Hakotep I

Minos Judge's page

* Pathfinder Society GM. 114 posts (115 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 26 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Why would they not be treated as a Kasatha with a rifle in 2 hands and a hand weapon in one hand? The Kasatha can shoot the rifle and use the hand weapon when you get too close or provoke an AOO.
The Naur do not wield their horns with their hands. I can see the problem of the Vesk having their hands full with a rifle. However looking at the rules, quickly, I do not see where you cannot take swift actions as part of a reaction; I.E. releasing one hand from a rifle to use it for an AOO. I could be missing something here AND I AM NOT SAYING THAT THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.


I am leveling a Paladin and find it lacking. I do not have an idea as to what I am fighting so I feel that I should take the Devine Grace. Now once I do that I am locked out of getting bonuses to fighting Undead or Dragons.
This may just be my misunderstanding but it seems that you decide very early what you are going to do and once that decision is made you do not have to make another except for choosing from a limited amount of feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They did address this in the FAQ. I am sorry that I missed it the first time I checked it out.

Page 197—In the Spell chapter, in Spell Attacks, in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”

I still believe that they should use the spell casting mod. I like Vic's idea of getting rid of TAC at that time.


I would also like to see this clarified.

I would like to know where you see that a spell attack requires Str or Dex modifers. Neither page 9 nor 291 state that you have to use str or dex for an attack roll.

I have played the previous addition for several years and think that they may have changed it from how it was to this new version using your "Spell Roll" to determine if you hit.

They have done other minor changes and this may be one of them.

My reasoning being that they do not define a "touch attack" as it was clearly defined in PF1.


What about facehuggers in Aliens?


The drawback to fewer weapons is if you get a glitch. If you have fewer weapons then they get wrecked easier.


I played this yesterday and I am trying to figure out how to get Roidiran Phantom? Did I miss something. It calls for an ability that the Spiritualist I do believe has. However it says they can do something to capture the spirit. How are you supposed to know what to do?


I tried this and it was pointed out to me that Glorymane's jealous would require an EGO check until you roll a 1 and it would force you to discard the other intelligent items, for at least 24 hours.

This is how the rules in the core book on pages 535-536 was explained to me.


Yes that is true. However they show pictures of a Gnome with an eagle/hawk of medium size. This is what I am looking for not something that cannot fit into a house.


Flying Caviler. That is one that I cannot make. Tried with a druid to get the flying mount and was unable to stack the feats correctly, also tough to get the right sized mount to do much unless you are tiny. Using a bird.


What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

This is the FAQ. It seems that they can always tell who is doing the ability in question. I would like to know if what skills can be used to mask the manifestation.


I want to know would a caster be able to disguise this with a good bluff or slight-of-hand skill? I am asking because they do not spell out how the manifestation should be represented. They flashing blue lights of the psychic, the enlarged eyes of the mesmerist, etc.


Snorb wrote:
"All right, let's see your character sheet, Greg... oh. Look at that. Five 18s and 20 Strength. But that's okay because Amy signed off on that! Now, let's see Amy's cleric... whaddyaknow. 20 Wisdom and 18s across the board, but it's kosher because Greg saw you roll your stats!"

Wish I could favorite twice!


tsuruki wrote:

How did he get an advanced firearm? Isnt that the main cuse of the issue here?

Gunslingers get exponentially more powerful everytime they gain access to a new method to bypass reloading. Multiple guns, quickdraw, weapon cords, many many magical items, advanced firearms, double guns. Advanced firearms especially are crazy.

One time I played a homebrew alchemist that got firearm profiency, thats essentially the gist of the archertype. With just double pistols (a whole 8 of them) I made everyone else look like a chump when it came to dealing damage.

.

One way to deal with this is to modify your encounter design. Try flooding the team with weak foes before you reveal the big bads, undead minions are especially good for this. By the time the real bad guy finally becomes a viable target the gunslinger will have expended a lot of ammo and must reload at some point during the fight. In other words this problem can be dealt with by adding more expendable HP to your fights.

Yes that is exactly the problem. However they would rather re-work a class then deal with the easy solutions.

The other problem is that they do not like the designed flaws for the class. So they have basically made Gunslingers a short range archer.


