ATron9000's page

Yea. You're a seasoned wizard. You've been training in this path your whole life.

There is a huge difference between learning how to bend the laws of reality and learning how to get a +1 dodge bonus.

Seems like the argument is going in other directions. The rogue levels up mid dungeon and does it by becoming a level 1 wizard with a spellbook and spell components that he didn't have before. Now if the player thought this through in advance it could have been assumed and role played that he's been studying and practicing for years. He mentions attempting cantrips and practicing gestures during the dungeon. When he casts his first spell in the heat of battle it becomes a life changing milestone and he role plays the accomplishment.

.....but the detractors here just think it should be swept under the rug and missing a wonderful role play opportunity.

Some of us do.

ciretose wrote:

I am constantly amazed how many people on here don't seem to care if the story that is being told through the game makes any sense or not.

I fail to see how a Fighter taking a level in Wizard, or a Monk taking a level in Inquisitor, or a Cleric taking a level in Paladin, is some kind of horrendous act against reality.

It's also why I level characters up when I feel they deserve it, instead of smack dab in the middle of a dungeon, or whenever the exp would say they should. They ain't MY characters, and so long as they're following the rules, I don't care what kind of ridiculous multiclassing my players play around with.

it's perfectly ok as long as it make sense in the world the game is taking place in. These are the sort of things that need to be discussed in advance. If your character's backstory has a ton of gaps or was vague I'd allow a logical addition to your background to make this fit. You.cannot just say "I'm gonna take a level of wizard because DRAGONS!!!".

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

ATron9000 wrote:

I wouldn't allow it. It breaks immersion to treat the game like a video game. You just have to be upfront with your players.

I think I'm going to start calling this the "WoW" fallacy.

"Anything I personally disapprove of in the game can be blamed on the influence of video games (especially WoW) regardless of the fact that the issue existed long before video games became popular."

THANK YOU! I've been trying to find a name for that argument...it's getting annoying how everything somebody doesn't like about RPGs is described as being the fault of videogames (particularly WoW)

Seriously guys, it's getting old.

you have it wrong. We're complaining about people treating it like a video game. The GAME is not the problem. That type of player is the problem(not that there is anything wrong with this play style if that's what you're into).

JDCAce wrote:

I agree with Dragon up there. If I started telling my players how they could build their characters and how they couldn't, I wouldn't have players for much longer.

There is a difference in saying that your characters have to find a way to make logical sense and saying you can't do something.

I am constantly amazed how many people on here don't seem to care if the story that is being told through the game makes any sense or not.

Table top gaming is an incredibly inefficient system to use if you are just number crunching. A computer can do it so much better, that it is almost archaic that we still roll dice and count.

So the only real advantage you gain from having a live human GM is that they have a better grasp on what "makes sense" than a computer would.

We spend all this money on settings, and the people who write them spend so much time on trying to work out the logic of why and how things interact. And then a GM spends literally hours preparing a game that most players expect should follow some chain of logic.

I think the least a player can do is make an effort to have the character they create make sense in the setting. If they can't even bother to do that, what exactly are they adding to the table other than disruption?

be careful. That's wow fallacy territory.

ATron9000 wrote:

I wouldn't allow it. It breaks immersion to treat the game like a video game. You just have to be upfront with your players.

I think I'm going to start calling this the "WoW" fallacy.

"Anything I personally disapprove of in the game can be blamed on the influence of video games (especially WoW) regardless of the fact that the issue existed long before video games became popular."

I've been a pen and paper rpg player for 20 years now. I've had my share of stupid in many games. I could have just as easily compared it to board game which it can be played as. I prefer a story oriented game where the world and npcs are more than mechanical. I enjoy a world that feels like it lives and breathes. A level 4 rogue becoming a wizard suddenly with no back story or role play leading up this is taking the rp out of rpg.

Pretty much, what TOZ is saying. And to address the it breaks immersion, it's still a game.

depends on the game you run. I don't like the reasoning of "its ok because DRAGONS!". When I run a game, I am also running a story. It's a story I share with my players as they're the ones writing their character's destiny with the help of some dice. I expect them to RESPECT the story, the game, and the other players who take the game serious. I love action and high adventure in my games, it's a role playing game and expect my players to treat it as such. The tactical combat game that is the rules books aids the role play and story telling. I probably enjoy a different game than most who would allow that. I don't see anything wrong with any play style out there. In the end it's about everyone having fun(I just want some sense made of things).

I wouldn't allow it. It breaks immersion to treat the game like a video game. You just have to be upfront with your players.

