Golem in Progress

Megistone's page

458 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 458 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trying to make justice themselves would be a comprehensible reaction by the relatives of the murdered innkeeper.
Looking for help is another: the local authorities, or a paladin, could be asked to intervene. Being hunted by a paladin should make the PC (and the player) think about what they have done, regardless of the outcome of the hunt.

Back to the rule, no, there's no coup-de-grace, unless you rule otherwise. You surely know well how to run a game, but I have to quote Zapp and say that killing a PC outright with no rolls may not be the best move in your repertoire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well if you want to shove an enemy out of the window, you have to target fortitude; if you want to trip it to stop its escape you have to target reflex: you don't have much choice, either.

About metagaming, your character can't really be sure, but can often guess: a large, hulking creature will usually have higher fortitude and lower reflexes. It's rather intuitive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't have a 'Barbarian level'. Halving your level only counts for which feats you can pick; you use your full character level for everything else.


I think the point in avoiding the trade is wasting some of the ogre's actions while the rest of your party can still attack it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
K1 wrote:

One session with Monsters disarming aoe players and players will understand why disarm is something which is not worth in a system like this.

Or eventually a couple of mobs who disarm a player, loot his weapon worth all his equip, and run/teleport away.

Repeat until the players won’t have anything else left.

Players start to go with chain glove?
Mobs, which are not necessarily stupid, will do the same.

Sometimes players see a mechanic only on their side, but they not always realize that it could be used against them.

In this case, disarm on Normal hit and chain glove to get a hold grip for their weapon.

You're saying all this like it's a bad thing.
It is. It’s bad design, and boring at that.
Only boring if you enjoy constant failure. I don't. It's the pinnacle of design, because you can fail constantly if you build one way, and succeed constantly if you build another, thereby enabling any level of play to suit taste.

To the point that any character only does one single thing for their whole carreer. Boring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As soon as they try to feint, their opponent trips them. And they fall.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wands are permanent items in this edition, and thus quite powerful. The proposed houserules I read here are all very lenient with overcharging, making wands too strong in my opinion.
If the possibility that a wand is destroyed is too much to bear, I'd consider the following houserule: no overcharging possible.
After all, think about all the other 1/day items, both in PF1 and PF2: there is no option to 'use them again' when spent.


Garretmander wrote:
Megistone wrote:
Penthau wrote:

I like the way that Mutants and Masterminds handles complications. They don't give any abilities in return for the flaw. You can take all you want. When the complication causes issues for the character in the game, you get the equivalent of a hero point. If your feeble Aunt June never gets kidnapped, you get nothing.

They explained that allowing people to front load complications with character advantages just gets them avoided or ignored. By having the complication arise during play to give an in game advantage means that if you want the resource, you have to play the complication. Great design move, IMO.

This is so elegant!

You take arachnophobia, so that your character is frightened 2 whenever they are aware of a spider within 30ft of them.
But as long as they have this condition, they also get a boon: a free hero point to spend, or something else.
Cool, appropriate, hard to exploit.

So... my spider in a box has total cover so I'm not 'aware' of them. I'll just open that box when I need the boon.

I'm joking, but I prefer no mechanical benefit whatsoever for 'flaws'. I also prefer flaws to be RP based and not mechanics based.

That could be a way to abuse the mechanic, but remember that you are still frightened 2 while you the boon is in effect.

A system like this, at least, prevents people to reap boons while mostly avoiding the consequences of their flaws.


I think the point is that, in encounter mode, characters are often not just running: they need to be on their guard, assess the battlefield, and all that. A triple move is not just a mad dash.

You could argue that sometimes a mad dash is just what you need, and I agree: on another thread I said that a "Run" activity like the one you proposed wasn't a bad idea. But to keep things simpler, what we have is good enough for me.


An average human can move 75ft in six seconds, while watching out for danger. I don't feel like it's such a slow pace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Penthau wrote:

I like the way that Mutants and Masterminds handles complications. They don't give any abilities in return for the flaw. You can take all you want. When the complication causes issues for the character in the game, you get the equivalent of a hero point. If your feeble Aunt June never gets kidnapped, you get nothing.

They explained that allowing people to front load complications with character advantages just gets them avoided or ignored. By having the complication arise during play to give an in game advantage means that if you want the resource, you have to play the complication. Great design move, IMO.

This is so elegant!

You take arachnophobia, so that your character is frightened 2 whenever they are aware of a spider within 30ft of them.
But as long as they have this condition, they also get a boon: a free hero point to spend, or something else.
Cool, appropriate, hard to exploit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You can't make rules to accomodate for any possible circumstances, even less for any possible imagined circumstances since we are talking about fictional characters. It quickly becomes an unplayable mess.

