You can't kill anything without GM fiat. The only question is where to draw the line on "things that can be defeated". Some choose to put the line below gods, some above them.
When your Paladin is violating the Geneva Convention, you are doing it wrong. Yiles. Don't play any Paizo Adventure Paths. There's murder-hoboing a'plenty. Heck, the foundation of this RPG is hostile entry into the homes of often sentient beings, killing them all, and taking their stuff. The Geneva Convention isn't in line with this idiom.
That's not a Paizo class, and we're not in the 3rd party homebrew forum. Else we can start talking about the entire content of the 3.5 netbooks, the PathfinderDB site, etc. We're not in the Rules forum either. In answer to a direct question, I said that it was an excellent example of a generalist caster. And it is. In fact it provides a compare/contrast to the types of caster in the published Paizo material. Thus showing what a design philosophy that allowed all kinds of spells (arcane & divine) from a caster would look like. Not sure how playing forum police is helping the topic.
It sounds like you are making a world that is hostile to casters. But I don't see anything in that description that makes it low magic. Low magic typically means that powerful magic doesn't exist or is rare. If a player can play a Wizard or Sorcerer as written in the CRB it will not be a low magic campaign for long.
The paladin should not fall unless the player tells you that he wants his paladin to fall. It's a player decision. He should have all the agency in this call.
The 'useless' bit about armor class is that it generally goes up as you level and BaB also goes up as you level. It seems like a zero-sum game sometimes. You struggle to get your AC to stratospheric heights, only to face monsters who have a +25 attack bonus that will hit you most of the time anyway. Still, I wouldn't really call it useless. Keeping that AC up can at least mean the occasional attack will miss. And that will save resources. At the end of the day D&D is a resource-management game.
Which is another way of saying 'It's useless'.If all you want to get out of it is some sort of mechanical benefit, then yes it's useless. If you want to use it as a role-playing guideline, then it's not useless. As someone who constantly brings people new to RPGs into the fold, I think it's a good thing to have training wheels. I've had multiple instances where the section on alignments has engendered some great discussions about what role play is and how playing someone with a different world view from the player can be a fun experience.
Alignment is how you treat people who are not close to you. No matter your alignment, you can be decent and caring to your friends and loved ones. This is how a party with different alignments functions.
I tried that once, and found that the game turned into an ongoing stuggle for better divinations and transportation blocking/enabling, and that no one else really had anything to do 90% of the time. Eventually I went for almost the exact same solution that Claxon did, which also has the advantage of explaining why there are anachronous castles and dungeons all over the place. It really is elegant in that it makes the world more consistent with itself. And it retains the utility of these spells for rapid transport.
I would say that you fall, but gently (feather fall). Much in the same way you fall if the spell timer runs out. But it would be a house rule.
I like Brown Mold, Green Slime, et. al. because it brings back the old AD&D feeling when encountered by low level characters. It only takes one party wipe from a hazard to give the entire campaign a sense of peril throughout.
The cleaning bit is useful if you need to leave an area without looking like you just slaughtered a half-dozen elves.
This statement puzzles me. I would like to know what rogue talent really add a lot to out of combat. Out of combat talents? Black Market Connections, Camouflage, Canny Observer, Charmer, Coax Information, Convincing Lie, Deft Palm, Esoteric Scholar, Expert Leaper, Face in the Crowd, False Friend, Fast Fingers, Fast Picks, Fast Stealth, Follow Clues, Guileful Polyglot, Hard to Fool, Hold Breath, Honeyed Words, Iron Guts, Last Ditch Effort, Ledge Walker...What advanced rogue talent is (out of combat speaking) at the level of a high level spell (or extracts, or discoveries)?. Dispelling Attack, Feat, Improved Evasion, Redirect Attack, Slippery Mind... Then, how many rogue talents are dedicated to combat? Having talents dedicated to combat doesn't mean that the rogue is equal to a Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian in combat. These are generally viewed as combat classes. The Rogue compensates for this by having a great breadth of utility outside of combat. Social, stealth, exploration, trap management...they have a huge portion of adventuring in which they specialize and are much better than the aforementioned combat classes.
