All demons have the Abyssal Pact Ritual, but the individual monster descriptions don't specify what level the Ritual is. The back of the book lists the Ritual as level 1. Am I supposed to believe that a level 20 Balor has the same level Ritual as a level 6 Babau? The level 1 Ritual only lets the strongest demon the Babau can summon be level 2, twice the Ritual level. That means the Balor can also only summon level 2 demons at best?
I was thinking the Ritual should be Heightened the way a Cantrip is, or maybe half the level of the creature rounded down. The higher level the demon, the higher the Ritual. Is this an oversight in the rules? Why would a level 20 demon only be able to summon the same level monsters that a level 6 demon could?
The NPC Zealot of Asmodeus in the Gamemastery Guide has a reaction ability that gives them True Strike. There's no limit mentioned to how often this can happen. The requirement is that an enemy hit a follower of Asmodeus other than the Zealot, and the Zealot gains the True Strike spell against that person.
So if there's a big group of Asmodeus followers with the Zealot, the Zealot could gain True Strike every round, for maybe 10 rounds or more if the fight lasts that long, right? Is there something I'm missing, or is that example totally fine? The Zealot also has the Channel Smite ability which makes this even more brutal. Their Channel Smite does 4d8+4, 8d8+8 on a crit, True Strike makes this crit pretty likely. The Zealot is a 4th level creature able to do Channel Smite 3/day, then maybe keep getting True Strike round after round.
First off, if you succeed at maintaining a grapple, you don't automatically do damage, you have to choose to do damage.
Grappling Rules: "Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple)." The options are Move, Damage, Pin, or Tie Up, you pick one.
The Anaconda, and any monster with the Constrict ability, always do constrict damage, it doesn't matter what option you pick. Constrict applies when it decides to move the grapple, pin, whatever, as long as it succeeds the grapple check. That's in the FAQ mentioned. If you decide to do damage with the bite, you do bite AND constrict damage. If it decides to Pin, it Pins AND does constrict damage.
Geruverrda, you aren't using Word Spells correctly. That Fire Burst Word effect has a max of 10d6, it doesn't matter if you have a 20 Caster Level. You can raise the total damage dice only to 15d6 with Intensify Spell. If you have more than one damaging Word in the spell, you don't add another 10d6, or 5d6. Word casters at level 11 don't do 25d6 with one 6th level spell, while other level 11 casters that aren't Word Casters are only doing 11d6 with a 6th level spell like Chain Lightning. Ask your GM and even ask the other players you're with if your base damage is over double what any other caster can do (with no build involved) sounds reasonable to them.
Is the DM going to give you exactly all these specific magic items, whenever you get the gold to afford them? That ioun stone is 30k, the Prayer Beads are 45k. I hope your DM gives you tons of gold/treasure as you level.
The Otherwordly Kimono adds to Caster Level checks, not to the Caster Level of all your spells. That doesn't add to your damage, it helps you get past things like Spell Resistance, or when someone tries to Dispel your spells.
You also need to check with the GM if you can use Word Casting with feats/traits that say you have to pick a specific spell, like Spell Specialization and Spell Perfection. A Word like Fire Burst can be seen as a specific spell, but when you combine it with other Words it changes to a different spell. A specific combination of Words can probably be used as one specific spell.
Word spells don't do more damage than their Caster Level or what the Word allows, it doesn't matter what Words you use, you're only doing 10d6 with those lower Words.
-"Multiple Effect Words and Damage: If more than one effect word causes the wordspell to deal damage, the total number of dice of damage the wordspell can deal can be no greater than the wordspell’s caster level. The caster can decide which dice belong to which effect word, in any combination, so long as the total number does not exceed his wordcaster level and the number of dice allocated to a specific effect word does not exceed its maximum."
Don't pick Crossblooded. Losing one spell of EACH level is terrible. You need to have more spells to do things that aren't just fire damage. You'll have to be level 9 before you get a second 3rd level spell. Level 9 before you have something other than Fireball as your highest spell. Think about that. Other Sorcs will be able to Fly and drop Fireballs and Scorching Rays at level 7. At level 8, they'll be able to do that WHILE Invisible, and you won't be able to even Fly yet.
When you encounter things with Fire Resistance, you're going to miss that extra spell of EACH level. Crossblooded kills your versatility. Feat wise don't ignore Spell Penetration. The higher you get SR will become very common. I also like Persistent Spell for metamagic, if you can fit it in. Making things have to save twice is huge. I love saying, o they saved against that Fireball, I'd like to see you do that again! It doesn't have to be used with damage spells, imagine a bad guy casting Slow on your melee classes, and when they manage to make it despite their bad Will save, the DM tells them to make it again. That could be you doing that instead! Muahahaahaha
Yell, BOOMURFACE! at the horse lovers as you play a Goblin Gunslinger!