What you can do is leaving the rules open enough that a good GM will be able to handle their particular situation. I think Paizo did this well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mrspaghetti wrote:
Syries wrote:

Nah, lifting a heavy object is definitely an athletics check.

You really think weightlifting doesn't use athletics? c'mon.

So you have a big rock. Can a guy with 10 strength left it better than a guy with 18 strength because he has more experience?

Obviously it is an athletic activity, just not necessarily an Athletics roll.

Well, experience does count.

My cousin is not a frail girl, but I'm definitely stronger than her. Yet, thanks to her firefighter training, she can put an 80kg dummy on her shoulders with little effort, while the one time I tried I absolutely could not do that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's incredible how some people can be so dismissive of others experiences, explicitly calling them BS, just because they consider themselves 'morally better' for some reason.
Well, not incredible after all: I have seen that a lot of times, actually, and I'm not talking about Internet forums. But it still shocks me sometimes.

Besides... like I said and repeated on another thread that derailed towards the same kind of offenses, considering a monster as such when playing a board game is not a good reason for being called a racist!
It could be that they are, but it could be not. And then you are applying the same kind of blanket ban that you are saying you are against. Please, don't try to argue that you know better: you don't. I know the people I play with much better than you do, and I know what I think much, much better than you do.
People may like a campaign setting where there are no innately-evil races, and the same people may also enjoy playing another old-school campaign setting where orcs are just kill-on-sight xp-bags evil monsters. That's not badwrongfun, and most importantly, that does not make them a bunch of racists.

Also, I keep reading that humanoid races are people, they have free will and all. Now, why can't something be inherently evil like a demon just because it has got a shape with two arms and two legs? Demons are evil and chaos incarnate, true, but being a fantasy setting and all that, there may well be biological, magical or divine reasons that make all orcs evil, with just a few exceptions.
(About there not being evil-aligned races... please check the bestiary. For example, I see three gnoll entries, and they are all marked as CE. I'm not saying that there are only evil gnolls on Golarion, but clearly their kin is evil-oriented.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I forgot.
Another thing I find rather strange is that playing an assassin is something that is mostly accepted at any table, but playing a rapist is absolutely not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd start with a high level dragon for general stats and abilities, and poach some hydra special moves - besides giving it different breath weapon options of course.


Yeah, sorry, I wasn't considering the AC bonus from magic armor.
It makes more sense with that one.


Ravingdork wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
OK so you can carry 2 half empty waterskin for a weight of LL. But is there a rule saying a half empty waterskin has enough water for half a day?

Not a problem; every 24 hours I take one half-full waterskin, empty into another one, and guzzle down the resulting full waterskin. My encumbrance spikes for a moment, but I'm in camp so who cares?

Note that this technique can be generalized to carrying N waterskins each (N-1)/N filled with water. Each day you pour 1/N of a skin from the last waterskin into the first non-empty one, then guzzle the resulting full skin. Lasts you N-1 days and you only ever (between camps) have N*L encumbrance at most!

While this would obviously be an incredibly bogus thing to do, the reasons have nothing to do with the math not working.

lol. Reminds me of the commoner rail gun.

I created a monster.

Excellent! :D


Ravingdork wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
T'Challa wrote:
Wearing leather armor starts being sub-optimal when your Dex goes to 20 or higher. If you are a rogue with a 22 or 24 Dexterity, should you go back to wearing nothing at all? You get more AC that way, but miss out on Runes.
Runes can be etched onto adventurer's clothing.
Sure, but that has a max DeX cap too, does it not?

It does: +5.

It feels a bit weird to me that a full-dex character (even a Fighter) may arguably have better defenses with no armor, not even explorer clothing, on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
...waterskin (L)...
And as a bonus on top, the waterskin is only L if it is empty. ;)
IMO, that's the biggest 'sleight of hand' done in the Bulk system: you look at the bulk totals of the pregens and some don't LOOK too bad until you think 'who goes out with an empty waterskin?' Once you correctly change that 1L to 1B, the numbers look a LOT less good. IMO, the waterskin should list the bulk as 1B and then make a note that if emptied it counts as L. The way it is now, it's just begging for intentional and unintentional miscounting of bulk totals.

Keep your waterskin almost full, so that it doesn't go to 1B and stays L.


