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.
To the point that any character only does one single thing for their whole carreer. Boring.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
I created a monster.Excellent! :D
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.
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.
In before Mathmuse :D
(Corrected in bold because you can't pick the same skill twice)
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).
EDIT: or you could even say that the 'free' one is the first, and get the same result.
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.
Example of play.
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.
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.
You can look it in different ways. The fact is that:
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.
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?
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.
Zen Archery stance... interesting idea.
If you stride three times per round as a typical unencumbered human, you move 75ft in 6 seconds.
I have read the thread, and read it all again now.
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.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Seems so. They are people, too. And expecially, not less (nor more) intelligent then the others.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
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.
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.