Get Dex to damage with guns at level 5 and enjoy the carnage that comes with your +4 Dex racial bonus. Sneaking up on them with that Dex bonus and another +4 for being small size. Surprise Snipe them and Stealth with that mega Stealth you should have. Or just win initiative with that Dex score and Full attack the flat footed suckers at the start of the round. I recommend the Musket Master archetype.
You can leave Gunslinger to multi class after 5. Unchained Rogue will get you Sneak attacks and Debilitating Injury. Ranger will get you Favored Enemy, feats, and you can take the Boon Companion feat after 4 levels of Ranger to get an Animal Companion that's just 1 level lower than a Druid of your level.
The Bestiary 4 has a creature called the Sayona, that does Bleed with its' Bite and Claw attacks. There is no Bleed damage amount listed anywhere on the page though. Has anyone come across this? I couldn't find this anywhere, maybe it's well hidden.
5 foot steps can't be taken in difficult terrain, so you can't use Step Up (Misc actions rules for 5 foot steps). The Following Step feat lets you move 10 feet, so it seems like you could use it to move 5 feet in difficult terrain. Though a strict following of the rules would still let you not do so since it is considered a "5 foot step", depends on your GM. Normally when your movement is hampered, by wearing heavy armor, or a heavy load, you can still take 5 foot steps, so they should work fine. Unless your movement is so hampered you can only move 5 feet a round, then you're really screwed.
Cerberi don't have darkvision, so Lunar Veil seems like a waste to use unless none of your players have darkvision either. Are you set on using Cerberi? They seem a bit weak to use against level 14 characters. A level 16 cleric should be more than just a kennel master, he should be THE master. Summon Monster 8 lets you get 1d4+1 Erinyes Devils, cast this twice then use Deeper Darkness to blind the party while the Erinyes can just shoot them up freely, and Entangle them with their ropes. They can dispel the darkness, but the Erinyes have a higher AC, HP, and DR than the Cerberi, while being able to fly. 2 castings will get you about 6 Erinyes, one for each character. Each Erinyes can just pick one guy each to attack, so all 6 characters are under attack every round at the same time as everyone else. Who do the party help first? Which Erinyes do they focus on taking down first? Choices, Choices [insert evil laugh]
If encounters have been easy for them, and they're already a high level, I say put some fear into them, make them sweat for once. Boss fights should not be easy. Your cleric is Invisible, singing evilly in the magical darkness and casting buffs while the party gets pelted by arrows from laughing air borne devils that can see just fine in magical darkness and thru any illusions wizards could use to hide themselves. I suggest giving the players a way to retreat out of this encounter. It sounds like none of your players has come close to dying, now is the time to change that.
I like the idea of having the person asking for help be a villain as well. She could be a lich in disguise as you say, but that seems a bit much for a CR 10. Maybe she's a vampire or a succubus that needs help destroying the undead lord. A Succubus can easily Bluff/Disguise her way into getting the support of the locals and the player to believe whatever story she wants. She could be 2 or 3 people (male OR female, elf, human, dwarf, whatever) that the player encounters in or around town, all of them supporting a certain story that is being told. Her Succubus powers don't work on undead so she needs others to get rid of them.
That's also a way to work some demons into the mix. The big bad undead guy could have been getting ready for a big fight with some evil power he knew was heading his way, and used his hordes of undead on the player coming after him instead. Then the demon buddies of the Succubus show up once the undead are gone or badly weakened. Maybe that's how the story ends, on a cliffhanger...
So Invisible Pink suggests, "softening the consequences of death for player characters, maybe by some in-universe conceit of them returning to life over and over again", but when I suggest making fights challenging, he says don't make player's lives difficult, they'll respond by gearing up and optimizing. Seems bizarre to recommend making dying and returning to life easier, but criticize me for saying make fights more challenging. If fights aren't challenging, why would there be a need to make coming back from death easier?
Gnoams says to never give enemies the Advanced template, like I recommend. He says, "I look to instill difficulty into the story aspect, into the choices players make, the mysteries they solve, the problems they tackle". He never gives any examples of this. He recommends a theory with no real substance, you just have to figure something out. I give clear, concrete examples for you to consider. Is giving creatures the +4 to all stats too much for your players? The horde of 8 bugbears I mentioned will now have hit +7, their hp 22, AC of 19, and their damage 1d8+5. This doesn't seem all that harsh against a group of level 7 players to me. Against certain groups it won't be easy, someone could die if ganged up on. Against a wizard with fireball this encounter is a joke.
In the second paragraph of my first post, I specifically talk about if an encounter seems too hard. I make a point of doing this, because the things I recommend can be too hard for some groups. I want the GM to think about how the players will be able to handle these tougher fights. This is a thread called, "Help me challenge my players", after all. I don't know what is too difficult for your group, and neither do these people saying my advice is terrible.