Well, using the feat before the roll and not changing the outcome (either because you are hit anyway, or it would have missed you regardless) isn't nice.
But I guess that knowing that I got hit, using the reaction and being told: "Sorry, your +2 is not enough to dodge it" would feel even worse, even though in general the ability is definitely better than in the first case.
Being able to nimble dodge only when you know it would change the outcome is even better, and probably OP.


In before Mathmuse :D

Draco18s wrote:

Yes....a hyperbolic over the top "lets maximize what the system allows" build is a perfect example of "all characters."

You said, "I spent my skills to become good at 50% of things" and the example that ended up at 68% was a hyperfocus on "get all the skills" build. If you discount the 3 (int) and 3 (multiclass) down to a more reasonable level (say, 1 and 1) you get 7 skills. That's 43%.

Yes that's "close to half" but characters kind of need 4-5 skills at trained in order to actually be viable. Having only 2 or 3 more (spread around across 11 options! You've got 121 110 ways to pick those 2 skills, if you've got 3 and 12? 1728 1320 possibilities!) really isn't that extreme.

Conversely, you asked for "I chose not to become good at these 10% of things, even when I tanked my intelligence" and what you got was a max-int rogue, not a min-int rogue. You discount the 3 skills from int and the result is 62%, a FAR cry from 90%

(Corrected in bold because you can't pick the same skill twice)


Xenocrat wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Eh, maybe, but just how much water does it take to get to 80 bulk? Certainly more than you can fit in 20-cubic feet!

In any case, I imagine it's pretty likely you can't cast it on things like water, gases, or the like in 2nd Edition.

One cubic foot of water weighs 62.43 pounds, according to some quick googling. 20 cubic ft would weigh almost 1250 pounds.

This is one time I'm really happy that I use decimal measures.

(I hope that my OT doesn't derail the thread! ;) )


Yeah, it wasn't easy to get the meaning. In fact, I had got it wrong until shroudb gave their explanation.

I think an even easier way to word it is: it's normal distance, but the second diagonal always costs 5ft (and it doesn't count towards the 5/10ft thing).
So for reach you count: 5, 5, 10, 5, 10...

EDIT: or you could even say that the 'free' one is the first, and get the same result.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@SuperBidi:
Of course mine it's an exaggeration.
But over-specialization brings a game not too far from my example: you choose one thing and use every resource at your disposal to become uber-strong in it, up to auto-win, at the expense of everything else.
It can be a fun exercise to build such a character, but to me it would be very boring to play.

EDIT: I have to add that I get your point of view. There's space to increase the difference between specialist and dabblers without getting to some extremes; it's a matter of taste.
My answer was mainly to Sherlock.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Example of play.
DM: "So, a dragon has kidnapped the princess and you are tasked to free her..."
Ranger: "I'm specialized in survival, so I'll track the dragon to find out where they went!"
DM: "The dragon flew away, it's quite hard to track it."
Ranger: "I'm specialized I said, there's no way I can fail the check!"
DM: "Yeah, you are right. So, you track the dragon and find its lair: it's a cave in the mountain."
Barbarian: "Let's rush in!"
DM: "Not so fast: the clever dragon has laid a trap for you."
Rogue: "What's that? No way! I'm specialized in disable device, and I've got all the feats to find traps before I walk on them."
DM: "Yeah, ok. Roll to see if you... ah no, right, you are specialized. No roll, you disable the trap and the group can walk inside the cave with no further risk. Except the dragon itself, of course! It's on guard, ready to char you puny mortals with its fiery breath!"
Barbarian: "I'm specialized in combat, so I crush it. When do we get to the fun part?"
DM: "This was the fun part..."
Ranger: "Really? This game sucks! But let's go on."
DM: "You find the princess, but she is so scared that she doesn't trust you. You have to convince her that you mean no harm."
(silence...)
DM: "Who's got diplomacy?"
(silence...)
Rogue: "Really, no one of us specialized in diplomacy? What the..."
DM: "Ok, you can attempt the check anyway. Let's see your modifiers... oh, are they really so low? Well, folks, there's no way you can convince the princess to trust you. She runs off on her own, trying to make it back to her castle. I'm afraid that there will be no reward for you this time."
Ranger: "This game is really no fun."


I still remember a great stunt I did once with Dispel Magic loaded into a Ring of Counterspells.
That's the spell I would suggest, but as you say, it seems that it doesn't work in second edition because Dispel Magic now doesn't target a creature.


vagabond_666 wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
Temperans wrote:
It's kind of weird that the one item which has traditionally been always better for defense (both irl and in PF) has so few ways to scale for better defense (not talking proficiency).
Is it though?

