So... did this game generally peter out?
Search Posts
"You know these lands better than any of us," Martin replies, with an emphasis on the last word, "So I'd be satisfied to follow your judgment on this one."
"Yeah... as far as attacking a well-defended Northern village, we'll let you know if that becomes an option, but we shouldn't promise that until we get a good look at the villages in question."
"Sure. But you know the geography of this area best. Where should we go next?"
"Unstable?" Martin sneers. "I think you mean weak. They merely stood around, talking about the past, and leaving themselves wide open to being brought down by a few amateurish attacks."
"So... we guard these cowards as they march, then?" Martin asks the others when they have a minute alone.
"They didn't know until the goblin told them," Martin whispers, annoyed, "And now we have to deal with them pointlessly relocating. More work."
"Well, we saw nothing threatening or violent," Martin adds, "Though a few of the other got rather overzealous on that front. I'd recommend generally staying out of the ruins."
"Ah, apologies then—I thought that was exactly what you were suggesting. Lead on, then."
"I'm stating your motives as you gave them at the time, trying to justify why you put the rest of us in danger by attacking something non-hostile in cold blood. As someone who likes to follow my actions by logically thinking about the consequences, I'm merely pointing them out. If you'd like to retroactively change your justifications, or explain why any dangerous results that come of us leaving these ruins now aren't the fault of whoever suggests doing so, feel free to."
"The justification you gave to the rest of us was that destroying a harmless, peaceful undead scholar would make the mages safer, because any nearby zombies posed a threat, even the mindful one that seemed to be keeping the mindless ones in check. I'm just saying that, if we're going to leave the ruins without hunting every elf with less self-control than the one you put down, any harm they cause after will rest entirely on your shoulders."
"Eh... you and the fighter got us into this mess. If you want to leave without finishing what you started, that's fine, but any zombie attacks will be on your head."
"You mean in case there is an enemy," Martin corrects.
Martin will read the notes.
Might as well search it, since searching for things seems to be the only reason we're still in the ruins.
"Right. And it's troubling that it's intelligent enough to shadow us—the zombies couldn't do something like this."
"Well... if we don't find anything in a day or two, that might be good enough."
"Just peeking in doors would be fine. I simply want to finish the course of hostile action we've now been set on, and not leave the ruins more perilous than we found them."
"Methodical and safe," Martin corrects him. "Are we on a time limit, or would you simply prefer an excuse to do less work?"
"Right. We should come up with a geometric plan to sweep the ruins, make sure we've at least looked in every building. Mark the ones we've already entered. See how many we can check by sunset. All agreed?"
"You attacked this woman out of fear that these ruins possess an army of undead who might eventually overrun the nearby mages. Now you assume that because you killed one leader and two of their number, the 'army of undead' is no more?" Martin turns to Qalendar. "The only assumption I'm making here, sir, is that the Tanar'ri would have hired competent agents who know how to think ahead."
What, they won't even meet my gaze? Martin responds. "I'm just saying—the fighter here may have created the very crisis you were trying to create, and we'd all best see to finding out what's happened before you all unleash a horde of angry undead on the countryside. Deciding to 'wait and see' right now sounds rather idiotic."
"So what now?" Martin asks the group. "You've seen more of these ruins than I have. Will the other zombies crumble, with their queen dead, or will they turn mindless and rampage, or will they just generally swear revenge against all outsiders? If it's either of the last two, we've just created the situation you were trying to avoid, and we're going to have to start our cleanup as soon as possible—and someone will need to give me a weapon that can actually damage the undead."
Honestly, I really enjoy the personality conflicts, since they're totally not following the typical Lawful/Chaotic split. It's a special sort of Planescape dilemma, where the characters may have very different beliefs than their players. ...also, if these things have some sort of Death Curse, maybe she'll learn restraint and we'll get to point and laugh.
"Not sure zombies have souls. And this one showed no trickery; that was all you. If you want to kill a helpless, intelligent creature for no reason, go ahead, but I'd rather keep my sword clean."
Martin, if he can, moves to flank the zombie, and pokes her ineffecutally from behind.
Martin takes a full defensive action, unsure if the skeletons can be damaged or if it's just his sword.
"If you insist on making me a murderer," Martin mutters, and steps forward to poke the nearest skeleton.
On his turn (which I assume happens between zombies and Katrin's next move), Martin draws his sword, but stands in place next to the doorway, waiting to see what happens.