The Wizard does not fall unconscious. The poison happened first, so the Fatigue penalty is applied to his current stat score which is 2. Since Fatigue is a penalty, it can not lower his stat to less than 1.
The answer is in the rules you linked, "While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1."
He now has a Strength of 1. He is most likely Heavily Encumbered now, so he can have fun dealing with that too. Depending on what he is wearing, he might not be able to move more than 5 feet a round. If he has a backpack I'm guessing it's over 10 pounds, which is now his max load. You can lift double your max load off the ground, but can only move 5 feet a round as a full round action.
Make all the monsters have the Advanced Template; +4 to all stats. Don't increase CR when you do this, just make it the norm for all encounters. Try to throw a variety of enemies at the players, don't get locked into a few types or they'll get too used to fighting them. Huge Elementals for one encounter, a horde of 8 bugbears for another, Shadows, Will o Wisps, etc. If the group doesn't have much range, give them an encounter against flying creatures that hit and run, like a few Wyverns. I also like to look at what Knowledge skills they have, and put them against monsters they can't identify.
If you aren't sure if an encounter is too hard, try imagining how it will play out. You know the monsters plus to hit and their ac, compare it to the players. How often will they be hitting or getting hit and about how much damage will be done in a round? Does the Fighter hit 50% on the first hit, or 25%? Can you estimate the party doing 50 points of damage a round, or 70? Will a monster die every round, or will it take 2 or 3 rounds to kill? Will a player be able to take 2 or 3 rounds of attacks before dying?
The spell Blightburn Weapon is a bit vague to me. Specifically when it says, "the weapon emanates an aura of radiation that causes blightburn sickness. This is as the disease, but with a 10-foot radius and a save DC equal to this spell’s save DC." The disease normally is a contact disease with a frequency of 1/day. Its' effect is, "1d6 Con damage and 1d6 Cha damage; contact is automatic when a creature comes within a 60-foot radius, and can be blocked only by lead sheeting, 1 foot of stone, or a force effect; Cure 2 consecutive saves".
When you're in the aura of the spell, I'm guessing you make a save every round, even if you're the caster. If you fail that save, do you keep making saves, or since you got the disease, do you follow the normal frequency of the disease, which is 1/day?
Nope, there's no real change in damage done, unless you were planning on adding new things that affect bite attacks. I don't know what sort of balance issue you were worried about that could happen. Were you going to also make them fast zombies that dual wield swords or something?
These spells are both touch attacks that need attack rolls, so they can both crit, right? This has to do when using them to damage creatures, such as Harm on the living and Heal on undead. One of my players said they couldn't because they don't have any dice to roll, and crits make you roll the damage dice twice, or however many times. RAW seems to support his interpretation, it does say "roll the damage", not just multiply the total damage.
Is there any decent reason why these spells should NOT be allowed to crit? Would they be overpowered to let them crit since they do a large set amount of damage? At level 11 that would be 110 damage, or 55 if you make the save. Potentially 220 on a crit and failed save. That's a lot, but compared to Chain Lightning doing 11d6 to up to 12 targets, or Flesh to Stone being save or die, it doesn't seem to me to be overpowered. Am I underestimating it?
It seems like you can combine the two just fine. I wanted some extra opinions about it.
Dazing Assault: You can choose to take a –5 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to daze opponents you HIT with your melee attacks for 1 round, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack. A successful Fortitude save negates the effect. The DC of this save is 10 + your base attack bonus. You must choose to use this feat before making the attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.
The feat states you just need to hit with a melee attack, it doesn't say you have to do damage. Combat Maneuvers are attack rolls, so is there anything stopping someone from using Dazing Assault with Dirty Tricks, Grapples, Trips, and such? Other than the -5 making it much harder to succeed on the maneuver.
I would let them stack, I think people are getting too hung up over the feat.
The feat sets a restriction for how much it can add to your sneak attack, not how high your sneak attack can advance thru other means. It wants you to know that if you keep taking the feat, it can only go so high.
The Rogue Sneak Attack ability description has no such restrictive language, only the feat does. Other classes that get Sneak attack, such as the Slayer, Ninja, Vigilante, also don't say anything about how much sneak attack dice you can have. There's no rule ANYWHERE else that puts a cap on Sneak attack dice, you would have to know about this one specific feat to have any idea about a cap at all.
If a Rogue didn't take the feat at all, and had Sense Vitals cast on them, why would anyone then say it wouldn't work? Nothing in the Rogue class says so, and the spell says it stacks.
You could have the newest editions and errata of the Core Rulebook, Advanced Players Guide, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Intrigue, Advanced Class Guide, Ultimate Wilderness, Pathfinder Unchained, Advanced Race Guide, and NONE of these books says anything about Sneak Attack being limited to half your level.
