Chengar Qordath's page

3,229 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 916 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think anyone who seriously argues that Paladins can't depose a Chaotic Evil Tyrant because that would be a major change, and is thus against their code to do so, has hit the point of demanding Paladins play as Lawful Stupid.

If Chaotic Evil Tyrant passes a law requiring all Paladins in his territory to immediately murder an innocent, does any Paladin who refuses to follow that law fall? After all, that's breaking the law. And trying to change that law would be a major change, which is apparently chaotic now.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

Modules are easy because a killer module mostly kills sales.

They also have to take into account that there are as many customers who do not want every character to be murder specialists. This creates a problem in that it is hard for them to balance against players whose default is not attack.

Exactly this. Most modules are written assuming nothing more than basic competence, with a little extra padding tossed in so the PCs can survive a bit of bad luck. Generally it's much easier for a veteran GM with veteran players to tune up the encounters than it is for a new GM with new players to tone them down.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And really, a "normal" CR encounter is supposed to be pretty easy for most minimally competent parties, since the game system is designed for the PCs to win battles so there won't be campaign-ending TPKs every other battle.

That's why an evenly matched battle against an equal number of PC-classed opponents with PC-level wealth is a CR+4 encounter (AKA off the CR scale).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

In my opinion, having the game require the Big Six in order to simply succeed is just bad design. That isn't to say that specific classes requiring specific items isn't in itself bad, but when you take specific requirements, make them universal, and then apply it as a universal requirement, regardless of player/character choice, it transforms the game into a "Numbers Game or Die" scenario, which I can assure you, not everybody finds to be fun.

This was, I believe, less of an initial intent as it was a byproduct of allowing magic items to be so easily constructed or bought. PCs were expected to pick up some of the Big 6 here and there, not necessarily advance all of them as soon as they could. Players often do that but that's an effect of the bonuses being so constantly effective coupled with the ability to buy virtually any magic item they want when they have the cash to do it. That, in turn, drives the perception that GMs need to keep pushing at the limits as well to keep PCs challenged.

Contrast with D&D games before 3e. We wanted to get magic weapons, armor, rings/cloaks of protection, girdles of giant strength, gauntlets of ogre power, gloves of dexterity, bracers of armor, and so on. But without a reliable way to make them (item construction before 3e was... a bit unstructured and quirky), we had to rely on treasure we gained. Eventually, we might eventually get much of that stuff, but we couldn't count on it and we certainly couldn't plan for it. It meant a lot more making do with what we got rather than deciding to sell just because it was a situational magic item and a more consistent one would be better.

And more importantly, pre 3e the "Big Six" wasn't a thing because those items and stats in general worked in a substantially different way from how they work in 3e.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

To clarify, I don't actually like the big six.

They're just necessary to the system at this point, and unless you completely overhaul the bestiary and a lot of other things then you can't do without the big six (or a system that grants you those bonuses like Automatic Bonus Progression).

For me the biggest problem with the big six was that it basically locked down your headband, belt, 1 ring slot, and your neck slot, with absolutely only 1 choice. Tons of interesting items exist for those slots, and you basically had no choice for them.

Yeah, that's why whenever I GMed I let people shift the Big Six items into different slots. I don't mind doing a vest of resistance instead of a cloak if it means they'll take a fun and flavorful item for the shoulder slot.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Well even with standard treasure rules, I've had players carry around goofy items presuming it was crowbarred out of someone's cold dead hands or a dungeon (I personally stuffed a barrel that makes stuff pleasantly cold into a bag of holding for most of a campaign). Really I find it that people are more likely to carry around silly items that have virtually no real resale value while silly and expensive items tend to get hocked for useful things in short order.

I'd say this hits on one of the bigger issues with silly flavor items. People like keeping them around as long they don't feel like they're giving up something useful to get it. So, the best move is to make sure that there's no trade-off involved.

Also, generally speaking the way to make PCs feel like magic items are cool and unique is to make cool and unique items for them. It's hard to muster much of a sense for wonder for a generic +1 sword.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:

A lot of people ITT are putting down swords as "mere sidearms" when swords make a lot more sense for adventurers, much if not most of the time.

Spears were by far the more common weapon for use in armies, where you had men on either side and for four ranks behind you, or when sitting atop a horse made a longer weapon necessary to strike at a man in front of the horse. That's in addition to the ease of their use and their low cost.

