Search Posts
Lex Luther would be the greatest hero of all time if he could just get Superman out of the way to do it.Um, actually this was lampshaded in 52, when Superman asked Lex what good he did in the year Superman was out of commission. (answer, none) And again in Morrison's Action Comics when Luthor is given unlimited power and chooses to use it to destroy Superman.
It's a reasonable houserule, and it also gives a little boost to warrior-types and prevents touch AC from being a key weakness. It may be more realistic to limit it to blocking spells that can also affect objects, with the possible addition of allowing the spell to damage the shield based on to-hit/AC comparison.
What I like about Luthor is that regarding Superman from the perspective of humanity he is technically correct, he is an alien tyrant operating with impunity. Of course there is one huge caveat, what Luthor cannot comprehend: Superman is pure.There's an equally huge caveat Luthor likewise cannot comprehend; Luthor is not pure, nor are his motives Nice. Which in turn explains why he cannot trust Superman.
What I like about Luthor is that regarding Superman from the perspective of humanity he is technically correct, he is an alien tyrant operating with impunity. Of course there is one huge caveat, what Luthor cannot comprehend: Superman is pure.
The first key is to not care if the material is ever used. There are too many variables: player is absent, does not pursue the quest, is distracted by other in-game events, or dies beforehand. Just like any other planned event, you have to plan for it not happening. And plan to not care if your plans do not work. The second key is that PC-specific material is a motivation for the player AND the character. Cater the approach to the player, and the content to the character.
Ok...I had thought this was a really good version of Spider-Man. Though I could not stay till the end of the credits....anybody want to let me know what I missed?Curt Connors is in his prison cell. He then notices that another man is in there with him. The other man asks "Did you tell the boy? Did you tell the boy about his parents?" Curt says no. Lightning flashes. The man is gone. Okay, before I read that I was 100% certain it was Osborne. Now I think it was Electro! :)
One of the reasons Pathfinder is nicknamed "DnD 3.75" is because it has things in common with both 3.5 and 4E.I thought the reason for the nickname was to keep it from being associated with 4E, and to acknowledge the natural progression from 3.5. I've always felt the 3.75 label to be unrealistic. There is far more different in 3.5 -> Pathfinder than in 3.0 -> 3.5.
Overall I agree with most of the opinions in the thread. It was a decent movie, a decent superhero movie, and a decent Spider-Man movie. Much better than the Raimi trilogy, with the possible exception of SM2. There were times that the obvious 3D gimmicks intruded into the 2D version of the film ('oooh! look at the basketball!'). Garfield gave a good performance, it felt a bit more light-hearted than Maguire. One thing that was handled better was Spider-Man taking action - there weren't many scenes of him moping around deciding what to do (the closest was probably after the first Lizard fight, and even then he is pretty upbeat and has already made a decision). I also liked how they made his super-strength clear from the outset.
I think you've made a very good case why the system needs a DM. The rules to cover such corner cases are so specific as to not be worth the time.
Time to be Captain Obvious, but the discussion has veered off into campaign-specific issues. I think Turn Undead has its place, but I agree with one of SKR's original points that it doesn't mesh with many a deities portfolio. But I also think that Channel Energy wasn't quite right as a fix and brings up quite a few world-building issues. Personally, Turn Undead should be an optional feature. The standard replacement could be as simple as allowing both domain spells to be prepared at each level.
Jal, wouldn't it be better for turn resistance to lessen the penalty by that amount rather than grant immunity? So a high level cleric could still have an effect on a creature with turn resistance 2, the penalty would merely be lessened by 2. Yeah, that's good. Partial change is always better, and it avoids a terminology conflict. It wasn't clear, but I was thinking this would be in addition to the normal turning rules - a way to circumvent the wasted action effect.
I really REALLY wish they had done a Feat Compendium.Is this close enough? Only as an index to such a book. :)
For the standard Pathfinder channel, I just stick with the Beta version that both damaged and healed at the same time. The choose either version is just weird again, like choosing if a fireball will burn flesh or wood. For the 3.5 version, I'm thinking of using a mechanic I've used in other contexts - when the cleric turns, any undead take a -1 penalty on all attacks, skill checks, and ability checks while within 60 feet of the cleric as long as the holy symbol remains presented. Undead with turn resistance are immune to this effect. At 7th, 13th, and 19th level the penalty should probably increase by 1.
Just out of curiosity, what would you guys rank the different visions/senses in order of power? Blindsight BlindsenseTelepathy Tremorsense Scent Darkvision Low-light Vision Normal Vision Tremorsense and Scent are very close - both have limited functionality, but in certain situations are as good as Blindsense. I rank Tremorsense higher only because it is less limited.
I have noticed that people who are adamant about something being broken are usually only looking at it from one angle/strategy, and they tend to completely disregard any attempts at working with it. It's either that or they say something is completely broken because of one bad experience with it. They don't look at all the other success stories.Reminds me of a thread about the Stealth skill awhile back, where the OP tried to prove that the skill was broken and worthless using a scenario where a hungry rogue was attempting, in broad daylight, to sneak past a farmer and his dog sitting on the front porch of a farmhouse in order to get to the chicken coop to steal a chicken. Dungeons. And. Dragons. :)
Absolutely the OD&D fighter survives longer. My prediction is somewhere from 3-5x the number of rounds. Just the difference in ability score modifiers results in a basic fight taking about 3 rounds in Pathfinder and 10 rounds in 2nd Edition. I'm not surprised the Dex build had a lower survival rate, as the AC system is binary. You're much better off guaranteed survival of two hits, and even better off if you can kill the opponent in one.