To be fair, laying down the law is communicating. It's just not ideal communication for most.
The rules do not describe spear hafts as weapons, though.we're still waiting for you to quote the part of the rules that says the shaft of my spear is not an object... barring those rules, it is, in fact, an object and can be used as an improvised weapon.On the contrary. In the face of written rules that describe it as a weapon, you have to find and quote a written rule which says you can treat it as if it wasn't what the rules say it is. The rules do say that when you are wielding a longspear you are weilding a longspear, as evidenced in the weapon rules. Unless you can cite rules stating that when you wield a longspear you are also wielding an object called a "spear haft" then you are in the realm of house rules.
There's a lot of straw men in this thread. The reality at most games is that so long as everyone sitting at the table is a reasonable human being then these problems aren't significant. Only by hoisting up extremes (the aforementioned straw men) are these debates able to continue so endlessly without resolution.
I think it's one thing for a pre-established, well detailed setting, like Middle Earth, or a setting built on certain defining core assumptions (like, a world where Dwarves are thought to be extinct) it's more ok to limit the players' choices, but otherwise, if you have no reason built into the fundamentals of the setting, why a race should be excluded, I fail to see why you should limit player options. There are many reasons to limit player options. Some of them even enhance the enjoyment of the game for the players. Working from the basic assumption that a DM limits options out of malice seems to be fallacious. I've engendered enough trust with my regular players that I can dictate virtually any set of restrictions and starting conditions for a campaign and they will be happy to oblige. They know that I will deliver something enjoyable when all is said and done. In more public games, such as volunteering to run a game for strangers at the FLGS, I will send out a document with the rules and limits for character creation. People can accept this and join in or they can decide that my game isn't for them. In both cases, the DM dictating restrictions for the players works out well.
TL/DR: The GM creating the world without much input from the players isn't even vaguely related to railroading. But in the world of reasonable players and reasonable DMs this isn't a particularly pressing problem. This has been my experience in nearly every game I've run or played. DM: "I'm running a game with X, Y, and Z characteristics"
If it's walking around and talking you would know that it isn't at -1 hit points. But it could be a vampire (or any of a number of other undead types) in disguise. This spell can be freely cast all day. An easy way to determine if someone you are having a conversation with is undead if "detect when fail due to bad target" is the case.
I use the concept of "worldbreakers" that gained popularity in 4th edition. Have an "initial state" with a number of HP. This will be the 'before' phase of the boss. It fights until reduced to 0 or fewer HP. Instead of dropping at 0 hp, the enemy will instead transform into a new state with a new set of HP. My dragon bosses do this. You fight the 'regular dragon' first. If you reduce it to 0 hp it's mortal coil is destroyed and the Elemental Dragon within bursts forth (made of the element of the dragon's breath). To truly defeat the dragon you must now kill the elemental form.
Do you have a rules reference for switching from 'weapon' to 'improvised weapon' as a free action? Or is this a house rule at your table?
I like the RAW just fine. So clearly you do not 'get it'. By RAW you can use a shaft as an Improvised Weapon. Please show in the RAW where it states you can use a sub-part of an object designed to be a weapon as an improvised weapon.
You aren't using the spear. You are using its shaft, and inefficiently. Hence penalties. Arguing that a longspear wielded by your character isn't a longspear is just silly. The rules for Reach don't say, "you threaten all squares 10 feet away - and also threaten adjacent squares with a -4 to hit". They specifically state that you can't use it against an adjacent foe.
You can threaten with an improvised weapon. Thus, if one was to rule that the shaft of a longspear was an improvised weapon then a character holding a spear would threaten all squares adjacent - in addition to threatening all squares at 10 feet. This would seem to violate the very purpose of the Reach property of a longsepar. Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe. If you are holding a longspear, you can't use it against an adjacent foe. The rules are quite clear on this. Arguing that while holding a longspear you can pretend it isn't a longspear is just silly.