As one person in an adventuring party, you fight alongside four-ish other people, some of which are not likely to be melee combatants. You're likely to fight multiple opponents at the same time, and to be fighting in close quarters. Pathfinder doesn't (and shouldn't) accurately model the difficulties of fighting with a spear in close quarters, beyond the "deadzone" of reach weapons, nor does it model the sheer pain-in-the-ass factor of carrying an 8' spear everywhere you go. Consider that the average door height (at least in modern North America) is 6 feet 8 inches. From antiquity to the early modern era the sword, not the spear, was what you took with you in everyday life (provided you could afford a sword when they were not easy to make, which adventurers certainly can). Swords also happened to be more versatile with the ability to cut as well as to pierce, provide more protection for the hand (especially with crossguards and later more complex hilts) and the longsword could be held and used just like a spear if need be (such as against a heavily armored opponent).

Just going to second this. Polearms were always far always far more effective in large and tightly packed formations than in single combat. It's why Pathfinder doesn't have the option of equipping your PC with a 20 foot long pike: the weapon's not something a lone adventurer would get any good use out of.

As an aside, there's clearly some "define your terms" issues going on with spears in this thread.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
memorax wrote:
I see it as a differences in styles. One person msy think decoys are a waste of time. Some like myself dont think its a waste of time. Either position i think is valid.

I think this is something that could be objectively determined. Try it on a party of PCs and see how well it works.

If they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get to the decoys, then it is an objectively good tactic. If the decoys routinely get ignored, then it is only a good tactic if you switch things up and put a real bard in, who also gets ignored because they think it's a decoy.

Seems to me the tactic only sucks if the players are always 'in the know', somehow, and act accordingly.

I think the viability of decoy tactics also depends a lot on stuff like party composition. If the group has a dedicated archer, a couple decoy CR 1/3 guys in the back row just means that his first couple arrows kill them instead of knocking some HP off one of the frontliners. Even worse if the group has someone like an evoker who'll just AoE damage everyone regardless of shenanigans.

By the same token, there are definitely times when the tradeoff for decoy tactics is pretty small. If someone's running a monk, having the guy wear robes and a wizard hat instead of monk robes isn't exactly a huge problem.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the bigger issue wasn't the GM's call so much as the fact that the players didn't think the rules worked that way and wanted to walk their action back once they found out about the house rule, with the GM not allowing it.

I know as a GM I've made bad rules calls in the past. Nobody's perfect. However, if the player picked their actions based on how they understood the rules, they shouldn't be held to those actions if they find out the rules don't work the way they thought. Pathfinder as a game tends to have lots of problems when people can't agree on how the rules work, which is why it's so important to make sure everyone's on the same page.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
Being banned in PFS isn't really an indicator that it's too powerful. PFS dislikes certain playstyles, particularly Dex based one and defensive styles. Most things are banned for either flavor reasons (see: Vivisectionist) or in the interest of keeping build variety within manageable bounds.

Just going to second this. PFS tends to demand simple, straightforward builds that work in the new-group-every-game format of PFS. Basically, anything with iffy flavor, complicate, or likely to cause table variance is likely to get the banhammer. Plus, as mentioned, defensive boosts tend to get targeted because they can mess with encounter design: that's why Crane Style got multiple nerfs.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
James Risner wrote:
+2: Item -> Ring of Force Shield (deactivate, attack, reactivate)
andreww wrote:
Quickdraw shield plus Quick Draw feat plus a two handed weapon which you can also one hand like a bastard sword also works I believe.
I was thinking both of these options were problematic per RAW. Whether, not, or how you have a Shield attached to your off-hand, when you attack with a 2 handed weapon, you are attacking with the hand that has the shield on it, and so in that round you you attack you won't get the AC Bonus due to Shield. But if you're sure it kosher, then go ahead.

Losing your shield bonus if you make an attack with that hand is only a rule for the buckler, not a general shield rule.

Granted, it might fall under the "Hands of Effort" FAQ, but that's a whole can of worms we don't want to open.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the guy doesn't like how his character's working out, a rebuild is the best way to fix the problem. Making someone play a character they're not happy with is almost never a good idea.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Torbyne wrote:
I have heard stories about PCs "rolling too well" and having to deal with failure because of it, getting a crit and killing an enemy with a non lethal weapon or critting with a bow which made a spark that ignited fumes in a building and killed everyone in it. But all of those stories came down to really crazy house rules. The game as intended has no mechanism for penalizing players for beating the DC of a check no matter how well they do. It does come up in some other game systems but even then, beating the DC comes with advantages, i cant think of any that penalize you.

Killing with nonlethal damage isn't a house rule, though the rules make it pretty hard to accidentally kill with nonlethal damage. To wit:

If a creature’s nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.

