Search Posts
It has come up in our games that a medium size creature sometimes does not provide any cover to a large creature. Please see the link below for an example image.
In this picture can #1 shoot both creatures in melee combat without the penalty of cover from his friends? Likewise, can #2 shoot the large creature without the cover penalty? This is more a discussion about the cover rules in general. Do characters get to pick which square they attack--as per the rule of picking a corner of the attackers square to a corner of the defenders square--where larger creatures are made up of multiple 5' squares? In our game we allow this, but I would like to have others share how they handle this.
It has come up in our games that a medium size creature does not provide any cover to a large creature. Please see the link below for an example image.
In this picture can #1 shoot both creatures in melee combat without the penalty of cover from his friends? Likewise, can #2 shoot the large creature without the cover penalty? This is more a discussion about the cover rules in general. Do characters get to pick which square they attack--as per the rule of picking a corner of the attackers square to a corner of the defenders square--where larger creatures are made up of multiple 5' squares? In our game we allow this, but I would like to have others share how they handle this.
I know it's Gleemax, but this link is to the templates (sorted in the second post):
and this link is the +0 races:
the link to the thread with all the ECL/LA races seems to be dead:
I can't think of anything that would actually work. After all, even if the DC were 60 or something stupid, melee guy has to be threatening to even try to disrupt. Have fun with that. 5' step alone means non reach auto fails. Reach weapons that don't threaten adjacent means he could 5' step in and actually be safe. Or out, either way. So that just leaves... spiked chains. Sound familiar? In our last campaign I played a Minotaur Barbarian, I'd charge the casters only to have them cast in my face with no consequence. Then I got the Mage Slayer feat--FSBNBNR(Feats Should Be Nice But Not Required). Perhaps casting defensively should be done away with, as it is, it's just rule that doesn't matter. I like how JoelF847 thinks 'outside the box'.
snip...Yes. A LOT of attention will be paid to CR, with some fairly significant shifts. We will re-do everything, from the stats to the descriptions. The current thinking is that each monster will get, at minimum, a page. That includes space for a sweet full-color illustration....snip Unassociated class levels must go. All monsters are much stronger when you add a class. Paizo modules are terrible about this, an ogre with 9 sorcerer levels is not a CR10.
Even +1 per extra might be O.K; as Jason said previously,
...in a high level 3.5 game, and it's only going to get higher. Casting defensively at this point is ridiculous.(emphasis mine) There's no real point in making a roll.... This could de-evolve into a debate about who should be more powerful, fighters or wizards, but to be surrounded and still get off a spell should be a little harder than "I roll the dice and win".
From our group's experience with play after 15th level, you nailed it. The game has an almost exponential feel to damage and effects without the same ramp-up in protection. The ability for both PCs and NPCs/Monsters to create "save or die" effects, whether they be by spells or damage. Can turn the tide of battle so quick as to make the game either too deadly or too easy.
It's exciting to see Paizo take on a project of this magnitude, and I've been one of their strong supporters, but have we as players asked for too much? Has Pathfinder gone too far? Pathfinder as it stands now is not backwards compatible. Sure it uses the same mechanics as 3.5, and the math works out fine, but the "playability" backwards is gone. Using Pathfinder classes in older modules such as the Dungeon Crawls or even Dragon Magazine would be a joke. These new characters would waltz through older adventures with little or no effort. Yes, the DM can adjust the modules, but for those DM's strapped for time, updating modules is not possible. If the DM has enough time to readjust the entire module, then what's the point of having pre-printed adventures? Yes we still can use the "old 3.5 books" but with the power creep, these older books just can't compare, thus we are back to where we were when 4E was announced, upgrade or leave. Paizo will continue to produce splat books for it's game system and over time our 3.5 libraries will become obsolete. I only begrudge them a little over this, and as a businessman myself, I understand creating a need for an ongoing product or service; however, there are those of us 3.5'ers that wanted a 3.75, not a complete rewrite of the spells, feats, skills, magic items, races and classes--a 'tweak' to the rules, not a 'rebuild'. With all the fervor surrounding the Pathfinder game system, are we as players asking too much too soon? Are these changes too much? I'm probably in the minority, so thank you for giving me this opportunity to address my concerns. I appreciate Paizo's willingness and ability to continue to produce an OGL game and supporting products, and for the foreseeable future I will continue to support their company with my purchases.
Mind Blank really should be changed back. This is the "Fighter Saver" spell. At the higher levels, when the party looses the fighter to a failed will save, this can really turn the tide of battle. The spell should be about hedging out any and all mind affecting spells with a cute little added bonus of blocking divinations.
For a 'non-monk' a +1 AC for 13000 is too expensive. A +2 Dexterity boosting item is 4000 and this gives a +1 AC, +1 to hit with ranged weapons, and +1 initiative. Looking back through the FAQ, this appears to be the first time the Sage has ever mentioned the Monk's Belt.
On 5/5/2008 we got a ruling from the Sage. Q: The monk’s belt says it grants the “AC Bonus” of a 5th level monk. What does that mean? A: When the monk’s belt refers to the “AC Bonus” of a 5th level monk, it is referring to the monk ability called AC Bonus. It grants +1 bonus to AC as well as being able to add your Wisdom modifier to your armor class if you are not wearing armor or encumbered. Link to the Sage Advice article. Why was the 'Wisdom to AC' removed from the Monk's Robe?
