Drow

HangarFlying's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 3,360 posts (3,366 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 4 Organized Play characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Damn. I had taken a break from Pathfinder but I did want to subscribe just to get this. I just now discovered it had already come out. Whelp, this will be a bit spendy, I guess.

Liberty's Edge

Heh, it’s all good. We only play...once or twice a year.

Liberty's Edge

Is there a concise list of what the changes are? I’m on mobile at the moment.

Liberty's Edge

Sulako wrote:

So, essentially, what you're saying is...it was arbitrary. They did it because...they wanted to. Not for any kind of hard game-play reasons. Not because it would DESTROY the game in its entirety. They did it because 'We're the game developers and you have to do what we say.'

That's kinda why I have a problem with it. They give no valid, in-game, mechanical reason why you can't. If they did, I wouldn't be complaining. I'd be unhappy but at least they'd have a reason for it.

The whole 'to make the game lower-powered' is the biggest bullsh!t cop-out reason I've ever heard. It's not up to the GAME to lower the power levels. It's up to the DM. Any DM worth their salt would agree with me on that.

Roleplaying games are what they are PRECISELY to cater to fantasies. Some people just want the fun and intrigue to go along with a fantasy setting and don't mind being just slightly above average. That's fine. More power to them. But some want to be a conqueror that wrecks shop at 1st level and have generated the stats through rolling and bonuses to do that. It shouldn't be up to the game - ANY game - to limit that. That's the DM's job. And if any DM is HAPPY with a game that does that for them, so they don't have to, then, in my opinion, they don't deserve to sit behind the screen and run a game.

Have you even played a session yet to see if your complaints have any actual merit, or are you just complaining to complain?

You are whining about there being ability caps at level one, but not considering the context of all of the other rules for which those caps are put in place. Will your character really be so completely weak as you are want to imply? You don’t know. You haven’t played.

Furthermore, this is a play test. The developers need a baseline, and therefore put boundaries in place to help them collect data. Dial it back a bit.

Liberty's Edge

The more I read and the more I think about and express for what I want in a game, the more it becomes obvious to me that my tastes in gaming won’t be met by a new edition of Pathfinder. Rather, the campaigns I want to run would be perfectly suited to use AD&D or some other similar OSR game as the engine.

Liberty's Edge

hiiamtom wrote:
...while CHA is relatively meaningless.

If you want to make charisma mean something again, reintroduce henchmen and hirelings, morale rolls, the reaction adjustment table, and tie the amount of gold received from selling treasure to a percentage based on the charisma score.

Liberty's Edge

Planpanther wrote:
GP for XP. No, please...just no.

Yes, please, yes.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:


This is probably not the thread for you then, as this is 100% the exact opposite of the way many of us feel.

I disagree IMMENSELY that it is not good in practice, because it HAS been good in practice for me time and time again.

Monsters working on different mechanics from PCs was an annoyance that added to the list of things that drove me away from 4e and it will do the same here to many others if that's the route they choose to go.

This is absolutely the correct thread for me to be in, as it is a thread about monster creation rules. And just because I say something different than the echo chamber, that doesn’t mean that I don’t deserve to be heard. If you don’t like a dissenting opinion, that is very literally your problem, not mine.

But I think there is a misunderstanding on what my wants for monster creation are, so let me clarify.

A 20th Level Wizard BBEG should absolutely be built using the PC creation rules, because it is a wizard—though that doesn’t preclude the GM from giving that BBEG additional abilities on top of the standard wizard stuff.

But there is no reason why an orc should be given feats and class levels. Orc warrior with a feat? Why? If I want to make an orc stronger, now I have to give them more levels, and figure out feats, and other abilities? Why? It’s an unnecessary headache, especially when trying to do it on the fly so that out of a group of 10 orcs, the one stronger leader orc I’ve got to increase its level and figure out feats, blah blah.

No. Tie combat ability/saving throws/XP to the number and type of HD that a creature has. Want to make orc #10 the group commander? Give it 3 HD. Boom. Done. Want it to also be a spell casting orc? Give it the spell casting monster ability, and then add the XP bonus for that ability to the total XP.

But I’m 99% certain Paizo isn’t going in this direction so it’s a pipe dream.

I should probably write my own RPG rules.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Coridan wrote:

So, overall, I'm not too thrilled about what we're getting (Goblins as PC races? No thanks. Catfolk would be way more interesting to me).

My biggest fear though is that you'll use Starfinder's NPC/monster creation system. Which is awful. Please don't. Stick with the 3/3.5/PF system. All creatures should be running off the same ruleset.