I considered a luck pool like the ninja's ki pool.
-some stuff it can be used on...
*bonus to cmd or escape artist.
*avoiding confirmed critical
*reflex save vs cone or whatever lets you dive for cover
*reroll a natural 1

Babynames.com or a translation site. Example: I was making an unbreakable fighter for a friend's German like setting. I translated iron heart to Eisenherz. I have a name :)

The core book needed another reason to not dump charisma.

Yea, the GM is making the encounter challenging. The monster shouldn't let you charge in on him like a blithering idiot. Like what has been said before, hold back and wait for or create an opportunity.

Anima and Exalted come to mind.

I would also accept prestige classes for this challenge

The 3.5 frenzied berserker from complete warrior would be an awesome representation of wrath.

I enjoy the virtue and vice system from the new world of darkness storyteller system. In short, each character chooses one defining virtue and one defining vice. Each time one is acted on in a meaningful way the character regains will power(kind of like hero points).

This is the NWOD alignment like system.

You could adapt this and have the vice lords manipulate each character's defining vice. They must overcome this with a great display of their virtue. You most likely do not have seven players. You could have each player pick 2 of each and make sure all are covered.

Yes, summoner for sloth. He can just sit on his throne and yawn while casually summoning minions.

I also think a red dragon would fill greed pretty well.

Sloth: summoner
Lust: bard
Gluttony: alchemist
Greed: rogue
Envy: enchanter
Pride: anti paladin

Remember that most of the guys Mugen fights are level 1 warriors. Mugen is probably level 6 with 2 attacks. He obviously has improved unarmed strike.

I'd say barbarian all the way(I know this isn't 3.5, but Mugen is illiterate).
-perhaps the brutal pugilist archetype. If not, then imp unarmed strike.
-rage makes sense. Mugen was raw emotion and instinct.
-fast movement makes sense.
-exoric weapon proficiency katana.
-two weapon fighting with unarmed strike.
-spring attack tree.

Not a lot of armor in Champloo. In that setting a defense bonus by level system like the one in unearthed arcana would be ideal.

*Plot Twist Decks*
-GM rolls d20 before session and records number. Anytime a player rolls that number during the session, that player relieves a plot twist card
(Meta game analysis) this encourages players to spam d20s on bull**** rolls. In my upcoming campaign I'm considering giving the player a 1 in 4 chance of receiving a fumble card instead that must be used next time a 1 is rolled in combat. Normally I allow a confirmation roll to fumbles the same as critical hits. Heroes shouldn't fumble often but I enjoy the tension the confirmation roll brings.

A simple alternitive solution could be to leave alignment in only for outsiders, gods, and planes. These are supernatural forces built on ideals and moral energies. This will leave use for the magic and weapon types relevant without mortal PCs restricting themselves to it. This is what I plan on implementing.

Any ideas or suggestions greatly appreciated

Thanks! Lots of inspiration here.

I guess. I mean the "paint job" is different...

I a have party approaching the ruined castle of the minotaur king. It's basically a maze that the group will have to fumble around in until they find the princess. The story is loosely based off beauty and the beast.

Any tips and ideas on the most efficient way of running this? I fear letting them walk aimlessly about can get tiresome and tedious.

Still need to see that build...

He said the caster has item creation feats.
They use profession to gain wealth.

I bet the problem is with misinterpreting the item creation rules and the bonus stacking rules.
I can see this wizard with ioun stones, +6 stat items, and casting owl's wisdom and the like.
With profession and requesting a lot if down time this can get out of control. Especially with Houserules.

Martial artist monk would fit in place of bard. If I remember the series correctly, everyone had at least one level of martial artist :x

EDIT: martial artist has no alignment restriction.

Fine, tiny, and diminutive creatures don't take up a whole square and several can share one. It also says you can pass through it but would trigger an attack of opportunity. It also states that a creature 3 size categories larger can pass through the square of the smaller creature. The rules are written and intended for medium and small creatures. I would allow charges through occupied squares as per above. I understand the intent. We're playing a table top rpg with unlimited possibilities. Life is too short to treat it as a video game or strict legal document.

The combat section also vaguely states that larger creatures when helpless may also become obstacles. I'm guessing this is vague to allow GM discretion.

Under obstacles it states that they can hamper movement, that's different than saying they do hamper movement.

It says nothing can hinder your movement( such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Wraitstrike, if you jump over the pit, did it hinder your path? Isn't a hindrance something that causes a penalty or negative effect? If you pass the jump check, you receive no mechanical hindrance so you were not hindered by yhe pit. That is rules as written. I believe you are using rules as interpreted.