I'm pretty sure that what that video demonstrates is that One on One:

Reach > Sword & Shield > Sword & No Shield > Trying to wield a weapon that should be used in 2 hands in one hand while holding a shield.
And that bucklers suck.

And also that in mass combat:
Spear & Shield (aka ttwawtsbui2hiohwhas) > Sword & Shield, so long as the Sword & Shield aren't free to move around as they please (so basically PF2 combat ruins this tactic).

And this is actually what ancient history (at least in Europe) tells us: the Roman legions (shortsword and large shield) dominated everything else when they could make use of mobility.

Also, a spear is no good against ranged attacks while a shield is a lifesaver.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a very nice idea!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

25+ critical Success

15 but less than 25 Success
5 but less than 15 Failure
less than 5 Critical Failure
is a very good scale.

Yes it is. I'm not saying that your way of viewing the thing is wrong.

You are viewing possible results from 'below', or from 'above'. It makes sense logically and mathematically.
Others have another point of view: the DC. Thus, +10 and -10 span from that point. That's probably a more 'subjective' point of view, because that's where the result has the biggest jump: from success to failure.
Still, it is the point of view that the developers considered, since it has been the only one that mattered in the previous editions. And they built from there.


This is a point of view.
Mine is that the roller has a slight advantage, because a tie (meeting the DC exactly) becomes a success for them instead. Everything else stays the same.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You can look it in different ways. The fact is that:
15 is success
25 is critical success
5 is critical failure
is simple and elegant.

What it is not is symmetrical, for all the reasons already stated, which are all based on the fact that meeting the exact DC is a success and not a tie.

As Pickles said, it's because the active part (the one making the roll) has a slight advantage built in. That's an old thing, and definitely not a problem as far as I can see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What clothing? You are doing it wrong!

Seriously, I'm pretty sure they are intended to grow with the barbarian.


Even if we agree on the fact that everyone can become a wizard with enough training... level 1 spells won't change their life much.
And I don't think that you can gain wizard levels with just more training.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or just accept that even a spellcaster won't always have the perfect answer to any possible problem.
The group will still have the options of using skills, or brute force.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Possible interpretation: Battle Medicine is an injection of a very strong extract that makes the body react to injuries, if you do it right.
It's quick and effective, but using that again too soon won't work because the receiver won't react well, or at all.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

There a few poins that may matter here.

First, as someone on this forum pointed to me some time ago, it's not 'just bandages': your characters are living in a world full of magic. There may be powerful medicinal extracts and other things that make mundane healing just much better than it is in real life. An healing kit may be stuffed full of those things, along with bandages.

Second, many people view losing HP not as serious injuries, but scratches and flesh wounds, at least until you reach 0. A few rules reinforce this view: the fact that you still still have 100% functionality when down to 1 HP is an old example, and 2e introduces the 'wounded' condition when you stand back up after hitting 0.

Third, the old standard of going back from low HP to full was about poking the injured character a few times (or many times, at higher levels) with a CLW wand. Using a skill to the same effect looks much more interesting IMO.


Automatic scaling to large size would make a companion a problem in some cases, like when you have to leave it out of narrow places. Having to leave out a companion that you use as a mount makes a bit more sense. So, I welcome having a choice, too.

About ponies, why, don't they just become horses when they grow up?
(That's actually a recurrent joke I make to my wife, it gets her mad :D)


I agree with Claxon (yes, I'm spamming a bit about this topic).
Only thing, I'd make the martial weapon training feat give proficiency with a weapon group instead of a single weapon: we've got that classification, but only fighters are using it at the moment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Shield is pretty obvious for a bonus between +1 to +4. Tower shield is unique in that it's +4 bonus is actually from the Take Cover action, not the shield itself. Tower shield might not be worth it as requires one action to raise the shield, then another action to take cover for an additional +2. Upside is that you always have access to cover for +4 reflex. technically per RAW; you should be able to stealth once behind the shield...?

Yes, if you paint the shield to make is look like a bush.

Hide behind the bush and move with it: no one will understand what's going on, guaranteed! Cartoons don't lie...


Making wands invested was a genius idea that was proposed by some of us during the playtest. It solved a lot of problems, but unfortunately wasn't picked up by Paizo.
My own idea was giving wands like 5 charges and requiring resonance investment for the first use everyday; this would probably work quite the same with 1 charge/day and eating up a "permanent item slot".


Arachnofiend wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

A big flaw with the design of the monk in the CRB is that there's really very little in-class which rewards you for investing in wisdom (probably because spell points were converted to focus, which was very limited, too late in the process to develop new monk stuff).