No. 100 times no. As a GM I’m done with Pathfinder because dealing with all the stupid details with feats and skills and class abilities and blah blah blah that I need to do just to scale different monsters is fatiguing.

Simplify the monsters so they can be easily run on the fly would be a win. Monsters following the same rules as player characters is good in theory, but in actual practice isn’t.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) We need a treasure table. Treasure value based on CR doesn’t cut it, especially when GMing on the fly. We need the ability to roll up potential treasure items when we generate an encounter.

2) GP for XP.

3) Creature HD tied to creature size; creature combat/XP based on HD. Easily make a creature stronger by merely increasing HD, which in turn is reflected by XP reward. Creature special abilities have associated XP bonus, and creatures can be modified/advanced by giving them different special abilities.

For example: there is a group of attacking goblins, which are normally 1d6 HD. Instead of having all of them be the same, one can be made the group commander by giving it 3d6 HD and the ability to make two attacks in a round—and the XP associated with this special goblin is easily determined by looking up how much 3d6 gives and adding the XP bonus for the extra attack.

4) Generally, make things easier for the GM to run the game on the fly.

5) Character creation takes minutes, not hours.

6) Make rolling for stats relevant again by making the ability score modifiers non-linear. Rolling for ability scores is a core, fundamental element of creating a character. But, the bell-curve of the die rolls lose their importance when the modifiers are linear, thus leaving everyone to choose point-buy so they “don’t feel like they’re being left behind.

7) Treasure tables, quick character creation, fast and clear GM monster adjudication.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brawldennis wrote:

Please Paizo, whatever you do, don't make this a clone of 5th edition. For me, one of the best things about Pathfinder is the amount of customization and complexity it offers.

Simplification isn't always a good thing.

Simplification isn’t a bad thing either, especially from the perspective of the GM.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, hopefully my group can get to this AP before we all die: we're only half way through RotRL, which we started in 2012.

The most important question which hasn't been asked yet is which member of the Vancaskerkin family is going to make an appearance?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
I envy the people who have the time and commitment from a group of players to ask about a way of stringing all 3 together !
4 if you add in Jade Regent.

Six if you include CotCT and SD.

Liberty's Edge

The stat blocks as written don't include the TWF penalties.

TWD isn't included because because it has to be "activated" instead of always on.

Yes, the +4 is from the mate armor.

In short, stat blocks are assumed to include those magic effects, feats, and abilities that are always active and don't require the NPC to activate the effect. Those effects that aren't "permanent" are not included because the authors don't know if you're going to use them or not.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

CotCT has Easter eggs that tie it to RotRL (the storylines are not related, but there are some characters and references that have ties). Then you can run Second Darkness, which too has ties. Then once you run those, you can run Shattered Star which is a direct sequel to all three.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spoiler:

Name of PC: Mudder Fokker Goblinkicker
Race/Class: Dwarf/ Ranger 10
Chapter/Part: Fortress of the Stone Giants/Raid on Sandpoint
Catalyst: +1 Dwarven Bane Heavy Pick to the face.
Story: The battle started well and coordinated, but as other giant attacks and the dragon began to occur, the party's tactics started to unravel and the group began to split. With the dragon being driven off and having enough giant and dire bear casualties, the attack was foiled, and Teraktinus began to retreat. Muddier, having already taken some lumps in earlier fights, maneuvered to intercept—only to come around the corner of a building to be facing head on with the retreating giant. The giant, in a frustrated rage, charged the dwarf. The dwarf, enlarged by a spell, made an AoO with his Lucerne hammer, doing a respectable amount of damage. The giant rolled a crit threat, then confirmed the crit, with his +1 dwarf bane heavy pick, which left the dwarf with negative thirty-something-I-don't-care-you're-dead hit points.

Fun times.

Liberty's Edge

Joana wrote:
Didn't there use to be a rule that you could cast a spell directly from a spellbook but it erased the page like casting it from a scroll? Or was that just a houserule my group used back in AD&D?

Unearthed Arcana, I believe. I think there might have been something about a percentile chance to wipe every page clean if casting this way.

Liberty's Edge

Driver_325yards wrote:

This is not minute. If all ranged attacks are ranged weapon attacks, then just say so. Alternatively, if all ranged attacks suffer in melee penalties, then just say so.

I don't know whether the writers want: 1) To subject non-ray ranged spells to in-melee penalties and allow spellcasters to use PBS and PS to overcoming the penalties; 2) To subject such spells to in-melee penalties and not allow spellcasters to overcome the penalties with PBS and PS; or 3) To not subject such spells to in-melee penalties making PBS and PS irrelevant.

All three possibility have rule-based and/or game-balance implications too big to ignore and yet they have gone ignored. This is not...