Sure, and Martin follows the Fraternity of Order. But Qalendar is also lawful, just with a different set of laws he stands to.
Our allies are, of course, extremely timid. And we don't have any evidence that the undead can purge the caves. But this is clearly a lawful/slightly different lawful conflict of morals, and with two votes for "attack all the undead now" and two for "leave them alone," we could let the last group member break the tie.
And more importantly, a power of very unknown strength—all we know about the elves is that, for some reason, they haven't left their homes.
Well, we've got three options—make a deal, walk away, necrocide. The first two options aren't mutually exclusive at this point.
Maybe... but those weren't curious wizards, they were frightened, careful, amateur wizards, of the sort willing to sell their souls to Hell for nothing more than risk reduction in their lives. I think the only people poking around here looking for trouble right now are us. Could we... maybe just build a wall? And then Consecrate it?
And all of which are great reasons not to provoke them, when it seems like right now they have neither the ability nor the inclination to leave their homes. If we try to kill them all, they might get mad enough to find a way out of their village, and go on a dangerous rampage. My vote has simply been for "file them away as best left untouched right now"
"I would propose we tell her we will do what we can, leave them in peace, and only return if we have something to offer—as long as we can be sure they don't have the means or inclination to threaten the mages' colony."
Huh. I read through all the earlier posts, though I did so somewhat quickly, and I feel like given that info my character just doesn't understand why anyone would jump to the conclusion of "these elves are a real danger and we need to get rid of them."
"Maybe, but I certainly wasn't told that any attacks by the Elves had actually occurred—this sounds like a lot of reckless alarmism at the presence of what appear to be ancient, and thoroughly trapped in place, intelligent undead."
"I don't see any living people inhabiting this village, and I'd be careful not to provoke them into any attacks on the nearby mages, but... who makes the decisions in this crew, anyway?"
In common, Martin relays what he's heard to the group. "Sounds like the elf zombies want nothing to do with outsiders in their land, but something's keeping them here. They'd prefer to be left alone, and I doubt they pose much risk, but if we can find them building supplies they might make a different labor force. All said, I think it might be best to leave them alone, to rot to dust in their abandoned village, unless any of you have a vested interest in beating the last vestiges of an ancient civilization into Truedeath and taking their trinkets."
"I thought there were a number of towns here, at different distances, and we're trying to ally them all? And all we need, I think, is confirmation that these creatures do not want to leave—in the worst case we can give them the materials to board up their gates and be done with them. as they rot away."
Elven: "Ah... so it seems this affliction has made it difficult for you to acquire new citizens? Are you at peace with it, or is there a cure that might be sought by foreign venturers? And if we brought you lumber, stone and ore, would you be able to forge the last into decent weapons and armor?" "And lastly—you say your people are isolated by choice, which means you could leave if you chose, but find no reason to in the future? If all these things are the case, I think we can leave with no quarrel, and return here only if we find a nearby town willing to supply what you need."
In common, Martin replies, "The Elves apparently know nothing outside these walls. I don't know if we're better off leaving this place alone and searching elsewhere in the kingdom, but I'll try one or two more questions." In Elvish:
"What sort of resources do you need—lumber, stone, blood, souls? If you told me what you wanted, and what you could do with it, I could investigate the feasibility of arranging deliveries to you." "And I am neither human, my lady—I may not look it, but I've lived almost two centuries, still by no doubt young compared to your people. And I did not ask about knowledge, although that could be a useful offering—but I suspect that your smiths may never tire at your forge, and your masons never need rest from their building, which might lead to some profitable industry with the right materials. That said, it seems as though you do not wish to talk to outsiders, and since I doubt many as patient as us visit these parts, perhaps you simply wish to be left alone."
And with that, he turns his back to the doorway in the hopes of a response, and while waiting, casts Detect Magic.
Martin clears his throat and steps forward, bowing to the zombie.
In Elvish: "Greetings. I apologize for my late arrival, but I alone of my associates speak your native tongue, and wish to discuss your situation on more comfortable terms. We seek allies in this country, and have not yet traveled far, though there are many villages other than your own. It seems you are looking for something as well, and we may be able to set up a profitable trade between your village and the others—what do your people require, and what could they offer for it that might be of value, in terms of resources, equipment or labor?"