That exception aside, Pathfinder doesn't penalize you for exceeding DCs. The system's generally pretty binary when it comes to success and failure: you either meet or beat the target number and win, or don't meet it and fail.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

How about we stop debating the merits of Tarik's houserules and get back to discussing special materials?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

The only way you can keep it both rare and not worth much is if nobody wants it. And if nobody wants it despite the obvious advantages (except for the adventurers), you're deliberately screwing them.

There's plenty of ways to make something rare but not very hockable on the market. One idea I've been toying with is that Mithril and Adamantine are indeed vanishingly rare metals and all current examples of them are basically heirlooms from notable families (essentially making them Valyrian Steel weapons from A Song of Ice and Fire). They can be bestowed or pried from the cold dead hands of another person but selling them simply isn't doable due to either sentimental value (you wouldn't sell your family's relic blade would you?), bureaucratic issues (well I could buy the Stark's mithril fullplate from you, but that would probably lead to me getting eaten by dire wolves in retribution as they go to reclaim it), or more simply there isn't a price that can paid for these near unique items (The lost adamantine fork of house Cutlery? There's no price we could put on such an item, however you do have our eternal debt for returning it to us... [rp reward goes here].)

I will point out that Tywin Lannister rather famously offered outrageous sums of gold to several impoverished houses that had Valyrian Steel weapons.

If it has value, someone will be willing to pay for it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, Mithral and Adamantine see such heavy use because they provide bonuses that will stay consistently useful and no drawbacks beyond added cost. Compare that to giving you a small bonus against one specific creature type, a small skill bonus, and something slightly useful but with a big downside.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Torbyne wrote:

Brain in a Jar,

That sounds pretty close to the previous argument of, "I am a Wizard and dont need anyone else in this party, pay me for being so brilliant as to choose this class."

Literally any class can take crafting feats.

If i take crafting feats and spend my downtime making myself stuff. No one else has any right to assume I'll spend my downtime making them stuff.

Everyone can get crafting feats.

While technically true, classes without casting have to pay two feats and a stack of skill points to get a single heavily limited crafting feat, so it's not exactly a great move. Though limiting it to classes with spellcasting still leaves plenty of options.

As for the main topic, it seems like the one of the biggest points of contention is the availability and value of downtime for crafting and other activities. If downtime is heavily limited and/or the crafter has other things they'd like to do, then crafting for the party comes with an associated cost. It's fair for the crafter to ask for something in return if crafting for the party means they're missing out on something valuable.

Then, of course, there's the out-of-game versus in-game argument. Out-of-game, crafting for party members isn't a big effort. In-universe, it's 8 hours of work per 1000 gp of the item. I don't mind spending a couple hours helping a friend at no cost (or at worst asking them to spring for pizza once the work is done), but 8 hours a day for several days in a row isn't a favor for a friend, it's a job. Even when I liked my boss and got along well with them, I still expected my paycheck at the end of the day.

Of course, then you get into metagame concerns like WBL-imbalance...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say the most egregious foul by the GM isn't giving the character some crazy OP abilities, but that he opened the encounter by saying that if the party beat the pirate boss they'd get a ton of good items, then denied any rewards when they actually managed to win. To me at least, that's what really shifts the whole thing to looking like a GM temper tantrum.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Jader7777 wrote:

Caster Martial debates always happen because theory crafting (90% of the topics) benefits prepared casters to the point where they can kill anything that is stated up.

Of course, in a real game it's a bit harder to always have the answer with all the things up in your grill and the GM only gives you 30 seconds to deliberate.

Milo v3 wrote:
"As an paizo board discussion grows longer, the probability of getting Bingo approaches 1"

B3, N1, G2, and O3 already filled in...

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BadBird wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
As I said in the text that you misquoted and apparently didn't read, the Fighters only native advantages are with weapon-based maneuvers and being able to potentially have more; he has the same mathematical limits as everyone else, and will generally swing under the curve since classes like the Barbarian and Ranger don't have to pay feat taxes to break away from a single weapon or apply their bonuses to non-weapon-based checks (not to mention that their bonuses usually scale higher and cheaper).
So, they're only good at trip, drag, reposition, disarm, sunder, and dirty trick where applicable. I'm not sure how that's a stinging deficit for using combat maneuvers in general, especially since weapon-based maneuvers are preferable for all classes, due to weapon bonuses. They'll 'swing under the curve' and 'have the same mathematical limit as everyone else' on one of the 5-6 weapon maneuvers that they can throw all their features behind because... why exactly? Because they won't be using their specialized weapon-type?

