Don't track weight, arrows, rations or anything like that. It doesn't add anything to our games. We want to play fantasy, not accountants.
Tels: People actually tried that with Heighten Spell? Even I'm not that cheesy!Ya, there was a minor blow up about it a while back. I thought it was rather dumb myself. Just people trying to get extra cheese out of their spells. I myself genuinely didn't know, it was always rather ambiguous in its wording to me so I'm happy to see a clarification from JJ.
Then, upon that attack, stealth ends because it describes itself as being impossible to be used while performing that action. Right. I believe the sequence would be move action (stealth), opposed perception check (fail), end move action (end stealth but still unobserved and in striking position), attack (opponent denied dex)--> sneak attack. Opponent is now aware of rogue, combat begins per usual.
But honestly guys. look at the posters here. It's *DMs* who want to limit the magic their players get. Players- by and large- LIKE magic. Every time I join a new campaign I always try to convince the DM to play E^N so I don't think your generalization is fair. What is more fair is to say that people that champion E^N want to use both as a player and a DM. We're just fans, period.
I'd suggest just picking one or two things the monk should be good at and then really, really sell that to the community. Being mediocre at a lot of things is a problem. Even the supposed "jack of all trades master of none" class (Bard) really has one specialty: buffing.
Color me ignorant but why does it even matter then? Celestial Armor specifically says it is considered light armor.Not for Proficiency purposes, so its -2 Armor Check penalty applies to attacks and such...unless you possess Medium Armor Profieciency. I can see that logic, coming from the precedent set by mithral armor. In 3.5 mithral armor let you treat the armor as one step lighter by passing proficiency. In Pathfinder they added special language for that. That language is not included in Celestial Armor. Mithral:
Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. This decrease does not apply to proficiency in wearing the armor. A character wearing mithral full plate must be proficient in wearing heavy armor to avoid adding the armor's check penalty to all his attack rolls and skill checks that involve moving. Now contrast that with Celestial Armor: Celestial Armor:
This bright silver or gold +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day. Your answer is very true of Mithral armor, but less clear regarding Celestial. Was the restrictive language omitted by mistake or is Celestial Armor in a different class and to apply Mithral's restrictions is punitive? Celestial Armor costs a lot more than Mithral so to me it does not make sense to apply Mithral's restrictions onto it.
For those arguing that the TWF penalty applies all the time, then that would mean the penalty is even applied when the person uses a move and standard attack, for he is still holding the weapon right? No. The penalty is only evoked when you gain the extra attack. It is a special attack and so it has a special penalty. Think about it like a monk; a monk is able to switch between any part of his body during a flurry of blows. Likewise, you can use any weapon available to you (left hand, right hand, unarmed attack, etc.) for each iterative attack. If you want an extra attack, you take the penalty.
But the point most people are trying to make is that if you were a bard, you'd have the skill AND the magic. All of those stealth and manipulation skills are there for the bard, and many are better utilized by the bard. And then you would have magic as well. Or you could do Urban Ranger and have those stealth skills AND combat effectiveness. You would even have the advantage of picking easier favored enemies since you know Underdark races. I don't mean to insult or sound condescending, I think you have a wonderful concept for your character and it sounds like a ton of fun (always wanted to play in a Drow campaign), but the concept would be better served by an Archaeologist Bard.
I have to sort of agree with Cirno. I love what Paizo did with the Core Rule Book, APG, and I really enjoy their adventure paths, but there are big junks of UC and UM that make you wonder, "WTF?!". I really, really love this company but I can't bring myself to spend money on UM or UC. Because we love the company, we should be vocal about what doesn't work instead of trying to excuse their mistakes. There are mistakes, quite a few actually. Archetypes, feats, spells, vows, etc. A lot of stuff missed the mark. You should not throw the baby out with the bathwater but instead hope the developers learned from their mistakes with this phase of the game's life. This applies to this discussion because instead of saying "my player loved the archetype despite its flaws", we should be saying, "my player loved the archetype but here's what's wrong and how to fix it".
I don't understand the point of this thread anymore. We've seen 3.5L's casting rules, stealth rules, item creation rules, and probably more that I'm forgetting. All of it adds up to the fact that it he doesn't play 3.0, 3.5, or Pathfinder. He disagrees with that assessment like he disagrees with all the people arguing in favor of the core rules. 3.5L is enjoying and arguing for his own personal pancake receipt, the rest of us are discussing the waffle receipt out of the cook book. There is no longer any productive discussion of the rules, it is now a discussion of taste. They're futile discussions. 3.5L wouldn't enjoy playing in most of our games, and most of us wouldn't enjoy playing in his.
You're accusing me of logic fallacies? Pot, meet kettle. You're accusing me of being some evil rule lawyer that won't allow anything unless it is codified, but that's not true. I would totally let a player swing off a chandelier even though it is not in rules, but what I won't do is penalize his attempt because he's wearing the wrong kind of shoes. That's what this is, penalization for a specific style choice. The player in questions is Gunslinger 1/Rogue X. He only took one level of Gunslinger and I'm guessing it's because he thought it'd be cool (and possibly touch attacks). If he had chosen a longbow, we wouldn't be having this conversation because the OP feels a -20 is enough for a bow but not for a gun because of "realism". This player can't pull off his shtick because he chose a gun and not a longbow (or he can pay some magic item tax) The developers didn't write any stealth rules for guns (aside from one weird item that references no rules). Maybe that's because they didn't to further penalize guns (which are already subpar in most circumstances). And here's the thing about rations and such, they're present in the rules but without consequence. There's no famished, starved or hungry conditions. A character does not actually need to sleep. You need rest to gain HP and spells, but nothing requires sleep. They're total fluff to simulate realism with no penalty for noncompliance. This has gotten a little out of hand and I apologize because it is your game(s), rule 0 and what not. However, you are penalizing this guy for his choice of fluff. It's in your rights to do so, but don't be surprised if he decides it's not worth the effort and wants to contest the rule or change the character. I would.