I really hate the idea that 'using class abilities as written' = 'munchkin powergamer cheesehead'. My father used to be a shop steward (a union representative), one of about six shop stewards where he used to work. He was particularly successful in negotiating with management and getting the workers a good deal. One day, he went into work to find that the others were having a shop stewards meeting without him. When he asked why, he was told that the meeting was about him. They thought he was too good at his job, and thought that this was suspicious. In reply, my father got out a small book. "This is my Shop Stewards Handbook. I've got one, each of you has one, and they each say the same things. "The difference is, I've read mine!" I've had similar experience where, having read and understood the rules, the others think I must be cheating somehow.
Wizards can cast spells, dragons can fly, giant insects can breathe, not because the players got together and decided all these things individually, and not because the DM made it all up from scratch. These things are true in the game, because a group of mates decided to play Pathfinder, and the PF rules have these creatures doing those things. The PF rules also say that monks get Slow Fall. It's a dick move for a DM to say that it doesn't work 'because realism', especially when it's the DM who wrote the character sheet! If the DM said, at character creation, 'Monks don't get anything I think is unrealistic, and can only Flurry 1/day/level', then I'd ask, 'What do they get to make up for what you've taken away?' If the answer was, 'Sod all!', then I'd say, 'Good luck in finding someone to play one. Oh, and BTW, that dragon isn't really flying, that wizard is only pretending to cast spells, and no 6 inch high creature is going to hurl me off a cliff so I don't need Slow Fall anyway!' It would probably go downhill from there...
Real people are not built to order. No point buy. Real people get (the equivalent of) random stats. This doesn't mean that, say, blacksmiths are as likely to be weak as they are to be strong. It means that strong people are more likely to be effective blacksmiths, therefore that profession attracts and retains strong people. Wizards need to be smart. That profession will attract and retain smart people. This is modeled well by rolling stats, and even choosing how to assign them. Each blacksmith might put their best roll in Str, and each wizard might put their best roll in Int. What they cannot do is intentionally lower one stat with the result being that another stat gets higher! If the blacksmith repeatedly bashes his head against the wall to lower his Int, or is deliberately rude to people and scars his own face, this will not result in him being stronger! If the wizard deliberately catches a wasting disease to lower his Str, this will not increase his intelligence! Although it might be a result of low wisdom... But point buy allows you to lower one stat to increase another. Not only is this process a poor model of reality, it results in every wizard having 7 Str and every barbarian having 7 Cha, because any other choice is a deliberate choice to be less good at being a wizard or barbarian. So point buy results in a population full of 18s and 7s, which does not model any population. If there was a college for wizards, you would expect all of the students to have a high Int; there may even be an exam to get in. Rolling stats will mean that their Int scores will be 18, 17, 16, 15...whatever the best roll was, but not exactly predictable. The Str scores may be poorer (too much study, not enough exercise), but even a min/maxed set of rolls doesn't predict exactly what that Str score will be. It could be 10, 11, 12...whatever your worst roll was. So this results in a student body with a realistic variation in ability scores, even if you can predict that Str won't be higher than Int. Contrast that with the same college in point buy. Every single wizard wannabe can, and should, have 7s in Str and Cha, and 18 Int. The optimisers in rolled stats still have a realistic population; the optimisers in point buy don't.
I think people who believe that life can't possibly have not been created by a higher power are extraordinarily bizarre. But I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs. I also find it very strange that the people who believe that there must be a Creator on the grounds that evolution without one is too unlikely.... ...are completely happy to have the Creator not be created itself, but leave its existence unquestioned. If you're comfortable with the idea that the Creator didn't need to be created, then it's even easier to be comfortable with the idea that life evolved without a Creator, because life started so simply but a Creator capable of creating, well, everything, must be infinitely more complex, and how much more unlikely is something like a Creator to spontaneously appear? If you think that the Creator was itself created (by another Creator), where did the first Creator come from? This post is not intended to insult Creationists, just sincerely trying to understand the logic behind the idea that life/the universe spontaneously appearing is too unlikely to be possible, while the Creator idea is not held up to the same criteria.
We evolved to be upper paleolithic hunter gatherers... so the healthiest diet we can have contains veggies, fruit, AND meat. As long as you avoid processed foods and observe the virtue of moderation (yes that means too much of anything is bad for you) then you should be eating the healthiest diet possible. FIFY. : ) I find it strange when people two places below me on the food chain say that they won't eat meat because they heard a story once where some feces came into contact with some meat, but happily chomp vegetables which are covered in feces as part of their production.