But then some feat appears in a book and now there's a restriction that didn't exist before, but doesn't ever get put into a new errata to change how it worked before that. I wouldn't bother putting in that restriction now, especially since it's just from one feat.
I think this works, but I wanted to get more opinions. Before combat starts, say you're talking in a bar or walking down the street. Can you Quick Draw a dagger and use Deft Palm to hide it from people next to you? As long as your Sleight of Hand check beats their Perception of course.
Deft Palm: " A rogue with this talent can make a Sleight of Hand check to conceal a weapon while holding it in plain sight, even while she is being observed."
I would then combine that with other Rogue talents such as Betrayer, Quick Shot, and Underhanded.
Betrayer: "When you succeed at a Diplomacy check to change a creature’s attitude, you can draw a weapon and make a single melee attack against that creature as an immediate action. If you changed your target’s attitude to friendly or better, your target is considered flat-footed against this attack"
Quick Shot: "Whenever the rogue rolls initiative, she can also make a single attack with a ranged weapon as a swift action. She can use this ability only if she has a weapon in hand and it is loaded (if applicable). If more than one rogue has this talent, their initiative check results determine the order in which they make their attacks. After these attacks are resolved, the round proceeds as normal."
Underhanded: " A rogue with this talent gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all Sleight of Hand checks made to conceal a weapon. Furthermore, if she makes a sneak attack during the surprise round using a concealed weapon that her opponent didn’t know about, she does not have to roll sneak attack damage, and the sneak attack deals maximum damage. A rogue can only use the underhanded talent a number of times per day equal to her Charisma modifier"
So BEFORE anyone takes a turn in the surprise round, I've already made 2 Sneak Attacks against my target. Betrayer lets me draw a weapon and attack, and I already had a dagger concealed in my hand with Deft Palm which Quick Shot lets me throw. Underhanded gives me +4 to Sleight of Hand with Deft Palm, and I do max sneak attack damage. Anything I'm missing about why all those wouldn't work together?
Could a monster, say a Dragon with the Snatch feat, still use Snatch if it shrank in size? If it became a large or medium creature, such as with a Polymorph spell, and that creature still had bite/claw attacks.
Snatch is: "Prerequisite: Size Huge or larger.
Benefits: The creature can start a grapple when it hits with a claw or bite attack, as though it had the grab ability. If it grapples a creature three or more sizes smaller, it squeezes each round for automatic bite or claw damage with a successful grapple check. A snatched opponent held in the creature’s mouth is not allowed a Reflex save against the creature’s breath weapon, if it has one.
The creature can drop a creature it has snatched as a free action or use a standard action to fling it aside. A flung creature travels 1d6 × 10 feet, and takes 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet traveled. If the creature flings a snatched opponent while flying, the opponent takes this amount or falling damage, whichever is greater."
It comes down to the prereq being something that you need to just take the feat, or it being what you need to use it as well? I think it would still know how to grab with its' bite/claw, but the rest of the feat would probably not apply.
I'd leave immediately, forget that guy. Far too many rule breaks for no good reason other than to grief the player (you). I'd encourage the rest of the players to do the same.
1. A spell should NOT work differently for a PC and a monster. Unless the DM wants to fudge things to give the PC's a break, which is obviously not the case here.
2. Dominated creatures should not automatically resist attempts at freeing them, unless specifically commanded to do so. Especially when they know it's a harmless spell being cast by an ally.
3. The parley command should not grant a new save, unless it's to talk with someone they hate and would normally be very hostile to.
I could see if your dominated giant saw you guys kill one of its' friends/tribemates it MIGHT get a new save, but a Chaotic Evil giant shouldn't care if it's some stranger dying. It wasn't made to do anything against it's nature. Even if it watched a friend die it wasn't commanded to do anything besides talk. If you cast Dominate during a fight, and commanded someone to not fight while you killed his friends, THEN it would get a new save.
4. Disable your friends command should grant you a new save. Unless you're a wizard who has screwed around with your friends and cast spells on them before for fun.
5. A Bluff check should have been made to fake being under someone's control, though normally as poster Kayerloth pointed out, you should sense that a save was successful. The Giant should have NOT had a full attack when he surprised you, as you pointed out that's not how surprise rounds work.
I want to see if I'm understanding Snatch correctly, it seems that it acts like Constrict if the target is small enough. Constrict deals additional damage on successful grapple checks, I think Snatch works the same on certain creatures.
"Snatch: The creature can start a grapple when it hits with a claw or bite attack, as though it had the grab ability. If it grapples a creature three or more sizes smaller, it squeezes each round for automatic bite or claw damage with a successful grapple check."
So if a Gargantuan creature hits and grapples a medium or smaller creature with a bite/claw, it does damage immediately because of Snatch, right?
Then in the following round when it successfully maintains the grapple, it can choose to damage the target as part of the maintain grapple check, and also squeeze for more damage from Snatch?