The rules already tell us that rays function like ranged weapon attacks. Ranged weapon attacks suffer in-melee penalties. Rays, therefore, suffer in-melee penalties. You can use the Precise Shot and Point Blank Shot feats for rays.

Acid Splash functions like rays, smells like rays, feels like rays, and tastes like rays. Why wouldn't the rules that apply to rays not apply to Acid Splash? If there are no rules that specifically state that Acid Splash doesn't work that way, there is no reason to assume that it doesn't.

Liberty's Edge

Rays are specifically called out as being used as a ranged weapon in the Magic chapter, so those types of spells do get the penalty as well as gain benefit of the feat.

Acid Splash isn't a ray, but rather a missile. Regardless of that, mechanically the spell operates in exactly the same way that any ray spell does: you have to succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. Acid splash is affected by the same limitations that ray spells are: you can fire into the darkness or at an invisible creature in the hopes that you hit something, you don't have to see the creature that you're trying to hit, intervening objects or creatures can block line of sight or provide cover.

Although it is not specifically mentioned that ray spells get penalized for allies in melee combat, we know that they do because the rules say that they work just like ranged weapons.

Regarding Acid Splash (and other spells like it), if it works like a ray in every way, and there isn't a rule to call it out as an exception, why wouldn't it be penalized for an ally in combat or gain the benefit of Precise Shot? We all know that the authors can't provide every little minute detail or example in the rules because otherwise the size of the book would swell to an even more unreasonable size. This example falls into that category.

Liberty's Edge

Thanks!

Liberty's Edge

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to cancel my AP subscription as well as all pending and sidecart orders. Thanks for all of your help and patience. Hopefully things will get sorted out on my end quickly.

Liberty's Edge

Ckorik wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Long story short, the Lance is a very specific special case.

Honestly that's because there is nothing that really says that you only hold a lance with one hand while charging on a horse. I know we all 'know' in real life that's how it works but nothing in game requires it. Nothing in game requires you to give up any hands while riding on a horse.

Some of the rules don't mesh with real life - that's why it's a game and not a reality simulator.

It's assumed that you are only using one hand to wield a lance while mounted as you can also utilize a shield in this situation.

Liberty's Edge

Piccolo wrote:

Okaaaaay... Looks like there's a lot of dissent here.

I'll try to make the problem clearer.

The Paladin in question has a 20 Strength (but crappy other stats). I know he does 2d6 +7 damage with a greatsword.

A lance does 1d8 damage. But on a charging horse with said lance, how much damage would the Paladin do if he had a confirmed critical?

Assuming STR 20, mounted, and no other feats or modifiers, your damage would be:

Normal: 1d8+7
Charge: 2d8+14
Normal Critical: 3d8+21
Charging Critical: 4d8+28

Liberty's Edge

Sweet! Thanks!

Liberty's Edge

I'm curious to know where this information that "HeroLab is getting official FAQ updates while the rest of us aren't" is coming from.

Liberty's Edge

I started my AP subscription and started it with the previous issue. I also added the Lost Coast Minis Case as well as the Demon. Could you please hold this order and ship it with my June subscription issue?

Liberty's Edge

Hello!

It's been a while since I've been perusing the website, and decided to take a look at the FAQ and see what updates have occurred since I last visited. I do know that those entries that are less than a month old have a red hot-link. The problem I am having is that there are numerous updates that are new to me, but are older than a month, so looking at the hot-links doesn't clue me in to which ones are new.

Would it be possible to add the date of inclusion at the end of the hot-link title in addition to dating the entry? That way, I can scan the list of hot-links for dates that I might have missed rather than scrolling through the entire page.

Thanks!

Liberty's Edge

Any opinions on WotC opening 5e under the OGL?

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
AlgaeNymph wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Belltrap wrote:

I apologize if this has been asked before, but...

At the height of his power, did Aroden rival Pharasma for "most powerful divinity worshiped on Golarion"? Or in the greater scheme of things, even if his worship was more influential and pervasive throughout the Inner Sea region in his heyday than Pharasma has ever been, was Pharasma still top dog?

No; not even close. Aroden didn't even rival Desna or Sarenrae or Abadar or Gorum or most of the others for power. Among humanity on the nations of the shores of the Inner Sea his faith was very influential, but the further you got from the Inner Sea, the less influence he had. And remember, most of the other core 20 are worshiped on many other planets as well. Aroden, not so much.
So what made Aroden so special that his death ended prophecy through the entire universe? I know, and agree with, the meta reason (prophecy is lazy storytelling), but what's the in-setting reason?

Who said it was Aroden's death that ended prophecy? More likely, it was the other way around, that the end of prophecy had MULTIPLE effects, one of which was Aroden's death.