I've been playing martials since...'78 ish? I always felt a bit guilty for hogging the glory because I was so effective compared to the others. I never ran out of 'sword'. : ) It wasn't until I first arrived on this forum that I discovered that I'd been wrong the whole time and that I'd been completely useless all along. The Stormwind Fallacy is something I encountered without ever knowing it had a name. I spend a lot of time making my characters, and my thoughts go back and forth between crunch and fluff, with the crunch I choose informing the fluff, and then that fluff informing my choice of crunch, backwards and forwards for a couple of weeks until I'm happy. I end up with characters that are optimised AND with plenty of story...at least compared to the guy who's character is called 'Dwarf number seven' (true story!) and the other guy who spent all his time 'roleplaying' a personality (so well that I can't remember much except how annoying it was) but who had absolutely no idea what his own character could do mechanics-wise, even after playing the same one for three years! Anyway, at one point I was playing in one group where the DM told a story and hated the fact that there were any mechanics at all, and used DM fiat to make our abilities just not work if it went against what he thought should happen, and I was playing in another group that said, 'Sod all this talking with NPCs, when can we get to the good stuff? Y'know, fights! I was the same kind of player (both optimised and story-focused) in both games, but one group thought I wasn't roleplaying properly if I had a character that worked so effectively in mechanical terms, while the other group thought my role-playing efforts were completely pointless and just wasted good fighting time!
but I have seen broken classes on the weak end, like the rogue. Every single one of my players who has played one ended up hating how useless their character was for the majority of the game (we play APs). In the Iron Gods game I'm running right now, our rogue player ditched his character at 5th level so he could play something that actually contributed to the party. He had such high hopes for his character, and he was very disappointed with how it worked out. Nearly useless, always going unconscious, barely do enough damage, couldn't find traps, and more. Why doesn't it surprise me that you are the one who leaps to the defence of the
Well... sometime it equals 10. There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those that understand binary notation, and those that don't.
I have a contrary streak in me, if a bunch of people like something I won't, just because everyone else does, I'm especially resistant to peer pressure, it has the opposite effect, in the plus side tho I've never seen Titanic or Avatar, never did anything harder than weed and got the f*!# our of the s+$*ty little town I spent my teenage years trapped in :-) A friend tells me that she's on The Gin & Tonic diet. So far, she's lost three days....
Americans don't even know what left wing means. If political ideology was a bird and Americans pointed to their "left wing whackos", people over here would say "what are you talking about? That isn't the left wing you're pointing at, it's the right shoulder."Look, Rynjin & I agree! In the U.S., you have a party that is right wing (Democrats), and you have a party that is very right wing (Republicans). And to the right of that is Fox 'News'.
I didn't know about Firefly until it was all over, and bought the box set on spec. Loved it! Then I did a bit of research. One of the things I loved about it was the story arc; easy to appreciate when you binge-watch the whole thing. What amazed me is that when it was on TV they didn't show the opening two-parter, the one that explains what's going on, until right at the end after they'd already decided to cancel the show. They showed the other episodes in a random order, meaning the story arc got lost and the laws of cause and effect were broken; several consequences happened before the things that caused them. No wonder no-one stuck with it! If I was a TV exec, and had a secret agenda to make sure a show got cancelled even though it was brilliant, how would I go about it? Well, I'd probably show all the episodes out of order, making sure that the all-important first episode which explains everything doesn't get shown until it's too late, and I'd probably change the day/time it is shown at random, making it difficult to follow even if you do like it. I wonder why it got cancelled? This reminds me of the story behind the cancellation of Crusade, the follow up to the hugely successful Babylon 5. The writer, JMS, has a proven track record of success in both writing and showrunning, but when TV execs and bean-counters started to tell him how to write, he wondered if they'd accept his instructions on how to count beans! They instructed, he refused. He knew that refusing would lead to the show being cancelled, but decided that his integrity outweighed his cowardice and stood his ground. Why are TV execs so stupid in the US? So many good shows get ruined by their interference, and then get cancelled because the shows are ruined.
Her: if you were thinking of me, why did the succubus Alter Self to look like my sister?!? Well, I mistake her for you all the time. Wait! I didn't mean thaarrrgghh!!!