From my point of view #16 doesn't address the tank with a hose as much as it confirms it. The point basically says that it is more powerful than other spellcasters when there are few encounters per day. The problem is that there is nothing really forcing the party to have four encounters per day. The psions can have their two encounters most of the time then just hide away and rest for powers again. And when wizards have two encounters per day they can just as easily nova and then hide away and rest for spells again.
I personally much prefer the Vancian system over a point system. A good question to ask fans of psionics: Would you still be a fan if the point system went away? Are you a fan of the flavor of psionics or the current point-based mechanics? Myself... I'm a fan of the flavor, and not so much a fan of the mechanics. As a fan of psionics I enjoy the elegance of a point based system and would not use a psionics system based on the current Vancian system. I even like the psionic items that use 'mana points'. As it was stated before in this thread, 3.5 XPH went a long way to removing power from the psion to bring them inline or below a wizard. I play in the group that has won the GenCon RPGA Open 4 years in a row and I have seen a wizard that would put ANY 'min-maxed' psion to shame. I've not read this thread in it's entirety, but the following thread is very important to the psionic community. Myth: The XPH is overpowered To address your metaphor of the tank with a hose, please see talking point #16 in the above link. Thanks for the chance to debate this topic.
Very good topic. There is so much rules bloat with 3.5 that almost any game not just Pathfinder needs a limit on the books available. I solved the problem with my following house rule. [quote=]Characters will be created according to the rules presented in the System Reference Document. Due to the 'rules bloat' that is caused by so many books I'm going to only allow certain books.
* The SRD (Players Handbook, Expanded Psionics Handbook, DMG, Monster Manual I)
This means that each player will have access to different items, feats, spells, etc..., that the other players won't have access to, even during the game. No variant rules from Unearthed Arcana. As the DM I can and will use ANY d20 source.
If I were to run Pathfinder I would limit it to any three books, not to include any campaign specific books--no FR, Eberron, etc... YMMV. :)
I know which post you speak of. I went back and checked the RSS feed and yes the post is gone. Here is the post from the feed.
A scaling DR mechanic for fighters would be good. The fighter needs ways to minimize/live through high level encounters vs. magical monsters. SR and even energy resistance would be good. Lots of hit points only go so far when CR20 creatures dish out 100 points of damage (magical and mundane) per round in melee.
Combat Feats, ah, how I dislike thee. Combat Feats try to emulate the maneuvers from BoNS:ToB, one nice action per round for a nice effect or damage, but from reading a few, they are severely limited in their use or fail completely to be good. They have too many qualifiers and what-if's to make them work effectively. They have qualifiers that you have to do something one round to make another combat feat work on the next; however, combat is too fluid to plan out a chain of special conditions, that may or may not work. When the better option would be just attack and damage. Cleave and Great Cleave is a good example. A fighter has a target in front and a target to the side; however, they are savvy enough to leave a space between them--Cleave is now useless. Now that Cleave cannot be used, this now negates Great Cleave. Two combat feats wasted, a fighters power has now been dropped a step. Dodge and Mobility are in a similar situation. Dodge turns off as soon as you need to use Mobility, reduction of power for an no good reason. Same for Cleave, Dodge turns off when Cleave is used, completely unnecessary. The last thing these rules should do is to reduce the effectiveness of fighters. Feats should not be so tedious to use, either they work or they don't and they should be dead simple to use. Dodge could be a +1 AC all the time, and you can take it more than once. Easy to use, already calculated on the character sheet and not overpowering. Most feats should be 'stackable', as to give characters ways to build up to more power at the cost of reduced flexibility. Or even better, they scale based on level such that the higher level play can be like the lower level play with more options.
Turning in 3.5 has always been a thorn. It's one of the few rules in the book not based on a DC/save system. The variant in Complete Divine: Destruction of the Undead was the answer for my game. In an undead heavy adventure this one rule change made the game twice as fast. Straight damage or healing to undead in a radius burst. DC and damage set by the "caster", no fear effect/fleeing, and turn resistance works as a resistance bonus. Pathfinder comes close, but it's still seems clunky. Removing the fleeing part would be one way to go. It's hard enough to keep up with 20 undead on the table, much less those that have fled not to be chased by the party. Where did they go? When do they return? If they made their save against fear the first time are they immune for the rest of encounter/day/lifetime? Fiddly bits that don't matter. Damage them and move on. Controlling undead can be a headache also. Now with one cheap turning attempt the cleric now becomes a necromancer with undead meat shields. This can skew later encounters due to the 'stronger' party having undead as summoned creatures that never expire. Again more paperwork for a DM and cleric. Heal them and move on. If a player really wants a controller of undead use a necromancer class or PRC. The Pathfinder added bonus to healing and damaging living creatures in the radius is just icing on the cake.
[snip] a welcome improvement over the "lets build another splatbook... and another.... and another" mentality that wizards seemed to have recently. I'm quite sure this design philosophy hasn't changed on their end. We got 4e splatbooks even before 4e was released. I seem to remember one of their podcasts stating that they were having trouble producing a book a month because they were running out of ideas. Now with a new edition they can start over with the 'book a month'. They have a lot of salaries/overhead to pay and one book every 6 months isn't going to pay the bills. |