The in-setting reason is closely tied to how Aroden did die, and it's FAR beyond just Aroden, and it's not something we have plans to ever answer.

Regarding Aroden, one question I haven't seen asked yet is why no plans to answer why/how he died?

Liberty's Edge

The question I would ask is if you were in a city, could you change the appearance of your clothes to blend in with the crowd? I would think that most people would agree that that would be a reasonable thing to do. I do not think it is outside the realm of reason to be able to change the appearance of your clothes to help you blend in with your surrounding terrain. I would think a +2 to stealth would be appropriate. YMMV.

Liberty's Edge

The one time I had an opportunity use flame blade I didn't use the expanded crit range. Then again, I didn't read the spell that closely and didn't realize it was mimicking a scimitar.

I have no problem with what the GM did.

Liberty's Edge

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Instead of a percentage chance to find the lair, I suggest something a little more modern by instead listing a skill and a DC to find the lair. Perhaps different or multiple skills can apply. I don't think allowing perception to find everything is the best solution, unless they want to spend a long time looking everywhere. You know in the first hobbit film where they know the troll lair must be close? They knew the trolls would not venture far from it. A Knowledge monster check maybe? For another monster, they might know it likes to make its lair near a water source or at a higher elevation. Knowledge geography or history might reveal other info, but all dependent upon the specific creature.

A very reasonable suggestion.

May I direct you to this blog post to provide more context as to my end goal.

Liberty's Edge

Thanks for the responses. I probably should have clarified that my intent for these tables is for a sandbox hexcrawl, so the randomness is part of it. Each entry would have a % chance to detects its tracks as well as a % chance to find its lair, if applicable. So an encounter won't always result in combat.

It's too bad Paizo doesn't include the frequency with creature entries to help weight the tables.

Liberty's Edge

Casual Viking wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
if you look at a light horse it only has hoof attacks too with the docile. So combat training helps ponies and light horses but not heavy horses since they have a bite.

Why would that matter? A non-trained heavy horse has a primary bite and two secondary hooves. A combat trained heavy horse has primary bite, two primary hooves.

The Horse companion has Docile until level 4, unless it's a Cavalier's mount.

This is not correct. Being combat trained removes the docile special quality. Being combat trained does not make hooves primary attacks.

Hooves are secondary attacks. A horse would use its hooves as primary attacks if it were not for the docile quality, because its hooves is the only type of attack that it has.

The heavy horse's hooves are always secondary attacks, because it has two types of attacks, regardless if it is combat trained or not.

Liberty's Edge

How do you all go about populating your random encounter tables? Do you tend to flip through the Bestiary and find those monsters you think are cool? Do you look for those that fit a specific theme? If you have multiple areas of similar terrain, do you make different tables for each area, or do you make one list to cover them all?

Liberty's Edge

Did you enjoy your viewing of the new Star Wars?

Liberty's Edge

Yes, I've been going back through 1e and 2e stuff. I never actually played 1e, and was fairly young playing 2e, and after reading through it, I realized that I didn't play it correctly—not that there is actually a right or wrong way to play, we just didn't bother reading the books. Now that I've gone back and actually read through them, it is much more clear now, and I realize how good those rules systems actually were, even with some of the more aggravating nuances.

I was going to use 5e with my new campaign, but I think I've finally settled on using 1e as the vehicle to tell my story.

Liberty's Edge

Good as always.

You know, my brother posted the journal for my RotRL campaign because I was unable to do so......................................................................

;-)

Liberty's Edge

AwesomenessDog wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Fortunately, in this instance, RAW and RAI agree that one cannot get the sneak attack bonus to ranged attacks.
Wrong on both accounts, not only is it harder to dodge ranged flanking than melee, but there is no wording to differentiate the two.

I mean, you keep on keepin' on with your house rule. It's not my place to tell you how you should run your home games.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Reflecting back upon your time playing 1st Ed. AD&D, did you adhere to the rules for demi-human class and level limits?
Absolutely not. Hated level limits, and they were one of my favorite things to see go away, finally, in 3rd edition.

Did you keep the racial class restrictions (dwarves can't be magic users, etc.)?

Did you give humans anything extra to make them more attractive to play?

A significant part of my homebrew was that I invented several dozen different variant races and subraces for players to choose, and I tried to spread out the options for classes and level limits a lot better. I generally kept the same themes (no dwarf wizards, for example) except if I felt that breaking a theme for a particular sub race would be fun.

If I remember correctly, I gave humans a free stat boost of their choice; this was before 3.5 actually did the same. I also had a demon-infused race a la tieflings before they came along—I called them kulgores and/or skavelings in my homebrew.