You are correct, the spell is a different damage source than the sword itself. If you use Shocking Grasp with spellstrike, the sword does its' damage, and the spell does damage of its' own. If the target had DR to the sword, like if it were a Mummy, it would not apply to the damage from Shocking Grasp. The same way if a target had electricity resistance it would apply to the spell but not the damage from the sword hit.
The Spellstrike ability also states that on a critical hit, the spell only does x2 damage, and not the crit multiplier of the weapon, say if it were a Scythe that does x4. The spell damage and weapon damage are 2 different sources of damage. They aren't 1 combined source.
One of our players had to drop out of the adventure path about 1/2 way through. I doubt I'll be able to find another player, which leaves me with 3 adventurers (all experienced players). The AP is clearly designed with 4 heroes (currently level 9 if it matters) in mind, and I'm not sure what the best way would be to continue with only the three. Should I just give them all an extra level? Add an NPC (they don't particularly like that idea)? Something else?
The one approach I definitely don't want to take (cause it would be too much work for me) is to rebuild the encounters.
Any help with working this out would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
If their characters are somewhat optimized they might be fine as they are for most encounters. All your ideas are good ones, making them a level higher than intended, adding an NPC. You could also power them up with stat boosts. The next time they encounter a magical pool of something or anything mysterious and magical get them to drink/interact with it and have it increase all their stats by 2. The extra hit/damage/AC/HP will help them handle the fights better. I'm surprised they don't like the idea of having an NPC with them, let them get into a few fights with only 3 of them and see how it works out. One less person means one less target for the bad guys to use their actions on, and less damage the group is doing. I don't think they appreciate how much that will change encounters. You could put in a few extra random encounters at first to get them used to having only 3 in the party. I would NOT change the encounters to make them easier, unless it's one specific boss encounter here or there that you see will be unusually difficult for them.
Has it ever been clarified that a natural Slam attack is done with a hand if you're a humanoid? Why can't a vampire make a full attack with a greatsword and then use his slam as a secondary? A kick, elbow, or headbutt can't be a slam attack?
If you get grappled, then turn invisible with a spell/magic item/ninja vanish. Then you attack your grappler, are your attacks against his flat footed AC since you're invisible? If you are a rogue/ninja or have Sneak Attack, do you get your Sneak attack damage on the attack?
The Grappled condition states, "If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit." Does that mean your invisible attacks wouldn't deny dexterity at all, so you wouldn't be able to Sneak attack? They can't see where the attack is coming from, but does that not matter with the Grappled condition?
The reference to double weapons makes me.think this refers to primary and offhand manufactured weapons, but I am unsure. What is the source of this feat? I'm having trouble finding it.
Oops I got it from the d20pfsrd, it's actually a 3rd party feat.
I believe this works but I wanted to get another opinion.
The feat Double Strike says, " As a standard action, you can make one attack with both your primary and secondary weapons (or with both ends of a double weapon). The penalties for attacking with two weapons apply normally".
If I were an Orc Barbarian with a Bite attack, from the trait (or the Rage Power) or something with a natural bite attack like lizardfolk, I could attack with my Falchion and Bite with my Standard Action, since the bite is a secondary weapon. Now if I got the Fiend totem rage power, which gives you a Gore attack, wouldn't I then get to use my Falchion, bite, and gore with a Standard Action?
What about if I were a Centaur, that has 2 Hoof attacks as secondary weapons. Would I get to use my Falchion and both hoof attacks with Double Strike? Or just one hoof attack since the feat says, "one attack with both primary and secondary weapons"?
Whoa Whoa Whoa, imagine if Michael Bay got to do a Star Wars movie...
EXPLOSIONS! SLOW MOTION SHOOTING IN MID AIR! MOAR EXPLOSIONS! LIGHTSABERS AND MOAR EXPLOSIONS! X-WINGS AND TIE FIGHTERS EXPLODING!
I'm not going to lie, I'd totally see that. Disney doesn't know what they're missing. Just imagine what characters like Boba Fett and Jedi lightsaber fights would be like in the hands of Michael Bay. The Last Jedi wants us to forget the past. Who better to make Star Wars go in a completely different direction than Michael Bay? Give him a stand alone story and let the mayhem commence.
I do not believe that's the case. And I actively hate this sentiment.
Enjoyment of art is subjective on some level. I really don't get the mona lisa. I really do like charmer of serpents. But on some level the mona lisa is fundamentally better than this stick figure penguin porg
<0
/|\
^~
But throwing paint through an engine or a blank canvas or a dot on a page is not art. Pretending it is, pretending it's profound, is silly and pretentious.
Art is subjective on pretty much all levels. That you find paint sprayed through an engine to not be art while others do just underlines that fact. Art, as I see it, is fundamentally having the chutzpah to do something and present it as art whether it's a portrait of a model as with the Mona Lisa, something more abstract like a Jackson Pollock, an experimental form of composition like blowing paint through an engine, or a single point of color on an otherwise white canvas. In all cases, it's an artist putting ideas out there for others to view, consider, and ponder over.