Well said, the bigger problem in D&D is that creatures that evolved with darkvision should probably be functionally blind in bright light, or at least heavily penalized.
The main reason "bloat" is a bad thing is because the more the bloat increases the easier it is for the designers to start making mistakes. When you create something for the future you always need to look back to the past material to make sure you aren't making something that's going to make some game breaking combo. The material you have, the easier it is to make these mistakes. It also makes DMing more difficult, for similar reasons when things are implemented in-game.
Meh. In most of my campaigns that is almost how dying works. I'm actually surprised at how much it is limited. It all comes down to "when should a PC (or NPC) die". There's nothing world-shattering about giving a character seconds, even hours, before a resurrection spell is required. It's actually more in line with how death actually happens.
Yes, there are too many. I find the label "archetype" to be poorly chosen. The Fighter is the archetypal fighter, everything else is just a derivation. I understand the need to package options, it makes things easier. If Pathfinder really wanted to do something about archetypes, it should be something that transcends class. If you want to be a "swashbuckler" it should be a bunch of features that apply to a character of any class and/or race.
I tend to look at a character's experience as the complete story. Sometimes it ends unsatisfactorily, but I move on. Maybe it depends on your group and the success rate with running completed campaigns. Your approach seems interesting, I don't think anyone I've played with has expressed such a view.
Party of three Legacy of Fire AP. Cleric, ranger, and wizard. They each received a magic item to make up for having only three players; the wizard got a fully charged wand of magic missiles (CL 3rd). They decide to sneak into the gnoll-infested ruins, and did a good job at ambushing patrols and dispatching them quickly and quietly (great use of a silence spell by the cleric player). They decide to hide out in the large building nearby. Inside is the Huge constrictor snake. They decide to fight it, rather than leave. Then the ranger drops. Over several rounds the cleric starts trying to heal him; they both drop. The snake is BADLY wounded by this time. The wizard says "I'm out of spells. I'm going to switch to my heavy crossbow." T.P.K.
A better solution would be to give clerics damage reduction/prevention /negation spells. Start off with DR/magic and work your way up to mass versions with larger numbers and harder bypasses. That way you don't have to tinker with the existing healing rules, and you give cleric's something to keep characters alive longer.
And for some reason the wizards are waving truncheons engraved with the number "7".
You know, if you're really worried about 3.5 Turning being too difficult (both in and out of game), just get rid of the table and make it a DC of 10 + CR + turn resistance/2. That way a Trog zombie is DC 11, a vampire is minimum DC 14. The turning damage is probably fine as is.That does not change the fact that the written version sucks. Short of time-travel, nothing will. ;)
I agree with thejeff about the opposed contests. In the specific example, though, the troll should probably be getting a +4 bonus for being Large. It's probably best in such cases to just assume that everyone is taking 10. I tend to ask my players to write down their "take 10" numbers on every common skill. Unless the players ask for a roll, I just go with those numbers. I'm also not opposed to allowing "take 10" while threatened or distracted.
That's fine for your playstyle, but from my perspective I find it ludicrous that a fighter cannot shoot a longbow point blank without provoking but a wizard has a better than 70% chance cast a spell that murders everything within 60 feet, and even then doesn't provoke.Just get rid of the "casting defensively" option. It's pretty absurd to begin with.I don't see an issue with it. You and I have very different ideas of magic! :)
I had a DM in second edition who maligned the existence of kits, he felt that the reliance on TSR to come up with characters stopped players from coming up with their own concepts and working with the DM could accomplish anything they needed. I mostly agree with that DM. @Vendis: My little brother once asked if he could make some sort of flashbang using Thunderstones, so we whipped up two versions: an alchemical sunrod/thunderstone combo and a more potent wondrous item with increased radius, duration, and DC. His kobold rogue loved those things!
I'm partial to the Stargate SG-1 game, mostly because of the abundance of setting material. I've only run a few games, but they were fun one-offs, and because it is sci-fi it isn't too difficult to use D&D monsters as aliens. I recall using Straad zombies as Anubis super-soldiers to great effect. And port over the psionics/magic transparency to technology/magic.
Just get rid of the "casting defensively" option. It's pretty absurd to begin with.I don't see an issue with it. That's fine for your playstyle, but from my perspective I find it ludicrous that a fighter cannot shoot a longbow point blank without provoking but a wizard has a better than 70% chance cast a spell that murders everything within 60 feet, and even then doesn't provoke.
I have some house rules. I also have "system rules" that vary between systems. Then I have "campaign rules" that are chosen to bring out a certain atmosphere. Everything is always changing depending on the needs of each game. I encourage my players to come up with interesting options rather than rely on published material. And I'm not afraid to undo something if it doesn't work out as intended!
Well said! One thing that always bothered me about feats is the limitation of use. Why can't an untrained character attempt a Power Attack at a further penalty? To the final point, I very much agree, with a couple of caveats. First that any such system should be simple to use at the table, and not get bogged down in calculations or meta-tactics. Second, I actually think critical hits (at least, a natural 20) models the ability to take advantage of a situation to deadly effect quite nicely. It avoids the meta-gaming of point or use/day mechanics, while maintaining some balance as an otherwise passive ability. I would be more inclined to have a special random critical hit table, with the save DC calculated by 1/2 the attackers BAB + Str or Dex. Weapon Specialization would also add to the DC.
Wasn't dueling to the death over matters of honor pretty common in such societies? Surely no one thinks that's appropriate on game night?!Yeah, and I think they also had some rather odd notions about equality, too. All that proper etiquette certainly didn't extend to a pretty large portion of the general population. Yeah, our modern society is much superior... |