So I could see an option in a later book, whether a stance or a feat or a class archetype that lets you replace "Dex" with "Wis" for Armor Class (can't have both, or it would break the math) up to the Dex limit on your armor.

Of course that changes "you have to invest in dex" to "you have to invest in wis" but you're going to go have to invest in something. The 14/14/14/14/12/10 human is probably not a great character in most classes.

I think I'd prefer a stance (perhaps an archetype) that gives you an unarmed strike that functions as a spell attack. That'd solidify wis-first Monks as a viable option; wis-secondary Monks can be fixed just by printing more ki powers.

Zen Archery stance... interesting idea.


If you stride three times per round as a typical unencumbered human, you move 75ft in 6 seconds.
That's a speed that makes sense when hustling in a combat. For a short sprint you could probably double that, in ideal conditions, so I wouldn't oppose a rule allowing that with some drawbacks (you provoke, and get some penalties if you attack that round) and a feat to ease those drawbacks.
But in general, I think we are fine.


I have read the thread, and read it all again now.
All the racism I see is some sample stereotypes of dwarves, elves and ogres, and a physical consideration about halflings. Considering that dwarves, elves, ogres and halflings do not exist, and even in-game they are different species (so it would be specism, not racism), I didn't learn anything new from this second read through.

If disagreeing with anyone who is calling something racist is being racist yourself, no matter what your or their reasons are, there's really no point in even discussing.
And it's probably true, here, judging from past experiences. There are topics (two, actually) that really should never ever be touched. So don't worry, tomorrow is monday: the thread will be closed soon, our extremely offensive opinions will be censored, and gnomes and orcs will be safe again.


Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

Get them all to hold action, readying to shoot the wands on the leaders command?

Is that still possible in 2E?

It's possible, but you can only use a single action for that. Which means that you need 3x size of your magic missile squad to do the same damage.


Actually, they are already masters with a weapon group since level 5.


Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Megistone wrote:
I'm sorry too, I was curious to know where did he see that astounding racism. Towards ogres, I guess?

I'm curious what races we're talking about. I can only find ancestry in the books.

Do you think dragons deal with this?
Like gold discriminate silver dragons because they're typically less 'oomph'. Or hunt red dragons just for being red dragons, not because they're evil and eat your family. Is it racist to assume red dragons are evil?

Seems so. They are people, too. And expecially, not less (nor more) intelligent then the others.


I'm sorry too, I was curious to know where did he see that astounding racism. Towards ogres, I guess?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

It's kind of strange how people keep saying it's useless after 13th because something else that requires entirely different stats does a thing better. If anything, medium and heavy armor becomes better later on since they get more options for materials and specific armors. I agree the trained medium/heavy armor is weaker, but once you hit that AC cap from it, it stays the same until 20. The only thing 13th does is boost your numbers if you stick to the class' cookie cutter build path. The exception mostly shows in classes that go master proficiency or higher. A barbarian for example, gets much better medium numbers than heavy because he goes to master. But so far, only four classes hit master.

All the pure casters can focus on non dex or even non str/dex because they don't really need those stats outside AC/skills.
Non-optimal options, but if we stuck to that, we'd still be playing dex dervish with scimitars on everything that isn't using power attack.

So the classes that hit master are left out. The wizard who wants to use a sling is left out. The strength rogue who wants medium armor is left out. And I still don't know why it's being deemed necessary, and what having auto-scaling general feats would break.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Megistone wrote:
There's no point in having ancestries if they are all equal.
Counterpoint- you can give all ancestries the option to have just 2 free stat boosts (like humans) and differentiate them from each other via heritages and ancestry feats. Of the things that tell us what an ancestry is, the stat adjustments are kind of the least important part. We could completely eliminate the difference in stat boosts and nothing important would be lost.
What is the functional difference between "x race is stronger than y race" and "x race is faster than y race"? If you level stats to avoid problems that just shifts it down the line. Humans are more adaptable than other races, elves are fragile, every one else is dumber than gnomes because gnomes get 3 languages etc.

You nailed it.

I was exaggerating in my post, but if you start saying that giving different average attributes is not ok because it leans toward racism, it's a slippery slope from there to the zombie rights league.

EDIT: I'll add that the attribute scores of an individual don't come from their DNA only. If you didn't get any school, it's more likely that you didn't develop your intellect to its full potential; conversely, if your society only raises the fittest children and throws the frail ones down from a cliff, you probably have a buff in constitution. Nothing racist there, just how your ancestry does things... with all the exceptions you may want to play, that the game fully supports.

1 to 50 of 458 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>