You're free to set your own limits, but you don't get to tell other people what is and isn't art without the rest of us telling you you're full of BS.
So you're saying that if Paizo had an art contest, they can't be critical of what is submitted? They can't say what is better art compared to bad art? Big Norse Wolf could submit a stick figure drawing of a fighter. Then Wayne Reynolds submitted his drawing of a fighter. If they criticize Big Norse Wolf's stick figure as bad, they're the ones that are full of BS? Paizo can't say that Wayne Reynolds did great while Wolf's drawing sucked, and pick Wayne as the winner, because "art is subjective on pretty much all levels"? Seriously? What if Paizo went with Big Norse Wolf's stick figure, and made him do all the art for the next 3 books. If the fans criticized that choice, we're wrong for not liking stick figure art compared to Wayne Reynolds?
Luke's arc was truly terrible. This tag is part of my original post from page 11 for those newer posters to this thread.
Spoiler:
The movie should have been called, "The character assassination of Luke Skywalker". In an interview Mark Hamill said he told the director he disagreed with almost every choice in the script. Someone making the movie should have paid attention to that. Luke didn't have to be in this movie at all, the character he is in this movie has no resemblance other than physical to Luke Skywalker. No one, especially Mark Hamill, would ever have predicted that Luke would turn into the biggest chicken s~~~ in the entire galaxy. He runs away from his problems and hides, waiting to die. He doesn't even try to talk to or confront Kylo after his school is destroyed. He lets his guilt and fear control all of his actions, and his entire life for a decade. How does that sound like a Jedi thing to do? He doesn't even attempt to turn Kylo away from the dark side once he knows that Kylo is obviously following Vader's path. Luke never gave up on Vader being able to turn away from the Dark even though everyone that knew Vader, like Yoda and Obiwan, told him it was too late. Luke always believed even someone as terrible as Vader could be redeemed. He gives up on Kylo immediately though. How does that make sense? Not only does he give up on Kylo immediately, but also all the other students that left with Kylo. A whole group of people using the Dark side, running around the galaxy, and Luke runs away in fear. Maybe I could have forgiven that, if only Luke changed when Rey got to him. He finds out Kylo killed Han, and he barely seems to care. He doesn't care enough to really train Rey, 5 minutes with Yoda would have taught Rey more than what Luke taught her. He doesn't care enough to go back with Rey and try to stop Kylo. Leia is probably next on the Empires' list but Luke doesn't care enough to try and help his sister. How is that Luke Skywalker? They have a chance to make him do something truly epic and memorable when he confronts Kylo, but nope, can't have Luke be awesome at any point. He has to be a pathetic shell of a man. He could have had a spectacular fight with Kylo that we could have remembered for decades, showing us how he has grew in the Force over the years, but no, just a lame trick. I would have preferred if Kylo still won, but at least show us something of worth. Luke's death scene after an epic battle where he's using his father's lightsaber, and being killed by his own family, give us something to remember other than a cheap trick.
People need to stop claiming this fan fiction about there might have been spies on the ships so Holdo couldn't tell Poe or the fleet her plan. Nothing in the movie supports this at all. Provide us with one example from anyone or anything in the movie, I dare you. No one tries to do anything about possible spies either. If there were spies, when Holdo finally does tell her plan and people get onto transports, the spies could just radio the First Order the plan anyway. Holdo not telling Poe and others was just stupid.
I'm also with Big Norse Wolf on the whole Poe sacrificing the bombers wasn't a bad thing, despite what the movie tries to claim. Imagine he follows orders and calls off the bombers, they would then jump into hyperspace to run. The First Order just follows them. Now what happens? If they follow the movie story they keep going until their ships run out of gas and the First Order kills them all anyway, but now with their big bad ship still intact. Unless of course the bombers go on a suicide mission to destroy that Dreadnought now that running isn't an option, like Poe wanted them to, either way they still all die. So how bad was Poe's decision really?
It's too bad they didn't know that all it takes is one bomber to do a hyperspace jump into the Dreadnought. Knowing is half the battle I hear.
[Luke] runs away from his problems and hides, waiting to die. He doesn't even try to talk to or confront Kylo after his school is destroyed. He lets his guilt and fear control all of his actions, and his entire life for decades. Does that sound like a Jedi thing to do?
That's a good question.
Megatron777 wrote:
Luke never gave up on Vader being able to turn away from the Dark even though everyone that knew Vader, like Yoda and Obi-wan, told him it was too late.
And there's your answer: yes. Is cloistering yourself on an island planet with a big scary dark force source hiding you any different than hiding on a swamp planet with a big scary dark force source hiding you?
