terrain on the floor) on contact with the enemy/destruction of the flask.
Hard to say, honestly. I was fiddling with making a alchemy system that could hopefully answer a lot of these questions given a bit more refinement. Essentially, it would at least allow you to create stronger and/or hybrid alchemical weapons.
Basically, my two main questions are:
1 How do you balance things around players coming up with ideas that make sense, but are kinda overpowered in relation to the rest of the system?
Generally, I'll discuss these things with them on a case by case basis and try to work out a solution, and sometimes we just have to accept that the game would turn into utter sh** if we allow certain things even if they make lots of sense. :)
2 How would you handle a character inventing stuff in general? Be it combinations of things already there to produce interesting results or entirely new things(Like, say, a crossbow-like launcher that shoots trained delivery squirrels with Alchemist Fires strapped to their backs) altogether? What skills, what rolls, how long it would take to make everything work?
This is a toughie and something I've been trying to address with some revised Craft rules, but generally speaking at the moment I'd probably set a DC based on how high I think the tech is looking (using the usual 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, etc scale) and go from there and try to make something that's reasonable.
I do a lot of homebrew for my players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could also do something like doubling an effect like alchemist fire requires eight times the fuel for each step above standard. A corresponding 5' to the explosive radius makes sense.
That would make it an interesting, if expensive, option later. Just getting 3d6 with a fifteen foot explosive radius would require 64 alchemist fire flasks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>Generally, I'll discuss these things with them on a case by case basis and try to work out a solution, and sometimes we just have to accept that the game would turn into utter sh** if we allow certain things even if they make lots of sense. :)
O that's brilliant, I haven't thought about putting it(portable hole+bag of holding) on an arrow. Should probably be a ballista bolt though, that thing would be heavy. *takes notes*
(though, honestly, 11+ thousand gold for a magical RPG doesn't seem like an unbalancing trade)
>Hard to say, honestly. I was fiddling with making a alchemy system that could hopefully answer a lot of these questions given a bit more refinement. Essentially, it would at least allow you to create stronger and/or hybrid alchemical weapons.
Would you be vehemently opposed to the idea of me fiddling with your alchemy system as well to maybe produce something refined? Topic interests me a bit, given that I am an engineer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can start your own cult like that)*cough*
It's like people don't know we exist. :(
I knoweth right? T's almost liketh all our eff'rts to did spread h'r wisdom art f'r naught. Haply we shouldst annex a bawbling state f'r ev'ryone to noticeth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>Generally, I'll discuss these things with them on a case by case basis and try to work out a solution, and sometimes we just have to accept that the game would turn into utter sh** if we allow certain things even if they make lots of sense. :)
O that's brilliant, I haven't thought about putting it(portable hole+bag of holding) on an arrow. Should probably be a ballista bolt though, that thing would be heavy. *takes notes*
(though, honestly, 11+ thousand gold for a magical RPG doesn't seem like an unbalancing trade)
It is when you consider that there's essentially no effective way to resist it. It just destroys everything in an area due to the "lost forever" bit of the way those items interact with each other. To put this into perspective, a 3rd level spell wand costs 11,250 gp. In the grand scheme of how much dosh PCs acquire during adventures, it's really not very costly for an instant "I win" versus enemies.
>Hard to say, honestly. I was fiddling with making a alchemy system that could hopefully answer a lot of these questions given a bit more refinement. Essentially, it would at least allow you to create stronger and/or hybrid alchemical weapons.
Would you be vehemently opposed to the idea of me fiddling with your alchemy system as well to maybe produce something refined? Topic interests me a bit, given that I am an engineer.
Nah, feel free. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>It is when you consider that there's essentially no effective way to resist it. It just destroys everything in an area due to the "lost forever" bit of the way those items interact with each other.
Sure, but there are ways to counter it. For starters, you can avoid ever being within LoS of the PCs for even one round)
On a more serious note, you can begin by dispelling the thing-a suppressed Bag of Holding isn't going to explode anything. Antimagic field should prevent it from exploding too. Another counter is preventing the BPP(Bolt Propelled Portal to an astral plane) from hitting you-readied Telekinesis maybe, to throw it away from you(and back at the PCs) as soon as it is shot. Even if it won't hit them, they would be way more careful about using it in the future. You can put things in front of it-like invisible suicidal imps that would take the impact by readying actions to move in between you and the PC who is about to fire it, blocking the shot with their bodies. Illusions to fool the players into wasting a shot are also a good strategy.