That's the thing. Baseline fighters get bonuses to their attack (and thus combat maneuver) bonuses, but so does every other martial class. Even if those limits don't come up all that often they're still limits on the maneuver. Limits that things like studied target, favored enemy, and strength surge don't have to deal with. And all those abilities put out equal or better numbers compared to weapon training.

BadBird wrote:
Even for a simple combat base-line with Core Fighter, by level 9 they can add +3 to attack and +4 to damage with just training and two exclusive feats. Core Barbarian Rage hits +3 attack and +3-5 damage by 11.

Holy shifting goalposts, Batman!

I don't think a +1 to attack and +2 damage advantage for two levels is much to brag about. Certainly not enough to offset the massive utility of the rage powers the Barbarian's getting instead of bonus feats going into small numerical bonuses. Pounce at level 10 laughs at the fighter's puny +1 advantage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Plus battlefield control bombers usually aren't TWF and Rapid Shotting, which reduces the penalties they're taking from other sources.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Archetypes as band-aids is just bad design. I mean, that's all there is to it. Particularly when those band-aids interfere with the other band-aids or simply throw numbers at the issue hoping that's enough of a fix. Rogue was an under-performing class, so they fixed it. Monk struggled to participate in combat, so they made a monk that could fight. Barbarian didn't even have any problems but they thought it was too complicated for a base class, so they fixed it. Fighter just keeps getting band-aids piled on so it either breaks laterally without changing vertically, or requires a ton of work and dumpster diving just to bring to par. None of that is a positive thing. Requiring an archetype from a book you can't buy in print anymore is bad; so is requiring 6 books to make one decent character.

The alternative of course being to release a new core book, pissing off everyone who already owned one, at the largest possible expense to the company, with no guarantee of return on investment and a significant possibility of alienating current fans for economic reasons.

The core fighter is weak at anything but DPS and once you get into the mid levels not even great at that compared to other classes. I profoundly disagree that archetype fixes are a bad design. Archetype and splatbook fixes are a far cheaper, far more easily targeted option when compared to another 60 dollar core expenditure

I think when it comes to archtype fixes, there is a bit of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" involved. Obviously a full rewrite of the class to fix its problems is ideal, but a couple archetypes that address the issue is better than nothing.

The problem, as Ssalarn brings up, is that all the different fixes don't tend play well with each other. Fixing problem A locks you out of fixing Problem B. Lore Warden makes you better at skills and maneuvers, but you miss out on Advanced Armor Training and the expanded bravery options.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
If gunslinger damage really is a balance issue, rather than just a "they shouldn't be able to reload like that" issue, I'd rather see rules aimed directly at that - disallow Rapid Shot for guns, for example. Maybe ban the advanced Two Weapon Fighting feats with runs. Hell, change how BAB bonus grants iteratives with guns if you have to.

Yeah, one of my big annoyances with how Paizo handled the problems double-barreled pistols caused was that they spent years trying to fix the double-barreled pistol by FAQ-rattaing everything except the double barreled pistol. You know, the thing that was actually causing the problem in the first place.

I'd be all for good house-rules (or a Pathfinder rules overhaul) to make guns and crossbows into One Big Hit weapons, but that's the kind of thing that would require completely redoing the rules for those weapons and the Gunslinger/Bolt Ace. Though at that point, we might as well address 3.X's broader issues of all martials being tied to iteratives and full attacks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
An archetype from a 7 year old, highly criticized...splat book...
Highly criticized?

As far as I recall, the only criticism the Lore Warden got was from the PDT itself, since they felt like the archetype was a straight upgrade of the core fighter.

BadBird wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
An archetype from a 7 year old, highly criticized, out of print splat book as a fighter justification? Seems right.
Oh ffs. So don't use a Lore Warden then. It's nice to have, but it isn't in any way fundamental. I mean really; take Mutation Warrior to the bank, and drop/postpone Amateur Swashbuckler (you can even still use Blue Scarves once per day at 2,5k each if you want). Or just go plain Fighter with more focus on maneuver, and have 'good' instead of 'WTF' CMB - the dirty trick is still only sacrificing one attack on a 'pounce' by level 6/7 build that hits hard. This stuff isn't that difficult.

Problem is, sans Lore Warden's high CMB bonuses the Fighter doesn't bring much to make it better at maneuvers than any other class, other than having an easier time affording the feat taxes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

Having magic guns & ammo where the guns somehow magically reload themselves... I could live with that. But the free reloads already make archery better than it should be (once you have all the right feats) and the way the gunslinger and guns themselves were executed in PF just rubs me the wrong way.

You're right, I just don't like guns in my fantasy. So I don't use them, and no player has ever really insisted on trying. That's the easy way out.