The designers expect you to read the rules with a modicum of common sense.Malachi: lots of talk, vert few page references. If you habe any quotes on parts of an object not being an object, show them. If you have any rule showing "spearshaft" is less of an object than a butter churn, show them. And in places where the rules go against your common sense you are free to make house rules that fix this. This, too, has been stated by the designers. The point is to know what the rules actually are. And that is only what is written. Once you know the rules - you can make a more informed decision about ignoring/altering/housing them to your heart's desire.
They also don't say you can go to the bathroom, yet amazingly you still can.In what way is either answer false, in terms of the rules of the game?Neither of those are 'the right answer', as they are clearly false. That would be a house rule, just like the tentacle thing. One, of course, is far more reasonable than the other. But they are still both house rules. It's up to a DM to decide what additions, flourishes, and changes will be made at the table to enable verisimilitude for all the players. This has been the way of things since the beginning. But when talking about the rules, you need to go by what is written in the book. Not what isn't written there.
In what way is either answer false, in terms of the rules of the game?Neither of those are 'the right answer', as they are clearly false. Rules are permissive. They list things that you can do. Wizards can cast spells. Barbarians can rage. The rules don't say that my Dwarf can't grow tentacles from his eye sockets that fire lasers. That doesn't mean that the game is broken unless I can.
{Non-evil (even good!) Necromancy and non-evil (even good!) undead.} I never did understand why the Raise Dead spells were taken out of the Necromancy school. It's literally magic with the dead, Necro-mancy. Weird.
Most groups I've played with also use C. Move action to get 3 rounds of info on a single target. No other use of the power.
In the world of Pathfinder it is a certainty that there is an afterlife. Killing someone merely sends them to that afterlife, it does not destroy them. If they are good people then they go to a good afterlife, and vice-versa. Again there is no real question as to this. Powerful enough characters can even interact with these departed souls. So killing something isn't particularly horrible in PF so long as the act does not increase suffering in the mortal world. This is a line of reasoning - not without some merit - that a paladin could use to justify killing.
There's some weird logic going on here. If you attack someone with an axe, since you are only using the axehead to deliver the damage, and "axehead" isn't a weapon then it should be treated as an improvised weapon? Or what about if you stab someone with a longsword. Since you are only using the "blade" you are now not using a longsword but an improvised weapon? Claiming that using the "shaft" of a longspear as an improvised weapon is just as silly. The Longspear is a weapon in its entirety. The weapon has Reach, with all that implies. Trying to reason it differently with verbal gymnastics isn't making it more sensible.
Apparently, I am. Though ... it losing the subtype, part of its genetic makeup, based off its behavior changing is nonsensical to me. Is subtype a purely genetic trait? Is Evil genetic? That would be excellent fodder for an adventure. So many ideas can spring from this question.
So basically it's just something that you made up?Again Democratus, since you seem to be all about the written rules: Where do you find that specific overrides general?This is about as useful as asking where the rules state that you must use the actual meaning of the words written on the page. This is about as intellectually dishonest as an argument can be.
Again Democratus, since you seem to be all about the written rules: Where do you find that specific overrides general? This is about as useful as asking where the rules state that you must use the actual meaning of the words written on the page. And none of it changes the rules for improvised weapons:
Which state that objects "not crafted to be weapons" are to use the rules for Improvised weapons. It even states why they are improvised weapons: "because such objects are not designed for this use." Objects which are weapons are listed in the weapons chart.
Indeed. And until put in the RAW there is no specific to override the general.
And if the party captures an orc and throws an artifact at it, the artifact breaks. I don't see that in the rules. And here you see an example of the specific overriding the general. Something that is quite common in Pathfinder. Just because there is an exception to something doesn't make it not a rule.So, how do you determine what is specific and what is general in this case? Neither state it is an exception to the other. Is this part of RAW or is it something you just "made up"? For example. General: You can't make more than one Attack of Opportunity in a turn. Specific: If you have Combat Reflexes, you can make additional attacks. General: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round.