It's not what it looks like, darling! I was just...jumping over the...naked and oiled....succubus dressed like a nazi and the Druid shape-changed into a horse and dressed like a nurse....and then I kind of...fell into them! I was trying to claw my way out! It's not my fault that I got a bit...tangled up! And it was them that tore my clothes off, not me! Okay, so while I was in there I did a bit of...research. The things I do for Science! I didn't enjoy it at all! ...I was thinking about you the whole time...!
We have certain expectations of the game. One of the things players expect is that the rules for his class are the ones in the book. If the DM does it a different way, he should make it clear. In the book, the player decides which spells he prepares, not the DM. If the DM said, at character creation, that actually the DM decides what spells are prepared (playing the role of the god in question), that is certainly something a DM can legitimately do in his campaign, but the player should have the option to change his mind about playing a class if the DM house-rules it so that his choices are taken away. If I was in your campaign and said I want to play a cleric and you said that the god/DM chooses which spells the cleric prepares, then I'd say 'Okay, I'll play something else'. No harm, no foul. If I agreed to play a cleric when I know your house rule, then I can't whine about it later. If I want to play a cleric but you don't tell me that you house-rule who gets to choose which spells are prepared and just surprise me with that during play, that's a dick move. I'd immediately change my PC into a non-cleric, and if I wasn't allowed then I'd leave the game. It's an alarm bell when DMs do stuff like that, and one dick move is usually followed be several more. Once bitten, twice shy.
The player only has his PC. The DM has the rest of the multiverse! The PC is the only thing the players have, and taking away control of that PC makes the player wonder why he's even playing. Is it just to listen to the alleged 'DM' tell a story? This rings alarm bells for many players. The post that started this may have been meant innocently, but the way it came across was like this:- Cleric's player: Here's today's list of spells that I'm preparing. Note that this list was compiled entirely within the rules for my cleric. DM: No, you don't get to choose your spells; I get to choose your spells, and if you don't like it then you're a whiney little bi...hey, where's everyone going?
Being 'immune to fear' as a game mechanic has nothing to do with whether you're afraid or not, and everything to do with retaining control of your actions despite the fear you feel. Oh, you still feel fear when Cthulu turns up and wants to know why you're wearing his dressing gown, reading his paper and in bed with his wife. But you are not magically forced to run away. When you run away, it's because you want to...!
OK, that makes sense, but how do I set the clock? The clock has already been set by the manufacturer. : )
Speaking from the POV of pure ignorance (important because those of us who are ignorant about this make up the majority of your social environment), it seems like hetero -> bi -> homo is like the frequency of your car radio, but the 'asexual spectrum' is the volume. Am I totally wrong? If I am, what is it, in relation to hetero to homo spectrum?
"Autodefenestrate!" That would've worked! She did have a huge....vocabulary!
DM: *sighs* 'Roll initiative'.
Before D&D started, one of the main uses (if I can put it that way) of science fiction was to explore real life issues in a way that was acceptable. Take racism for example: in the US in the 50s and 60s, mainstream TV was very resistant to shows that had a certain viewpoint on race, because the TV execs believed that this would cause some southern states to protest, and cause sponsors to pull out. But shows like Star Trek could explore issues of race in a 'safe' way, as they did in the episode 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield', where two men from the same planet had racist attitudes (deadly, at that), but the crew of the Enterprise couldn't understand why, as they were both half black and half white. 'Yeah, but he's black on the left side!' It might seem a mite unsubtle from our 21st century perspective, but was entirely appropriate for its time, when casual racism was ingrained into the national psyche. So RPGs can certainly be used by us to explore whatever real life issues we want. LGBT issues have further to go than issues of race. I'm not saying racism has been 'solved', but when was the last time a town protested about a 'mixed' marriage between a black person and a white person? Yet we know about the protests about gay marriage. If we can use our shared stories with RPGs as the medium, we can use them to explore societies that have no prejudice about, say, trans* people. We can certainly have a crowned 'king' declare herself a 'queen', and we can have the populace be puzzled, or angry, or...indifferent; whatever way we want to explore.
I'm grateful for some clarification, but it really should be much simpler. For me, in the intersecting area, only the higher level spell functions at all, and neither spell functions if they are of equal level. Think how many bullet points that would save! Surely the planet cannot long support such bullet point wastage . Think of the children!