But every time one of these discussions comes up, I can't help myself from sounding a discordant note.

This said... 20 free actions? Really? And y'all are good with that? What if the DM said "max free actions per round = (DEX bonus + 1 per iterative attack)" or something similar. Would that totally invalidate the gunslinger?

It would severely curtail the abilities of pistol using ones, yeah. It is a Dex based class though so 6 free actions at level 6 isnt so bad. A musketeer could do just fine with that.

Limiting free actions causes more problems. Lots of things get lumped as free actions since it doesn't normally matter how you break them down or split them up.

Don't Forget:
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

So each reload might actually take 2 free actions?

And then there's things like speech as a free action. :)

Granting no holds barred to free actions causes a LOT more problems than setting limits on them on a case by case basis. A round is six seconds. there should be a variable limit on them. Speech, for example, may be free, but quoting the Gettysburg Address should not be.

I've seen plenty of problems in both directions. Let's not forget what happened when Paizo tried to limit free actions to three to five per round, and utterly broke the game. Pretty much every attempt at a hard numerical limit tends to fail because the rules were written with the idea of free actions being free and unlimited as long as players don't do anything too crazy with them.

Since the only real limit on free actions is GM fiat against anything unreasonable, the subject leads to massive table variation. GMs tend to vary wildly on what is and isn't an acceptable number of free actions.

I'd personally suggest a couple general guidelines.

1) No hard numbers
Most attempts I've seen at coming up with hard numbers wind up underestimating how many free actions it takes to do some basic gameplay acts. For example, limiting free actions to "# of Iterative attacks + Dex Bonus" would make it impossible for most casters to use touch spells. Preparing material components is a free action. Speaking verbal components is a free action. The actual touching part of the touch spell is a free action. God forbid you want to do a five foot step to get close enough actually touch someone, concentrate (or not concentrate) on a spell, present your holy symbol if you're a divine caster, talk, or do anything else on your turn...

This leads into my next point...

2) Look at what they're doing, not how many Free Actions they're using.
The most common example that crops up is letting ranged characters make a full attack, since ranged attacks are especially free action heavy. Drawing ammunition is a free action, loading most ranged weapons is (at least) another free action, and so on.

"I want to make a rapid-shot hasted full attack with my sling while calling out a warning to my friends" sounds a lot more reasonable than "I want to take thirteen free actions this round."

3) Specifically and narrowly target FA abuse.
This tends to be the archetypal example of free action abuse—the oft-cited example of someone using a free action to drop prone, then another one to stand up again, repeated ad infinitum.

The solution to this is not to completely change how all action economy works. It's tell your player "stop being a dumbass."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Thirdly as Sauce said this ruling would make it absolutely abysmal. Not really a rules argument but still relevant when discussing potential ambiguities.

Indeed. If the rule text could be read two different ways but one reading produces an absurd result, it's a pretty good indicator for how the rules should probably work.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
I remember this style of play being very common in the 1980s, back then character abilities like skills were less well defined by the rules. These days hardly any tables play like that in my area. Instead all that matters now is what skills and abilities are recorded on your character sheet.

I remember... the exact opposite. At every table I'd ever seen. The closest you'd get to 'roleplaying' was whoever happened to be playing the dwarf occasionally trying to put on an accent. The game was 99% dungeon crawls with absolutely minimal interaction with anyone or anything else basically built into the core of the system.

A strong emphasis on roleplaying and character interaction is a relatively new invention when it comes to TTRPGs. Hell, you can even see this with the way APs are designed. Older modules and adventures tend to be little more than dungeons. Sometimes multiple dungeons stitched together with a thin veneer of setting over it, but generally just dungeons. Often with an emphasis on lethality and character expandability that practically encouraged someone not to get invested in any one character sheet.

Whereas modern adventures tend to have a much stronger emphasis on storylines and themes and atmosphere, even sometimes at the expense of other things.

HWalsh wrote:

Roleplaying is dying.
But doom and gloom and melodrama is fun I guess.

95% of HWalsh's posts can be summed up as "Back in my day (have I mentioned I've been playing for a long time?) everything was so much better. Now all the damn kids won't get off my lawn with their badwrongfun!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

GM: Exactly how are you disarming the trap?

Me: i-innn the way that one does?

I feel like "how are you disarming the trap" is an excuse to talk about your backstory with traps and other mechanical devices, and that one time you encountered one that was kind of like this one.

Just tell me a story about something you did that has something to do with what's going on and I'll run with it.