The general rules aren't somehow not rules because they are overridden in some cases.
But it does say that the improvised weapon rules apply to objects not designed as weapons. This is the general rule. If you can find a rule that creates a specific exception, then you can use that rule.
Sorry but the bold words tell otherwiseThat's exactly the opposite of what is being said.So what your saying is that you can use a greater trip attack against a creature that is immune (oozes, snakes, etc) to being tripped and still trigger the AoO? Ah. I was looking at the reference to what I had said. In general, if you succeed in the roll for a CMB, then any effects that occur on a success will also happen. In the specific case where a creature (such as an Ochre Jelly) is immune to Trip - then the specific overrides the general and a trip can not be successful regardless of roll. At least - that's what I was trying to say. Sorry if I got wires crossed there.
Fortunately, good/evil in Pathfinder are objective. It doesn't matter if the Barbarian thought he was doing evil or even what his justifications were. The action was objectively evil.
Fallacious logic. Permanency is a one-time effect that has a duration of forever. One-time doesn't mean it has an end. Sophistry doesn't change what is written in the rules.
I do see in many individual monster entries (including some Oozes) "can't be Tripped". So a Trip would not be successful against it. If it instead said "can't be Prone" then a Trip attack would still be able to work. But the Prone condition would not be applied to the creature.
Don't forget that you can use a flask of acid as a focus to increase the damage of Acid Splash by 1. If you have Point Blank Shot this increases to +2 damage. And you never run out.
The rules state:
This says to me that beating the enemy CMD means that the Trip is successful. In addition, you apply listed effects. Prone would be the effect of a Trip attack. So you apply the Prone condition. The target may be already prone so the net effect is nothing. However this doesn't change the fact that, per RAW, you were successful in your Trip attack. Any power that is activated as a result of a successful Trip attack should be activated. The Prone/Standing status of your target is irrelevant.
The difference is the moral justification for the act. Keeping yourself out of prison isn't a justifiable reason.Baron Babykiller von Rapemurder sends his guards to arrest a Paladin investigating his many foul and infamous crimes. Paladin resists arrest. Paladin falls. Paladin doesn't resist arrest. Goes to prison. Very interesting adventure follows. Perhaps even a trial where the Paladin brings injustice to light and the Baron is arrested. Let's not assume the DM is on a mission to ruin the fun of the players.
Also note that nobody said they weren't available, just that they weren't available as RANDOM LOOT. So you'd have to specifically seek one out.That doesn't need to mean a quest. It can mean going shopping. Shopping IS a quest! Especially when shopping for shoes.
Boromir is killed in a skirmish with Orcs. A member of the original adventuring party dead not by the hand of any significant BBEG. Just a battle against some minions. The number of deaths of primary characters in Game of Thrones is staggering. Yet it is an excellent story despite this. More important than all of this is the fact that Pathfinder isn't passive literature. It is a game. For many, the thrill of knowing that their character's lives are on the line adds zest to the experience of play.
Gygax once said, "Back Story? The first six levels are a character's back story." We've come a long way from the origins of D&D. And it's a good thing.
Check out the Enter Image spell. Fill the lair with statues and paintings of the BBEG. The party will think it is simply hubris - but instead it is a way for him to directly observe the party's progress.
This thread has restored my faith in my fellow players. Thank you all!
A good hook so that the character always has a reason to back up the rest of the party. Also an easily identifiable and unique character that is easy for the other players to relate to.
Paladins are generally better at surviving damage. They can wear heavy armor and shields, have excellent save bonuses, and can heal themselves. Paladins are also a bit more group oriented, with their auras and channeling and healing. Barbarians are generally better at dealing damage. Their strength can go off the charts while raging, their speed is good, and rage powers can pump things up. You can have a great time playing either. So decide the playstyle you want. Everything will flow from that.
|