It is not RAW, but as an extrapolation it might be RAI. ??? This is not the most convincing opening statement. Again, at the time the CRB was published, bucklers and shield bashes were the only two normal ways to attack with the same hand a shield is on. But the ring of force shield was cut & paste from the 3.5 DMG. Pathfinder knew the ring existed, and knew that stuff had already been made that allows you to attack with a weapon in the shield hand, something that could not have been said about the writer of the DMG. PF could have made the buckler limitation a general rule about shields if they wanted. They didn't. Its not entirely unreasonable to guess that the intention was to not allow a shield bonus at the same time as an attack with that hand (without feats or something). It could have been meant as general rule that they only bothered to write in the two spots where it came up. If it was meant as a general rule, even if the buckler were the only current way to attack with a hand holding a shield, then they could have used the word 'shield' instead of the word 'buckler' in that paragraph. The second explanation is that you are somehow thrown off balance by the attack and cannot ready your shield arm to defend in time. You are still off balance even if you move 30 feet or sheathe your weapon or do a whole bunch of other stuff. However, if you shield bashed with a throwing shield, you can then throw that shield, pull out a quickdraw shield, and now get the bonuses of that new shield because you were only off balance with the old shield. How the rules work as RAW just doesn't make sense to me from that perspective. Even taking into account the buckler limitation, and even extending that limitation to all shields as a general rule, then we know that if you attack with the 'buckler hand' before you quickdraw the buckler, then when you do draw it the AC bonus works fine. This is what is happening with the force shield. You attack when the ring is off, then when you switch the ring on again its AC bonus works just fine. So even extrapolating those rules, the RoFS works fine. There are those on this thread asserting that wearing a buckler somehow limits what you can do with the arm that wears it. This is not the case. It's the other way around. What it's saying is that if you are wearing a buckler as you make an attack with the arm that wears it, then you lose the benefit of its AC bonus that it was giving you until you made that attack. Therefore, if you are not benefiting from its AC bonus as you make that attack (on the grounds that you are not wearing it/it doesn't exist because the ring is not activated) then that rule does not apply; there is no existing AC bonus to lose. Another thing to ponder. The ring's free action activation/de-activation lends itself to its use with a 2HW. If the writer believed that it should or could not be used that way, do you really think he would have written it in such a way? He could easily have made sure to nerf such a tactic. After ten years of 3rd ed and the RoFS, PF would be aware of any problems with the ring or its wording, and changed it if they wanted to. They didn't.
The crit rules are unchanged from 3rd ed. It was explicit that you rolled your damage, including all static modifiers but excluding extra dice, a number of times equal to the crit multiplier. If your battleaxe does 1d8+6 (18 Str used 2 handed) +2 (enhancement bonus) and +2d6 (holy), then the damage for that weapon is 1d8+8+2d6 (20/x3) If you confirm a crit 3d8+24+2d6 The weapon damage die and all static bonuses are multiplied by the crit multiplier, but the extra dice from Holy are not. If the bard is giving you are +2 morale bonus on your attack and weapon damage rolls, then your damage is 1d8+10+2d6 (20/x3) Therefore, a confirmed crit would do 3d8+30+2d6
No, you don't get the shield bonus to AC unless you wield it. I wish it didn't need to be 'wielded'! If that were true then I'd leave it on the whole time, and use my 2HW to my heart's content, benefiting from that +2 shield bonus to AC from the force shield I'm not wielding!