Not everyone's good at cranking out random backstory on the spot.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nitro~Nina wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
kainblackheart wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
I also feel sorry for people unable to provide their own coherent arguments.
A good chunk of the fighters ability is a full bab letting it take multiple attacks when holding still, which is a problem when you need to move. most other full bab classes have some way of compensating for this, the fighter doesn't.
I've never had this problem, I've always had enough feats to be able to spend some on a ranged option for when the bads were out of reach

So you are a greatsword build, the baddie is 20ft away and fighting an ally. Are you whipping out your bow for this? Really? Cause this is the situation where the bad is out of reach. Or are you moving and getting one attack? Either way you do your turn and your team finished him off before your next turn, now the next baddie in this fight is again 20ft away from you and attacking your wizard. Are you going to keep using your bow, or move and use the greatsword?

The needing to move every round or so to get to a bad guy is the problem BNW is talking about. Barbarians, druids, alchemists, Mediums, Vigilantes, etc. all have pounce or a way to move and full attack. Some really low levels, other get it around 12 and a few wait till 20, but most weapon users get a way to move and full attack. Fighter is one of few classes that don't have a way to do that.

What's frustrating is that it's a feature of the system that literally only impacts martials, and the removal of it would do a lot to improve martials in general. It'd make Magi stupid powerful though... maybe you still have to spend a full round if you wanna Spell Combat?

Magus already has ways to move and full attack anyway thanks to their spell list, so it's not a huge issue.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShroudedInLight wrote:

Player Ingenuity and unpredictability, even though they screw up my g~!%&~n encounters, are wonderful because they result in the best memories of my games.

Ever need to cobble together an entirely separate plane because one of your players decided to jump through a portal that was disgorging enemies, and the rest followed them?

Good times.

Yeah, most of my favorite GM-ing memories are from times when the party did something totally insane, and I wound up desperately improvising to keep the game moving. Like the time my Well-Intentioned Extremist Big Bad was a bit too persuasive in explaining his cause, and next thing I knew the entire party wants to betray their current allies and join up with him instead.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Having been knocked down with a punch and then kicked directly in the teeth in my life I can assure those without that experience that basically anything you can think of that isn't long term psychological abuse isn't really a comparable event.

Ergo, cheating is okay. Because he got punched in the face one. QED.

Though I think the big question is what if someone got punched in the face for cheating?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Jader7777 wrote:

Does anyone here actually believe their GM or do they sit there with their arms crossed and eye brow raised?

Seems like a lot of the discussion here is really centered around the mood and attitude of the players at the table.

When I GM, I roll in the open and don't fudge.

The other GM in our group also rolls in the open and doesn't fudge.

Trust is very easy for my group, because we do not play with cheaters.

I do find it a bit odd how some people are insisting on two seemingly contradictory premises:

1: The GM should constantly lie to their players
2: The Players should absolutely trust their GM

In my experience, lying is not a good way to build trust.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kullen wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm hearing a lot of "I absolutely do not want this to happen and if I find out I'm going to be mad."

Which sort of underlines the point that if you're going to do it, you ought to make sure nobody finds out.
Does that also apply to murder, in your mind? It seems like a somewhat morally-dubious conclusion.

Just like with lying, murder doesn't apply to players when interacting with the GM. After all, players are subhuman scum with no rights, while the GM is an all-knowing perfect god.

Really, if the GM murders a player they should thank him for the extra attention and effort the GM has gone to, and be grateful enough to spend their dying breaths helping with the cover up. Probably also apologize for getting blood on the knife or pay for the bullets, because that's extra work/expense for the GM.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
The reason players are distrustful of fudging is because largely fudging is perceived as being about neither about "avoiding metagaming" or "to increase player's fun" but rather GM wanting to control the narrative.

I think you've hit on a good point for why some players don't like fudging. It can easily lead to feeling like combat is being railroaded: no matter what happens, every encounter ends the way the GM wants it to. Your clever tactics aren't rewarded, and mistakes have no consequences. Nothing you do matters, because the outcome has already been determined.

I would imagine most fudging GMs don't want things to feel that way, but what the GM intends might not always match up with how the players take it. The thread's made it fairly clear that people have very different opinions on fudging.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, at this point it's pretty clear Diego's starting with "Rules As I Feel They Ought To Be" and torturing the English language and common sense until he can twist things around to match up with what he is emotionally invested in believing the rules should be, rather than anything remotely fact-based or logical.

No other explanation for how someone can read direct quotes from the devs about how Full Attacks and Full Attack Actions are the same thing, and use that conclude that they're different.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Inlaa wrote:
My Self wrote:
Inlaa wrote:
6) Someone raised by peace-loving individuals. Perhaps they were raised in a temple of Sarenrae?
Minor nitpick: Sarenrae doesn't do nonviolence or peace. She does redemption and mercy, but if some irredeemable soul (Or undead, if they have souls) needs a chopping, you can ring up the nearest temple of Sarenrae for some backup. How about Shelyn or Abadar?