(Other people tie Obi-wan's seclusion on Tattooine in the same category, but it's clear that he's there to keep tabs on Annikin's son.)
It's very different for Yoda and Obi-wan. All the Jedi that could be found were murdered by their own government in one day. Any left were being hunted down and killed. The new head of the government is Sith, and knew Yoda and Obi-wan were still out there. Hiding was the only thing Yoda and Obi-wan could do to survive. Keep in mind after that order came down, Obi-wan still went to confront Anakin one last time, he didn't run away immediately.
Now years after Return of the Jedi, Luke was a hero. He didn't have the entire galactic republic looking to kill him. He had the support of the entire Rebel alliance, and was secure enough that he could build a school without the Empire ever coming to destroy it. He didn't run and hide because he was going to be hunted down and killed, he choose to run and hide because he felt guilty and afraid. I could have been ok with this if Luke needed a few years to pick himself up again, but not for decades.
Spoiler:
And not after hearing about Han Solo and still doesn't care enough to leave the island. And not when he now knows the Empire is on the verge of winning. Not when he now knows his sister could be next, and he still does nothing. Leaving all of his friends and family to die because he's afraid, does that sound like a Jedi thing to do? It sure doesn't to me.
Depends why you hated Force Awakens. If it was because it was too much like Star Wars, then Last Jedi will be better in that regard. It's very different than Force Awakens and Rogue One.
Force Awakens also got better overall reviews than Last Jedi. Sooo good luck?
As for the Kamikaze Hyperspace Fleet Bomb. Well, that can certainly be explained away with technobabble. What anoyed me was that Akbar dies like a chump getting flash frozen into a pile of space flotsam. Why didn't he survive the bridge attack and pilot the Kamikaze attack instead of Admiral Ball Gown?
Spoiler:
Maybe because the actor who voiced him died last year.
Spoiler:
Didn't stop Rogue One from having Grand Moff Tarkin.
Why have a new character no one cares about do something important when you can have a returning character people know do it instead? Maybe they thought Admiral Ball Gown was such a scene stealer.
And I'm terrible at formatting. My reply to Benchak was for his most recent post.
So they have the technology to do the first 2, but can't have remote guided bombs, that's too advanced somehow? They also can't have a button in the cockpit so the pilot can drop the bombs without needing someone else? How is technology we have from the 70's too advanced for Star Wars? That's what's utterly ridiculous.
The most disappointing Star Wars since the Phantom Menace. There are so many instances of bad writing/stupidity in this movie it's hard to know where to start. This is going to take awhile...
Spoiler:
I'll start with some of the basic, logical aspects of stupidity and bad writing. At the start of the movie, they have bombers which have to drop their payloads straight down like it's 1942. Dropping things into space and having them fall down... riiiighhhhtt... I guess targeting computers no longer exist? Bombing ships that can't drop their payloads with a button from the cockpit, more 1942 technology. They have intelligent droids that can fix/pilot ships, but missile guidance technology is beyond them somehow. Speaking of piloting ships, why does an Admiral have to stay behind to pilot a ship straight? No droids for that? Auto pilot doesn't exist somehow? In a world with Hyper Drive, Death Stars, and droid armies, no auto pilot on large, expensive ships? How about Admiral Ackbar go down with the ship, instead of this brand new, meaningless character?
The Vice Admiral not telling Poe or anyone important the plan, makes sense how? She herself knows he tends to not follow orders, so when everyone is on the verge of dying, instead of telling him the plan, she just orders him to do nothing but wait while people are dying on other ships. Why would anyone expect him to do just that? Someone mentioned maybe she was worried about spies. Nothing in the movie suggests that at all. Even if there were spies, no one tries to do anything about it. When she evacuates the ship everyone gets told what the plan is. If there were spies, they could have just told the Empire right then anyway, nothing would have changed.
The movie should have been called, "The character assassination of Luke Skywalker". In an interview Mark Hamill said he told the director he disagreed with almost every choice in the script. Someone making the movie should have paid attention to that. Luke didn't have to be in this movie at all, the character he is in this movie has no resemblance other than physical to Luke Skywalker. No one, especially Mark Hamill, would ever have predicted that Luke would turn into the biggest chicken s*%@ in the entire galaxy. He runs away from his problems and hides, waiting to die. He doesn't even try to talk to or confront Kylo after his school is destroyed. He let's his guilt and fear control all of his actions, and his entire life for decades. How does that sound like a Jedi thing to do? He doesn't even attempt to turn Kylo away from the dark side once he knows that Kylo is obviously following Vader's path. Luke never gave up on Vader being able to turn away from the Dark even though everyone that knew Vader, like Yoda and Obiwan, told him it was too late. Luke always believed even someone as terrible as Vader could be redeemed. He gives up on Kylo immediately though. How does that make sense? Not only does he give up on Kylo immediately, but also all the other students that left with Kylo. A whole group of people using the Dark side, running around the galaxy, and Luke runs away in fear. Maybe I could have forgiven that, if only Luke changed when Rey got to him. He finds out Kylo killed Han, and he barely seems to care. He doesn't care enough to really train Rey, 5 minutes with Yoda would have taught Rey more than what Luke taught her. He doesn't care enough to go back with Rey and try to stop Kylo. Leia is probably next on the Empires' list but Luke doesn't care enough to try and help his sister. How is that Luke Skywalker? They have a chance to make him do something truly epic and memorable when he confronts Kylo, but nope, can't have Luke be awesome at any point. He has to be a pathetic shell of a man. He could have had a spectacular fight with Kylo that we could have remembered for decades, showing us how he has grew in the Force over the years, but no, just a lame trick. I would have preferred if Kylo still won, but at least show us something of worth. Luke's death scene after an epic battle where he's using his father's lightsaber, and being killed by his own family, give us something to remember other than a cheap trick.