Thanks for the insight!

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Reflecting back upon your time playing 1st Ed. AD&D, did you adhere to the rules for demi-human class and level limits?
Absolutely not. Hated level limits, and they were one of my favorite things to see go away, finally, in 3rd edition.

Did you keep the racial class restrictions (dwarves can't be magic users, etc.)?

Did you give humans anything extra to make them more attractive to play?

Liberty's Edge

Reflecting back upon your time playing 1st Ed. AD&D, did you adhere to the rules for demi-human class and level limits?

Liberty's Edge

Fortunately, in this instance, RAW and RAI agree that one cannot get the sneak attack bonus to ranged attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Started mine back in 2011, and we are just getting ready to finish book 3. Though, we usually only average twice a year.

Liberty's Edge

Cevah wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cevah wrote:

If you think the +2 flanking bonus is the exact same thing as the flanking condition you get the result that ranged flanking does not work.

If you think these are two distinct things, then you get ranged flanking does work.

Yep that is the same summary we had 200 posts ago.

Only 1 to 3 believe they are distinct like you.

Developers agree with me (you don't agree they do.)
The FAQ agrees with me (you don't agree it does.)
45 people clicked FAQ / approximately 42 think your theory is incorrect but would like them to tell you no

I agree that you and the developers agree. I don't however think you are correct. What they want and what they wrote are not in agreement.

You think the FAQ agrees with you. I think the FAQ does not apply since it does not clarify things and only applies a specific rule which actually implies the opposite of what you think.
45 clicks means 45 people want an answer. The only clue I have as to their opinion is if they posted the fact that they clicked the FAQ button. Since there have not been 45 posts with such information, I cannot determine how many agree or disagree.

/cevah

So you admit that the developers likely side with his position, and yet you still argue that he is wrong. That makes absolutely no sense. I honestly think that at this point you're arguing purely for the sake of arguing.

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Downie wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
This problem stems from GMs allowing the player(s) to "ready" an action as a way to cheat the initiative rules.
I'd argue that pacing is equally important as a reason for why the rules aren't too specific. If there are bad guys in the room with a hostage and they're trying to persuade the PCs to surrender without a fight, or if the players are exploring and suspect they're being stalked by an invisible enemy, then forcing everyone into initiative order due to some RAW-mandated specification can really kill the pace.

That's why you don't roll for initiative until the combat starts.

I mean, really, this whole thread is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Liberty's Edge

Qaianna wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

IMO that's not even a houserule, it's just a logical interpretation of the initiative rules.

The party and a band of pirates notice each other. Everybody draws and readies their weapons, staring at each other and ready to fight while the paladin tries to talk to the pirate captain. Then the pirate captain roars and lowers his pistol to attack. Roll initiative. Nobody is flat footed because everybody has basically already been in initiative, delaying until negotiations turned sour. I suppose to be more rules accurate you could roll initiative when negotiations start, but I consider that a little distracting to the flow of combat.

Not only that, to some players it'd imply combat. Which is awkward if there's a chance for a noncombat solution, and that's the point of the hurried negotiations.

If the pirate captain is roaring and lowering his pistol to attack, the non-combat solution has already failed.

Liberty's Edge

This problem stems from GMs allowing the player(s) to "ready" an action as a way to cheat the initiative rules. Just because a player declared that their archer was readying his bow to shoot the goblin if it draws a sword/takes a step/picks it's nose/whatever, doesn't mean that that player can automatically shoot the goblin before it completes its desired task. That is literally what the initiative roll determines: who gets to go first?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

Up to 41 people that have clicked FAQ!

Keep em coming!

I hope they respond with "previously answered", or something like that, because I just want to watch the world burn.

Liberty's Edge

Well, as you can tell, I didn't do the posting for this last session. Elsbeth's player is holding on to the journal because we have all decided to give Fantasy Grounds a go. Meeting only once or twice per year does not cut it and hopefully FG will help.

It was a fun session. We played for about 10 hours and spent pretty much the entire first half doing nothing but RPing. That was a nice change of pace. The four battles we did get in were a lot of fun too. The party is definitely optimized for giant opponents (two dwarves, with one being a ranger with giants as a favored enemy), but it's still fun for me to see them lay waste. It's kind of funny because now the base ogre is considered a mook.

Having Lucretia in with Barl certainly gave that fight the needed difficulty level. If she wasn't there, the group would have walked through it with no problem. As it was, it was a fun dynamic fight. And, for the first time ever in my umpteen years of playing RPGs, I finally got to cast fireball in combat—did respectable on the damage, too.

1 to 50 of 3,360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>