She's a deity that literally tries to talk with evil deities to try and sway them from the dark side. The whole point of redeeming people is that it's a better answer than just outright murdering them. Yes, worshipers of Sarenrae will fight the good fight when they must, but I don't think it would unheard of for someone raised by Sarenrae worshipers to develop a peaceful mindset.

Also, yeah, the Tranquil Paladin is an interesting archetype for this.

I'd say Saerenae could certainly support a pacifist follower. It's not the only way to play a Saerenite, but it's one of many valid ones.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, if the king actually needs to go out and getting his hands dirty, something's already gone wrong. Important people don't go out into the field to do adventuring work: that's what minions are for.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

What I wrote mas made clearer a few post after the one you cited.

Medusa wrath is a ability that trigger when you use a full attack action. A pounce isn't a full attack action. It is an ability that trigger on a charge action and give you a full attack. But not a full attack action.
As it miss the action part it don't trigger medusa wrath.

So you're ignoring the Dev statement that there's no difference between a full attack and full attack action?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as the military squad comparison goes, I will point out that for a good while combat medics were designated noncombatants who weren't supposed to fight, and sometimes didn't even carry weapons. Nobody in the army seemed to mind having them around.

(Granted, these days a lot of combat medics are armed combatants, but that's due to most insurgent forces not respecting the Geneva Conventions.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I GM I tend to go back and forth on the matter. Aside from a couple circumstances where hidden rolls are really important (like bluff vs sense motive) I've seen pros and cons to both sides. Hidden rolls give you a bit more flexibility to fudge things as needed, but open rolls can get the players more excited and invested in the game.

It also avoids any potential drama from players who have a run of bad luck; important since my dice always seem to roll much better when I'm GMing than when I'm playing. With open rolling, we all have a laugh about how the dice gods are being crazy: with hidden roles, the players might start wondering if I'm fudging against them. Sure, players should trust their GM and all that, but sometimes a little openness makes it a lot easier for them to do that.

Of course, I'm also completely unbothered by stuff like my players figuring out what AC or attack bonus their opponents have. Much like Kirth, I've often seen players wind up metagaming in an effort to avoid metagaming.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

To be strictly accurate, Paizo improved multiclassing by removing the XP penalty for doing so. Strictly speaking, they "punish" multiclassing only by making it even more appealing to remain single classed.

And remember that in D&D 3.5, one inevitable question that was asked about low level characters was what prestige class they would be taking. It became obvious that the paradigm had shifted in my first Pathfinder campaign when we had a Summoner and a Witch with good reason never to take a level in any class but their original classes.

Since most of the 3.5 multi-classing was more about prestige class spam than going into bases classes, the XP penalty usually didn't come into play. Especially since Humans could bypass that penalty thanks to having Favored Class: Any. At worst, getting around the penalty was a fairly minor build restriction if it came up at all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
A charge is a "special full round action". Pounce does not, within it's text change the type of action that is used when you charge. It is still a "special full round action". All pounce does is modify that "special full round action" to allow a full attack sequence instead of a normal single attack action. No more, no less. It is demonstrably NOT a full attack action. By strict RAW (ignoring for the moment the Haste FAQ).

There's no difference between a full attack and a full attack action. They're the same thing.

Quintain wrote:
Flurry of blows is also defined as a "full round action" that involves a full attack with an extra attack, it also calculates in the penalty for two weapon fighting with light weapons with a boost in BAB equal to your class level.

False. Both Core Monk flurry and Unchained Monk flurry never say anything about being full round actions. In fact, both entries start off with "At 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action." (Emphasis added)

Quintain wrote:
A MOMS Monk does not gain "Flurry of Blows" but can get the functional equivalent (given relative BAB values) by grabbing twf and itwf and having them used with improved unarmed strikes, you get a equivalent flurry of blows that can even use it with charge-pounce.

No. Seriously, just no. Flurry of Blows is not remotely the same thing as TWF. Core Flurry changes BAB, can be done with a single weapon instead of two, changes how you apply strength modifiers to damage, and can only be done with a select group of weapons. The only thing it has in common with TWF is granting additional attacks at a -2 penalty. Unchained Flurry doesn't even that much in common with TWF.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:

If the Development team is really making a full-round action that involves a full attack to be considered a full attack action, this has some serious implications for Monks.

