Lisa Stevens wrote:
What do you then do about the phenomenally expensive Major items that permanently clog the slots in your cities? Max city base value in Kingmaker defaults to 16,000gp, and even if it didn't it's trivial to randomly generate items so expensive that increasing BV high enough to sell them for BPs seems... unlikely.-Kle.
See, this is the problem with your entire method of argument.You try to impose definitions on things that are not the definitions in the game, they are only your own personal opinion. Thus "Pathfinder maces are not flanged maces" and "the kind of slashing attack you are referring to does not qualify as a sneak attack".
By this method, your arguments are unassailable, because you and only you get to set the definitions, and are always right. However, this method is also spurious and transparent, and will not get you many converts.
The solution you are looking for is "House Rules". Pathfinder is unlikely to change to suit your whims.
I do the thing any sensible person would do, and untie the rope. Then if i want to wreck it with a hammer, no problems. Alternately, Cure Light Wounds.
If an adamantine sword can cut through stone like it was butter, how does one keep it sharp?
Paul Watson wrote:
Some houserules I'm applying to building, and may revisit if they screw things up, but if a building halves the cost of another building (such as a Cathedral and Temple), you can demolish the smaller building to get half its BP back against the larger building. This lets the players get something for the smaller buildings they'll likely be building at the start without feeling gypped that they only get the half price thing with the biggest building.
I expect you'll find that there's no shortage of BPs to go around.-Kle.
Quibble.I've seen people that can shoot as fast from a back quiver as from grounded arrows. You can shoot considerably faster when you're doing area fire, which was probably the primary military use. If you have a untrained (as an archer) minion to present the arrows to you, you can go even faster.
In general you're right though, of course.
They don't teach sentence structure in school these days, I guess. Apologies if you aren't a native American English speaker.
"If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed".
The pronoun "it" in this case refers to the subject of the previous sentence, "the selected target". So you should read it this way - "If the selected target is a figment, the figment is destroyed.". The two sentences should probably be combined, really.
In any case, it never says all the figments are destroyed, nor does it say that the spell ends, nor does it say that the spell is dispelled. The text does not even imply any of those things.
The next sentence: "If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss." merely states that if you miss by five or less, one figment is destroyed. It does not change anything about what the first sentence states, in any way.
Your interpretation is incorrect.
Kelvar Silvermace wrote:
Heh.So I guess Tom Bombadil and the Ents (amongst lots of other "weird crap") really put you off old Professor Tolkien's work then, eh? That old geezer sure was lazy and unimaginative when he was faking it.
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
Then try to convince your GM to house rule it.I don't think you're going to make a large number of converts here.
Sorry to hear that Kle. In my experience the reverse has been true. Paint a clear visual in their mind, take them there, make it 'real.'
Oh, it isn't as bad as all that. I expect I sounded more negative than I actually am. I've played plenty of good games with extremely vague combat systems. The battles are enjoyable, they just aren't as tactical... With a detailed battle system you can do things that actually work in reality fairly easily. With abstract systems it's usually pretty hard to use terrain well, set up kill pockets, etc.
I suppose I just prefer my battles to be efficient, instead of dramatic. Sometimes this comes up in my gaming group, when I've convinced the others to use a particular plan that happens to go off flawlessly, and I'm all "Woo-hoo, perfect battle!", and some of the other folks are sort of staring blankly and saying "Wow, that was dull. We just killed them all, they never had a chance.". So we mix it up - sometimes we fight my way and try to kill the enemy overwhelmingly, and sometimes we all just rush in like maniacs and almost get killed. Of course, sometimes my careful plans go right to hell and we all almost get killed, or we all rush in and immediately have to run away, too.
You can lose the grid and just go with approximation and GM description, but things become much more arbitrary. Make sure your group wants this trade-off.
An awful lot of Feats and tactics become useless, too. It changes the game a great deal.
I find that without the grid, or some sort of actual defined tactical system, battles are little more than rolling dice at each other; without tactical choices the player has little to do to influence the battle one way or another.
Curse the Halfling wrote:
That's rubbish. Magic Missile was always a good spell to use against Mirror Image as you could aim an individual missile at each image taking out the images. Saying it ignores the images and goes straight to the real wizard sucks big time. How can the caster know which "image" to cast the spell at? She would have to aim it at one specific image not in the general vicinity.
Magic Missile is not aimed, since it does not require an attack roll. The caster identifies the target "that wizard with the Mirror Image up", and the missiles hit that wizard.
If the wizard takes damage it's his own fault for being a moron and not having Shield up.
Nope, I'm completely familiar with Permanency.
Being slotless is why permanent spells are almost as expensive as Wondrous items with the same effect. They are not as good as Wondrous Items in general, but are far cheaper than slotless Wondrous Items.
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
No.It works just like Fireball - the Magic Missiles seem to strike all of the images and the original.