Tl;DR it's not an instant "I win" button and I challenge anyone who says so to a schrodinger wizard fight. It does complicate things quite a bit though. Why do you think developers felt it necessary to make these items explode fabulously in an AoE when combined, instead of either working properly or just calmly disabling one another?
If you had an option to accquire 10 levels in any pathfinder class in real life(you get all abilities and stuff, and they somehow work in the real world), which class would you choose any why?
Also, a friend asked me to ask you:what's the difference between rays and spells that require a ranged touch attack, and if there is none, why are there two terms that describe the exact same thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can start your own cult like that.
I wouldn't be opposed to that. I've learned a lot of beautiful things about life in my short time living it and wouldn't mind sharing it with others. That said, I wonder if my new religion would catch on. Based on what I've seen the big boys doing it seems really unlikely. It would...
* Ask you to question everything (especially the faith).
* Never follow without reason (never because that's what somebody or something says).
* Come and go as you feel comfortable (apostasy would be okay).
* Men & Women would be totally equal (but not identical).
* Stress the importance of Altruism, Dignity of Others, and Protection of Sentient Life.
* Stress the dangers of hurting, oppressing, and killing.
* Would lack authoritarian commandments (but would include reasoned arguments for why certain things should be avoided).
* Would not stress that this is the only way to achieve your goals (be they reach some sort of heaven or live happily).
* Would promote creativity, discussion, and free speech.
* Would include a podium at gatherings, but rather than preaching, it would be used for multiple speakers discussing certain topics.
* The only commandments would involve logical fallacies and how to avoid them (and also some stuff about why love is good).
* Would talk about metaphysical things like spiritual entities and metaphysical phenomena like clairsentience, empathy, and energy healing in a fairly direct fashion (while telling you to still question everything said in this book).
* Despite discussing and promoting the ideas of "supernatural" things, it would also promote the advancement of science and a greater understanding of our physical world (even when it doesn't seem to support the metaphysics stuff).
* Ask you to question everything (because it's important enough to mention twice).
<Bag of Holding and Portable Hole>
Why do you think developers felt it necessary to make these items explode fabulously in an AoE when combined, instead of either working properly or just calmly disabling one another?
Piping in, only to mention that I was curious if there was anything official. The closest I could find amounted to "educated guesswork" instead of solid answers.
Google wasn't much help. Interesting, and surprisingly obscure!
For example, he had a trap in which his son's character found a pile of gold. The kid was so happy, he declared that his character grabbed some gold and threw it in the air doing a little dance. Gygax informed him that the treasure was higher, now. So the kid did this some more, and it kept getting higher. Eventually the character died by being swallowed by the quicksand the treasure was sitting on top of or some such.
I could see Gygax's take on such things being, "Here's a great surprise for uppity players that try to get around my dungeon!"
Heck, it could have even been explicitly decided for the whole Tomb of Horrors, explicitly, or in a manner to punish similar "hubris" he saw in his players.
Heck, it could even have originated as a "joke" - several elements that became important later in D&D (such as the pantheon of the gods, and St. Cuthbert, and so on) originated more or less as jokes in his home campaign (which, itself, was the origin of the Greyhawk campaign setting). Jokes in those games went on to have serious impacts and consequences in their own game, and the game at large, later on.
All speculation, of course. And Ash probably has his own ideas! (Unless he doesn't. I dunno, I'm not, currently, a mind-reader. ;p)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<Bag of Holding and Portable Hole>
Why do you think developers felt it necessary to make these items explode fabulously in an AoE when combined, instead of either working properly or just calmly disabling one another?Piping in, only to mention that I was curious if there was anything official. The closest I could find amounted to "educated guesswork" instead of solid answers.
Google wasn't much help. Interesting, and surprisingly obscure!