I do not know if you meant to sound condescending, but that is certainly how I interpreted it. Secondly, I like to have realism in my game (Requiring players to clean their clothes and bathe so they don't take penalties when talking to the nobles, Keeping track of their trail rations, carrying a huge pile of loot out of a dungeon, etc.). There are rules for the "realism" aspect of the game and I include them in my games. I feel that adding a sense of realism helps the players connect with the game more. I did mean to be condescending, but not in an offensive way (no personal offense intended). I know that sounds strange, but take a step back and look at what you're doing. Pathfinder is already "unrealistic". With the right feats and items (paper cartridge), a character can load, aim and fire a musket 6 times in 6 seconds. Likewise, an archer can fire 6 arrows in 6 seconds. It's absurd from a realistic perspective. You're not being realistic with this, you're being selectively realistic. You're ignoring the absurd in certain situations, and the applying penalties for not washing your clothes? Do you make spell casters roll a % to see if they grab the wrong spell components from their pouches, cuz that's realistically going to happen too? So why do I care? Why am I condescending on the Internet? Because it's a game, it's about you and your player having fun. So lets go back to your original post. Your player sniped and you wanted to add a penalty. Your player objected, saying there is nothing in the rules about it. He's right. It would be one thing if he had accepted your house-rule penalty, but the fact that he made an objection (which brought you to the forums looking for support for your point of view) proves that he was not cool with it. In my humble opinion, he has every right to be upset about it. If it were me, I'd say eff-it and give me a longbow if your going to apply such penalties. Bottom line, don't get so bogged down about mundane "realism" that it ruins the heroic fantasy. I'm sorry if my tone is too blunt/rude but I believe you're being incredibly unfair to this player.
The Oil of Silence is a broken (dumb), pointless item. There is nothing in the rules suggesting/demanding that firearms are more easily detected than any other ranged weapon. One of the developers thought to him/herself, "I'm going to make a sniper-rifle!". The Oil of Silence was born, but that developer didn't bother to look if there were any rules about firearms and stealth, there are not. To impose a stealth penalty for the use of firearms is a house-rule; some may argue that it is RAI and point to the Oil of Silence for justification, but that's like using an error to prove the rule. As others have pointed out, it doesn't matter if one knows where the shot came from (the bang and smoke), the person shot still has to see the shooter. Logically a person shot by a sniper for a longbow knows what direction it came from, but he still has to find the archer. A -20 penalty is already enough. Lastly, firearms are already rather sub-par, requiring greater feat and monetary investment for less return than a simple longbow. To further penalize them for "realism" is asinine.
No one should ever be forced to buy "style" at the expense of mechanics. That is a false dichotomy, like suggesting you can't be a role-player and a min/maxer. The longsword has plenty of style (hello iconic weapon) and is one of the best martial weapons around. The rapier has lots of style and good mechanics. The longbow has style and mechanics... but then you get into a whole host of weapons that have style but do not have good mechanics, like the crossbow or sword cane. I may be extreme but all weapons should be equally effective in power, even if they get there in a different way. As a house rule, I get to balance by letting a player pick whatever mechanics he wants (within the weapon categories) and "re-skinning" it into their style. Like crossbows? Buy a composite longbow and pretend its a crossbow.
Right, different tastes for different groups/GMs. That's the beauty of it! I personally feel level 8 is the ideal stopping point but we are free to differ. I had another musing about E6/8 and their philosophies. This is by no means 100% true for every standard or E6/8 game. Your standard 1-20 (or X) campaign is like a novel or movie. Low level/inexperienced characters are introduced, a story is lined out, and the characters have a slew of montage worthy adventures as they gain levels/competence. Eventually the story reaches its climax when the characters are ready (level 20 or X). This is the story of Star Wars. We are introduced to young Luke Skywalker (level 1) who goes on several adventures until he reaches sufficient level (15 I think according to Star Wars Saga Edition) to have a showdown with Vader/Emperor. At this point one must decide whether to end the campaign or continue into epic levels. Your E6 or E8 game is like a daily/weekly/monthly TV show. Here we have a regular cast of heroes and villains that remain stable over long periods of time while having various adventures. E6 is like the Ninja Turtles cartoon show (bear with me here). Shredder, the Foot Clan, and the turtles were fairly static; they did not grow much stronger week to week. Instead, the story was driven by Shredder’s machinations and schemes. Likewise the turtles did not grow increasingly more powerful. The show was allowed to continue season after season with no grand conclusion (until it ends). With E6/8 you define who your villains are (Orcs, Goblins, Giants, etc.) and build the world around that sort of conflict/reality. The PCs will sometimes have miscellaneous adventures (we fought a griffin!) but the standard, week to week, conflict/story will always be there. |