Flurry of Blows is a rull round action that is also a full attack (like charge-pounce) -- if these are synonymous, then all of the monk abilities that are currently restricted to being used only when used with a flurry of blows, can be used when they are simply making a full attack action.

This allows the MOMS archetyhpe to access ki abilities (like ki flurry) that he is currently denied.

This is huge. This *needs* a FAQ.

I'm not seeing that. Flurry of Blows has its own special rules and restrictions that don't apply to other full attacks.

All Flurries of Blows are full attacks, but not all full attacks are a Flurry of Blows.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, overall I'm inclined to say the spell's not inherently evil, it's just a matter of how you use it. Just like how it's evil to fireball an orphanage, but not evil to fireball the orcs who are about to kill all the orphans.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Kind of odd that the sling, which took significant training to even be able to fire properly, is a simple weapon and the firearm, which you can learn to use with reasonable proficiency in half an hour, is exotic.

The Simple/Martial/Exotic division has always been massively arbitrary. Slings are almost certainly simple not because of the training time, but because they're traditionally seen as a peasant weapon. Firearms are in the exotic category to represent them being relatively new technology.

Still not the most egregious example: that distinction probably goes to stuff like how a normal club is simple, but a club with an asian name is exotic.

swoosh wrote:
zainale wrote:
how many feats does it take to make a good slinger?
ammo drop and juggle load are your bare minimum, unless you're a halfling. They can just exchange their acrobatics bonus for the same effect.

That's just what you need to make more than one attack a round. There's also all the usual feats any character who wants to really focus on ranged combat will want to pick up (Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, etc).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malignor wrote:


The sword was amazing at killing unarmored and lightly armored foes. But as armor got better, the military of the times had to invent new ways to counter it. Flails and war hammers (with a hook or spike) were quite popular for anti-armor, from what I heard.

Getting back to slings...
From all my readings, the sling is actually a superior weapon for an individual in direct open combat. By most accounts it has better range, higher rate of fire and did more damage than a bow.

But while a slinger is deadlier (and less expensive to equip) than an archer, the battlefield reverses that advantage. For example the slinger sucks for siege warfare (can't really snipe), for tight formations (slings take up alot of space to safely use), for synchronized volleys, and for ROI in training time. This make "slingers" as a cohesive war unit less effective than archers.

If the sling were to be remade accurately, it would be a martial weapon which has better range, damage and rate of fire than a bow. However whenever you fire it you threaten all adjacent squares during the spin, potentially delivering attacks of opportunity on friends and foes alike (unmodified rolls only, don't apply attack bonuses. Damage as light flail). It can only be fired from standing, and can't fire while mounted, prone or sitting. Nor can it be fired from an arrow slot or similar 90% cover situations. It would be able to deliver many kinds of ammo, from incendiary (oil) to alchemical to simple chemical (clay pots of blinding chalk powder or burning lye, etc). And of course it can be used with a small shield as is often depicted and as can be demonstrated.

There would be a feat for using a sling while mounted... Mounted Slinger (prerequisite 1 rank in Ride). There were allegedly Scythian cavalry slingers but that would take some special training.

So it's a mixed bag of awesomeness and problems.

Yeah, part of the issue with grading and statting up weapons is that not all weapons are good in all situations. Slings, for example, are very good in the hands of a single well-trained individual for small-scale battles (AKA Adventurers) but have a lot of problems when put into army-scale combat. By the same token, adventurers will almost never lug around 15-20 foot long pikes, despite massed pike formations being one of the most effective military formations around until gunpowder got good enough to make them obsolete.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
They do require access to a laboratory and/or workshop after all. Not very practical when sleeping rough in a dungeon. I would discuss with my player in advance whether using crafting feats was going to be practical for them.

The magic item creation rules say nothing of the sort (and in fact say the opposite), though you're free to make up house rules to crush your players for daring to attempt to take agency away from the almighty God-GM. Remember, players are subhumans who exist purely for your amusement, and any delusions of equality must be swiftly and brutally crushed.

To go to what the rules actually say:

"The creator also needs a fairly quiet, comfortable, and well-lit place in which to work. Any place suitable for preparing spells is suitable for making items."

"If the caster is out adventuring, he can devote 4 hours each day to item creation, although he nets only 2 hours' worth of work. This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night."

"Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress (just as with the adventuring caster)."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
I'm very happy with this errata as to me it is a clarification not a nerf in any way. This is how it was supposed to be all along and was clearly the intent. I'm glad the written portion makes it clearer.

So changing the action from swift to move is is a clarification, and not a nerf? How does that follow?

1 to 50 of 916 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>