** spoiler omitted **...
Well, problem with that is that
One of the other things that Gygax did is directly weaponize the things back in the face of those that tried it. "Anything you can do..." and all that. But he also rewarded what he thought of as "creativity"... which mostly meant things he didn't personally find (undefined) "cheesy" that were interesting ways of defeating the bad guy. Sometimes he just awarded "cheesy" things, too.
Also, originally, at least, his stuff was never really expected to be all that wide-reaching. It was a weird refinement of a super-nerdy hobby loosely inspired by old war gaming rules for himself and some of his war gaming buddies that were kind of tired of that paradigm mingled with some other elements. Whose rules were then smashed into Arneson's home brew "campaign" of weirdness, which was heavily adapted by/developed independently of Gygax's own...
Basically, the origin of D&D is a complete cluster of smashed up on-the-spot ideas and weirdness and their refinement over time and anarchy that was then all codified into a highly (in)-"formal" game codex, with "sacred cows" (such as the effects of the bag' and 'hole) continuing through the various iterations (except for 4E).
You might instantly think "weaponry" but others (upon whom the system was tested) might have thought "dangerous" or something else; or they might have thought "weaponry" as well, but Gygax found it amusing or something. We don't know for sure.
Many on-the-spot calls were not part of the game. Many were.
Gygax was brilliant, but arbitrary and totalitarian.
Weird concepts arose as a result.
(I mean, the 1st Edition everything has a bunch of funny "comic"-style pictures depicting pure goofiness, like some pudgy drawings bearing battering ram with a "Y" end running at a snake.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite is still the peasant rail gun.
Creating a Peasant RailgunHire a ton of peasants; let's just say that it is two thousand two hundred and eighty. Line them up in single file; this will form a chain of peasants two miles long. It'd have been four miles back in MY day (witness me hiking up my 2nd Edition suspenders).
Buy a ladder. Just buy a standard, ten-foot ladder. Disassemble the ladder into a bunch of rungs and a pair of mighty ten-foot wooden poles. Hand a pole to the peasant at the back of line.
First round of combat. Peasant at the front of line readies an action to throw the pole at the enemy. Every peasant behind him readies an action to hand the pole to the peasant in front of him.
Next round: peasants fire off their readied actions, passing the pole two miles down the line and hurling it in six seconds or less. Pole accelerates to the speed of 1188 miles per hour, or Mach 1.546875 in dry air, at 20°C/68°F, at sea level on our planet.
Peasant Railgun can be reloaded and fired in less than 12 seconds.
Variations - Really, your choice. Weapon is scalable, you could use your peasant railgun to fire a number of things at a really long range. Add more peasants to make the weapons even faster; paint them red to make them fasta. Use gobbos to make a DnD grot cannon. Hurl pointy bombs for HEAT weapons. Severed heads make an impressive psychological warfare tool. It's even more wild with a bag of holding - place a team of fighters in it for DYNAMIC ENTRY over castle walls and s$~@, hurl some f~&@ing bear cavalry directly into enemy lines, who knows. You can also throw a halfling monk to take full advantage of Flurry of Blows at 1200 mph. Combine this with the 15,000,000 gold-a-day trick and you're ready to absolutely ruin your DM's day.
No one is expected to allow this, nor would I. Real world physics don't translate well into games, which is why we have mechanics to simulate them.
I still love the thought behind it though.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's errata time again. Ultimate Equipment got sweeped. Highlights include Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier going from luck to ac to deflection, and the 1/d crit/sneak negation is now one time ever use. Other highlights being Brawling going from +1 to +3, Courageous now only increasing morale bonuses vs fear from other sources, not just any morale bonus, Ring of Continuation now only works on personal spells of 10 minutes/level duration or longer. Quickrunner's shirts now have a 24 hr attunement time before being usable and ends your turn immediatly after you use your extra move action, bracer's of falcon;s aim only works for 1 min/d and has 24hr attunement. There's others but I'm sure we can pick out the ones to be quite irked over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I liked using the jingasa of the fortunate soldier, it was probably too good for its price. Brawling was also likely too cheap, but definitely not by that much. Courageous weapons basically don't exist anymore, same for quickrunner's shirts and bracers of falcon's aim.