I'm not buying the obstacle argument. What if the horse has shoes of the zephyr? What if a character is charging with the fly spell and there is a wall with a hole just wide enough to fly through with skill? I'd allow a fly check to make it through. Failure would result in the charge stopping along with injury. Same with jumping a pit.

As per the RAW. When you can jump it doesn't hinder your movement unless you fail the check. Obstacle was an example. The hole does not block your path if you jump over it.

Clear as day. That's RAW.

Although how things should be should be how things are.

Why can't you jump 4 feet in the air if you can step 3 feet to the left?

If "any line" from your starting space goes through something like that you cant charge. That means you have to account for the straight line charge for not jumping, just a straight line.

A jump is also not a line, but an arc.

yes, I pointed out the arc issue above.

ATron9000 wrote:

The charge section says "if nothing can hinder your path such as difficult terrain or obstacles".

So, if you can jump it, it can't hinder you. Correct?

It also says: If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge.

but by jumping it, it is not slowing movement or blocking movement.

The charge section says "if nothing can hinder your path such as difficult terrain or obstacles".
So, if you can jump it, it can't hinder you. Correct?

If we follow 3.x rules, noted at the bottom of the page, then:

Midpoint of long jump -> vertical distance of (long jump distance/2)

The following is based on the assumption you make the needed checks.

Based on this, when jumping over a 10' pit, you would expend 10 feet of movement, while at the middle of the jump being 5' up.

Instead, you could increase the distance you're jumping to 15', making you rise up to 7'6" at the middle of the jump. This is taller than most characters. The issue of charging through occupied spaces is now negated.

Heck, even with the concept of jumping 10', you can hop over small creatures and dwarves.

I abused the hell out of this in 3.5 as a centaur with the leap attack feat. Most things didn't black my path.

Personally I'd allow it for it's cinematic effect.
...however in the charge rules it says you must charge in a straight line. The battlefield is 3 dimensional and jumping could cause you to enter a five foot square above you which would be charging in an arch.

Moral of the story is...
Just let it work, its fun and failure spells doom for the charger.
I think it makes more sense visually than pounce from horseback.

link corrected

thanks. I'm on a cell and got lazy ;)

Pouncing on horseback is clearly allowable. Getting charge damage on all attacks with a Lance while pouncing is emphatically not.

==Aelryinth

it clearly isn't, but we can agree to disagree.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/pathfinder-rpg-discussion/275398-beholder-conv ersion.html

James Jacobs' advice sounds pretty sound.

That's still something like 3d8+150 on the first hit and then 1d8+70 on the following hits.

but pouncing on horseback is "bending" the rules. If the DM allows that, he jumped the shark.

You get pounce you get the multiplied damage the first hit and then all the other attacks are at regular damage from what I understand.

yes. Any time you receive extra damage from a charge attack it only applies to the initial attack.

I thought the Devs had said anytime your mount is charging, you are charging, and so you can get your pounce attack off. When did SKR clarify that charging mounts don't allow you to make a pounce attack?

I pointed out that the last part wasn't clarified. Sean repeatedly said "on a charging mount" during the spirited charge-pounce thread and stated as if you had the ability to spirited charge on foot and pounce. That's not a topic for this thread though.

ATron9000 wrote:

My dad can deal more damage to your dad and my spear is longer than your spear.

Seriously, I like these threads because they give me good ideas for challenging NPCs.

My first level character can do more damage than AM BARBARIAN and his quintuplet siblings who are all exactly like AM BARBARIAN and they all rolled natural 20s on all attacks (and confirms) and maxed their damage.

He's a first level GM with GM Fiat.

since Sean clarified that you can't gain the benefits of spirited charge on iterative attacks even if you have an unusual combination of abilities that allow you to charge as if you were on a charging mount and had the ability to pounce and that you can't pounce from the back of a charging mount(although SKR hadn't made an official clarification to me it's fairly obvious), AM barbarian is rather average.

EDIT: that sentence didn't run on, it charged... and pounced.

My dad can deal more damage to your dad and my spear is longer than your spear.

Seriously, I like these threads because they give me good ideas for challenging NPCs.

Any good websites out there for organization? Like blog sites or social sites?

My current party includes a bard/rogue, gunslinger/ranger(crossbow style ranger for pistol feats), inquisitor/alchemist, and what scares me the most, the barbarian(brutal pugilist)/monk(martial artist). This campaign is in its infancy so my opinion may change.