Two adventurers go to the magic item shop, to spend 8,500gp each. The first is a 'sword & board' guy. He sees a ring of force shield for the full 8,500gp, and he sees +2 heavy steel shield for 4,170gp, and a sign offering to enchant his non-magical armour to +2 for 4,000gp. Does he spend 8,170gp to get +6AC and full use of his shield slot, or does he spend even more, 8,500gp, to get +2AC, four less(!), use up one of his two ring slots, and leave his shield slot hanging in the wind? For what benefit? It's a free action instead of a move action to don? He dons his shield as he sets out adventuring. The time it saves him is more than outweighed by +4AC. Oh, the shield weighs 15lbs? He's a strong guy, that 15lbs won't mean a damn thing. Oh, the shield has a -1 ACP? If he's built for stealth, the -1 is outweighed by +4AC, and if he isn't built for stealth then he won't care. Oh, the shield won't help veresus incorporeal? He's going to get hit by an incorporeal touch attack anyway, with or without the ring, and -2AC versus incorporeal weighed against +4AC versus everything else? No brainer. So there's no way in heck that the sword & board guy buys the ring. Even when he's much more wealthy, the ring doesn't stack with any shield he has, and his shield will get to +5 with lots of special abilities while the ring stays the same. What about his friend, the greatsword guy? He can't use a shield in the same round as he uses his greatsword, not because there's a rule against benefiting from a shield bonus to AC in the same round as attacking with a 2HW, but because it takes a move action to don/doff which is incompatable with a full attack. But he knows that it's a free action to release/re-grip a 2HW with one hand while holding it in the other, and a free action to activate/de-activate the ring. So he can have the ring activated at the end of each turn in combat, de-activate it on his next turn, re-grip his sword, full attack, release his shield hand, then re-activate the ring. Brilliant! A useful magic item! But wait! The DM says that he's not going to allow it to work. Why? Because he's the DM and he says so! Okay, is the greatsword guy going to spend 8,500gp on a shield he can't use when he's fighting with his greatsword? Not a chance. There are infinitely more ways he could spend that money. 8,000gp on a ring of protection +2, for example. If the DM rules this way (for whatever reason), then it is a completely pointless item that no-one would buy therefore no-one would make in the first place.
The film Guess Who's Coming To Dinner was the first, high-profile, mainstream American film to deal with interracial marriage (that I know about, anyway). Reading about the making of the film, the writers realised they had a dilemma. They knew that they wanted to portray interracial marriage in a positive light, and they knew that 'mainstream America' saw it negatively. 'Miscegenation' was seen as a crime. In order to give Sidney Poitier's character a chance with that audience, he had to be a decent guy. More than decent, actually. Any character flaw, however sleight, could be the excuse why that audience thought that it was 'wrong' that this guy should marry that nice, well-brought-up, rich white girl. So, although the writers knew that making the black guy be so saintly was unrealistic (for a guy of any colour), they felt that they had to make him so perfect that the only way to object to this black guy marrying that white girl was to admit that you were racist. It was hoped that since people like to think that they are 'good', then this would get them to examine their own attitudes to race, and that this would be a positive result for race relations in America. The reason I'm blathering on about this film in the LGBT thread is that Jenner (insert new first name later) will be representing trans* people, like it or not. It will be the first experience of an actual trans* person for millions of Americans. Like it or not, if Jenner is seen in a negative light, then trans* people will be seen in a negative light. So, ideally, Jenner should be seen to be a saint in human form. I've never actually seen an episode of The Kardashians. Is it the kind of show where the stars are seen in their best light?
Jiggy, reading your post brought a few thoughts:- Eldritch Knights do get cantrips. Not sure how you missed that; they're in the text and also on the spell progression table. You're right about the focus on those two schools, but a careful choice of the unrestricted spells is your friend. The intent of the EK is to have combat magic, not more general magic. You can multiclass, but don't have to keep the classes even. Ending up at Ftr5/Wiz4 by 9th level is good, but you have to think carefully about how you prioritise things like the extra attack and stat boosts/feats. On the way to 9th, you might be 5th/2nd, or 4th/4th. Because there is no BAB but instead a universal modifier increased by total level rather than class levels, you don't really become a worse fighter when you take a wizard level. But this means that you can customise your PC to emphasise the aspects that you want, martial or magic. This is good, not bad. There are also a couple of feats (humans can have one at level one) that give you some casting. In fact, the swashbuckler Battle Master I mentioned chose Magic Initiate at 1st, giving me two cantrips and a 1st level spell. Very versatile, and you can combine that with either EK or the multiclass idea. Also, the game is young. New stuff will come out, expanding your options. I've just got the latest book about Elemental Evil, and new PC races and spells are included. I think 5E will continue to offer more options for a good while yet.