I won't mourn the bracers of falcon's aim, because they were kinda crazy to begin with, but for the rest of that it sucks to be a PFS player. I guess I'll have to copy down the original text for quickrunner's shirt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I try to keep a PDF of each edition of a book so I can pick/choose/ignore what I want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The UE Eratta saddens me.
They took some items that were a bit above the curve and obliterated them.
It looks like they learned nothing after the Advanced Class Guide Errata debacle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I liked using the jingasa of the fortunate soldier, it was probably too good for its price. Brawling was also likely too cheap, but definitely not by that much. Courageous weapons basically don't exist anymore, same for quickrunner's shirts and bracers of falcon's aim.
I won't mourn the bracers of falcon's aim, because they were kinda crazy to begin with, but for the rest of that it sucks to be a PFS player. I guess I'll have to copy down the original text for quickrunner's shirt.
Jingasa could definitely have afforded a price change, or to have lost one of it's two aspects. Gives me reason to ignore the headslot again really. I don't think Brawling was that bad off, we all know the trouble with unarmed combats affair with AMF and it hedged you out of mithril breastplate.
Eh, Falcon's Aim just got switched out to folks getting wands of Falcon's Aim. It mostly just punishes archers who aren't casters. But then, that tends to be a running theme here. And yeah, agreed on shirt and courageous. I'm surprised more people aren't commenting on the courageous changes in the other threads. With so few weapon special abilities worth anything, there goes another one down the tubes. And Quickrunner's shirts, man. Gonna miss those the most. I could live with the 24hr thing, but murdering the pounce feature too?
It's like they found some reasonable answers and were like, wait, martials might still use these. Where's Krysbyn's peasent railgun, we gotta lob these things into the friggin sun. That'll definitely make folks happy.
Bleh. More fuel for Ashiel's engine of creativity I guess. Cus lord knows I'm not happy bout this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I liked using the jingasa of the fortunate soldier, it was probably too good for its price. Brawling was also likely too cheap, but definitely not by that much. Courageous weapons basically don't exist anymore, same for quickrunner's shirts and bracers of falcon's aim.
I won't mourn the bracers of falcon's aim, because they were kinda crazy to begin with, but for the rest of that it sucks to be a PFS player. I guess I'll have to copy down the original text for quickrunner's shirt.
Jingasa could definitely have afforded a price change, or to have lost one of it's two aspects. Gives me reason to ignore the headslot again really. I don't think Brawling was that bad off, we all know the trouble with unarmed combats affair with AMF and it hedged you out of mithril breastplate.
Eh, Falcon's Aim just got switched out to folks getting wands of Falcon's Aim. It mostly just punishes archers who aren't casters. But then, that tends to be a running theme here. And yeah, agreed on shirt and courageous. I'm surprised more people aren't commenting on the courageous changes in the other threads. With so few weapon special abilities worth anything, there goes another one down the tubes. And Quickrunner's shirts, man. Gonna miss those the most. I could live with the 24hr thing, but murdering the pounce feature too?
It's like they found some reasonable answers and were like, wait, martials might still use these. Where's Krysbyn's peasent railgun, we gotta lob these things into the friggin sun. That'll definitely make folks happy.
Bleh. More fuel for Ashiel's engine of creativity I guess. Cus lord knows I'm not happy bout this.
Probably because the Courageous property had already been discussed months prior by the Devs about its intended effect, I think it even got it's own FaQ but I'm not sure on that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lol just checked, "few" months was an undershot.
Courageous FaQ was back in June, so you missed that storm by almost a year XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lol just checked, "few" months was an undershot.
Courageous FaQ was back in June, so you missed that storm by almost a year XD
Guess I am. But I ignore the FAQs cus they're FAQs. Now it's hard coded. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but either way, I'm back to not getting special abilities on weapons again. Except Conductive on the rare occasion or maybe Bane if I need to deal with DR/Epic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guess I am. But I ignore the FAQs cus they're FAQs. Now it's hard coded. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but either way, I'm back to not getting special abilities on weapons again. Except Conductive on the rare occasion or maybe Bane if I need to deal with DR/Epic.lol just checked, "few" months was an undershot.
Courageous FaQ was back in June, so you missed that storm by almost a year XD
FaQs are kinda hard coded as much as second printings, if you ignore them it shouldn't be that hard to ignore the printings as well.