This is the 2nd movie in a trilogy, and it builds on almost nothing from the first movie. The many unanswered questions from the first one are nearly completely ignored. Who is Snoke? Doesn't matter he's gone. Knights of Ren? Doesn't matter they're mentioned only in passing. Phasma has a 30 second fight scene, whoop de friggin doo.
They cast Briene of Tarth for one 30 second scene. They could have just put a stunt man in a suit and had her voice over it. General Hux is even more of a joke in this one. Poe and Finn seemed good together, but let's separate them for the whole movie and make some new person go on a mission with Finn instead. A mission that accomplishes nothing, leads nowhere, and wastes 30 minutes. Rey was the main character, but not anymore, it's all Kylo Ren now. Rey is barely any better off for making the trip to see Luke, she's almost exactly the same as she was at the end of Force Awakens. She could have died and the story would barely have changed any. Kylo didn't need her to kill Snoke, and nothing important to the main story happened on the island. Chewie could have just went there and gotten as much out of Luke. We saw Kylo stop a blaster bolt in mid air and paralyze people, how about we get to see more Force abilities we've never seen before? Nah, can't have our Force users doing anything impressive. He's in one fight scene the entire movie, and we can't see him use the Force at all in that scene too.
The Force Awakens had to set the stage for the trilogy and give us some mystery, that's what first movies do. The next movie is supposed to expand on the first, that's how sequels work. Not toss it aside and tell us to get over it. This isn't a stand alone Star Wars adventure. I could accept that Force Awakens got too caught up in nostalgia and was too derivative, but it was meant to clean our palate after the Phantom Menace trilogy and remind of us how Star Wars felt before. This movie made a left turn just for the sake of being different. Don't try to tell me it didn't want to follow the old Star Wars plot lines when it basically took us back to Hoth for it's climax.
There's more but I'm going to stop. Wasted opportunities and lack of anything memorable sums it up in general. I'll just ignore flying Leia, Rey and Kylo's Force skype calls across the galaxy, Finn almost making a meaningful and dramatic sacrifice only to be saved, ugh. This is a long enough post, I apologize if it was too much and hard to get thru.
I liked the Force Awakens and Rogue One. They weren't perfect but I can watch them more than once without problems. This one I don't want to see again.
You're going to have a hard time finding anything definitive. Generally Tremorsense is regarded to be similar to Blindsense, and would not bypass concealment. If an invisible creature were in range, Tremorsense would pinpoint it, but still have a miss chance to hit. If there was nothing like this then the guy should still be dead.
I realize the fluff description of the monster mentions that it is Blind, and it also gains benefits for being Blind. However, the Buggane's normal attacks in melee should not have a miss chance. If it was meant to have a miss chance on all of it's attacks, that would be deliberately mentioned in the monster description somewhere. It would also make the monster extremely weak. If you want to be very kind you could say the player was only MOSTLY dead, and stable at negative hp but the party didn't do a heal check to notice how he wasn't totally dead.
Q1: Usually not, depends on the GM. Generally when playing a flute you would need 2 hands, though if it's a very simple song you might be able to do it with one hand, or if it's a small flute. Maybe a kind GM would let you make a difficult Perform check to try and play it with just one hand.
Q2: If can you start it while grappled, yes you can just walk out of the grapple as a standard action. If you already had it activated, his attempt to grapple would automatically fail because of the Freedom of Movement.
Q3: The grapple would disrupt you. Grapple limits your movements so you wouldn't be able to perform the exact dance steps correctly. It would be like trying to perform a specific dance while you're being hugged.
Q4: The plant growth would not allow a save since the original spell doesn't allow it. The sunshine would also not allow a save, it doesn't mimic a spell it just shines light, there's no save against that. The Daylight spell also doesn't allow a save or SR, if someone were to compare the Masterpiece effect to a spell.
Of all the classes for a vampire to get killed by...