First, it's totally okay for different people to like different systems. Second, it's okay for one person to like both systems! For me, I've played every edition of the game. Each edition was better than the last, up to and including 3.5. I tried 4th for a good while, enjoyed playing...but felt I was playing a complex board game rather than a role-playing game. When PF came out I absolutely loved it! Then I started noticing the things they changed that make the same mechanic worse in PF than it was in 3.5. Essentially, PF made classes better but made the core mechanics worse; not usually the changes they chose to make but more the mistakes in cut & pasting that left some rules understood in the wrong way, so the 'wrong' way became the official 'right' way. There's a current thread thread about taking free actions while Nauseated that illustrates this nicely: in 3.5 the condition only let you take a single move action per turn (plus free actions but not quickened spells). In PF the bit in parentheses got dropped in the cut & paste to PF, so in PF Nauseated characters cannot take free actions, leading to absurdities like being able to draw a sword or stand up from prone, but being unable to drop a sword or drop prone. Instead of restoring the lost clause, some are trying to get around the restrictions in the Nauseated condition by pointing to a rule which has nothing to do with Nauseated, just to get their free actions back. That kind of thing is happening with more and more frequency. So I decided to give 5th ed a chance, not really expecting much because of my poor opinion of 4th. I love it! After 35 years or so, I can finally play a Dex-based swashbuckler at 1st level without a problem! Like Jiggy, I'm playing a Battle-Master fighter, starting at 1st and he's now 5th. The way I can choose my manouvers as I level up, and the way I choose to use them in battle, feels like that the tactical decisions I make are as important as my game stats. I am now not limited to moving 5-feet when I use all of the attacks I've earned; what level would I have to be, what feat/class/archetype combo, would I have to be in PF to pull that off? In 5th, everyone can do that straight out of the box. The choices for character creation are more limited, but that's because the game has only been putting out books for a few months rather than PF's years. 5th ed is not perfect. There are some aspects of PF that I like better. But the cool thing is, I don't have to choose one system and throw the other away! I can (and do) play PF, 5th ed and even 3.5 on different days.
What we really need is a way to wager. As in, I would wager 100 dollars that if the devs ever FAQ it, they will confirm that you can indeed take free actions while nauseated, add long as they don't require concentration/attention. I think you're right! But not because you can ignore the restrictions of the Nauseated condition, but because the condition already let you take free actions in 3.5, and that omission is a mistake. If PF fix it, it will be by re-instating that clause, not by creating a subordinate relationship between it and 'restricted activity'.
When it comes to the absurdities (can draw a weapon but not drop it, etc.), simply restore the wording that was lost in the cut/paste from the 3.5 PHB: '...only a single move action per turn (and free actions, but not quickened spells)'. Quickened spells being the forerunner of swift actions. That's the way forward. Not by ignoring two of the core assumtions of the game: # specific trumps general # things do what they say they do, they should not be expected to say what they don't do
I have overwhelming evidence showing that Malachi is a 'he', but if I provide a link to that I'll get banned from the site and be required to provide eye bleach to every viewer. I'm afraid you'll just have to trust me on this one. : )
: ) Being certain does not equal being unreasonable. As I pointed out, I think free (but not swift) actions are doable while Nauseated, but not because of any unwritten idea about it being restricted activity and therefore you can ignore the limits of Nauseated and replace them with restricted activity. This is not the way forward. The way forward is to replace the clause lost when the game moved house. If the PF version doesn't make sense, this is because that vital clause is missing.
Casters earn the right to cast 9th level spells. Once they can, there is no "tactical" choice about moving and casting low level spells or not moving and casting 9th. Martials earn the right to attack 4-8 times a round. Yet all but one of those is taken away if they move 10-feet! This isn't really a tactical choice, it's just a nerf. It's a game mechanic which in no way reflects how moving 10-feet rather than 5-feet affects your ability to attack. It's just as artificial as limiting casters to 3rd level spells if they move more than 5-feet. 5th ed has the right of it here, and PF can adapt this solution simply by allowing a full attacker to move up to their speed, breaking up their move between attacks however they like. Modifying Spring Attack and Pounce would be trivial.
The equivalent nerf for casters for martials going down to one attack instead of, say, eight (for the crime of moving 10-feet instead of 5) is that if a caster moves more than 5-feet then they cannot cast a spell of 4th level or higher. Is this what happens? No. There is no nerf for casting higher level spells. They can even cast 9th level spell with impunity, altering reality itself. But if a martial wants to move 10-feet and attack twice with a pointy stick? Oh no! That would be unbalanced!
I don't think that iterative attacks are the problem. It's the fact that you can't move more than 5-feet while taking your attacks which is the problem. Which is how 5th ed's idea is the solution. For PF, just have the full attack action include your movement which may be spread between attacks as you wish. Problem solved.
Yeah, 5th ed solved this by the very simple (and totally stealable) expedient of allowing everyone to break up their movement any way they like. There is no 'full attack' action, only the 'attack' action, which lets you take all the attacks to which you are entitled. Simples! : )
|