Sits in a drawer waiting for the next time adventure calls.


The Ifrit does work best with the sorceror Elemental (fire) bloodline. This adds 2 to the CL or 2 to your charisma score for spell casting.


Bandw2 wrote:

if we want to apply real world logic to guns, they shouldn't be reloading them in a few seconds...

and 1/2 BAB gives them a d6 for HD, not very gritty of pa person anymore. :P

I never apply real world logic to a game, where dragons can fly. Other people do so I was trying to appease to them.

The HD argument I was ignoring; because the other solutions were to re-work most of the class. I was trying to offer an easier solution then that. Also this is for house rules, so you can ignore certain constraints. Plus I feel that this is what they should have done, and not feel constrained to keep things the way they are because that is how it has always done.


Cyrad wrote:

My house rules only change touch attacks for firearms. However, my analysis of them did lead me to change an ability of one of my homebrew classes so it uses a normal ranged attack.

Touch attacks aren't as problematic for full spellcasters because they were specifically designed for them. As I explain in more detail in my blog article, touch attacks were designed so wizards could hit armored targets with spells at higher levels. They're a band-aid for a flaw in the base attack bonus system. The limited use of spells and alchemist bombs keep those touch attacks in check. Difficulty in doing iterative attacks is also a major balancing factor. However, Ultimate Combat firearms give a mechanic designed for 1/2 BAB classes to a full BAB martial incentivized to min-max Dexterity.

My house rules do replace a few deeds and rework others. For example, quick clear got replaced with an...

I mostly play PFS so my answers will be slightly biased. I have rarely run out of spells or bombs. Usually the fights last only a couple of rounds and it is very hard to use up all of your resources.

This reply cut off some of your answer.

Cyrad wrote:
Misfires are critical failure mechanics driven into the game. If a misfire happens, the gun breaks. A gunslinger has to waste a move action and a grit point to undo it. If it happens on a full-attack, then you're just screwed for two rounds. It's an unfun game mechanic meant as a clutch to balance the broken firearm touch attacks.

A misfire does not break the gun. It takes 2 misfires to break a weapon. If you use the quick-clear grit action it is cleared as a Standard or a Move action if you spend the grit point.

It also should appeal to all the people who want to apply "real world" to the game. I consider it an approach to handle the fouling of the weapon from poor black-powder, not a mechanic forced into the game.

The sense I get from talking to people is that it is the full BAB with touch attack that causes some problems. Why not place it at 1/2 BAB? This would still be a minimum change vrs. re-working a lot of the class. I used that feature to take other feats then the standard Point Blank and precise shot. This allows me to be more variable then standard range characters. If you modify that then it is just an archer with more expensive arrows and shorter range.


Cyrad wrote:

It was a mistake to give him a rifle, but both the general (and OP's) problem with them extends to their broken touch attack mechanic.

I honestly just recommend discussing it with the player. The reason I implemented my houserules in the first place was because my player got really sick of misfires. He felt like it made his character too binary -- either he's a god or he's useless. So, I analyzed the problem, came up with a solution, and presented it as a deal. I take away touch attacks and in exchange, I make misfires mostly a non-factor and buff the gunslinger in other ways. He never regretted it.

There are multiple problems that I see arising. One problem is how do you address the Touch Attack abilities of other classes? The Alchemist has touch attack bombs/splash weapons, also rays for wizards and sorcerers.

How do you handle the deeds? Did you just replace the non-relevant ones or did you just ignore them?

I would also have to ask how it is mechanically different from a mis-fire to just missing?


I hate to repeat what others have said; however changing a lot of what the guns do does not make sense. You will be instituting house rules to cover for something that is OPed. You will also still be changing his character in a substantial way that will impede how he is played. This may impact the players continued involvement with that class. Especially if he feels that you are making changes to the game that are directed at him.

You would be better served to just admit that it was a mistake to allow advanced firearms. That 1 change will reduce the amount of damage he does without changing most of the abilities.

I play a Musket Master Gunslinger and will admit that the misfire chance of 20% (10% musket + 10% alchemical cartridge) has stopped most of my attacks. I do not have any feat that reduces the misfire chance as of yet.

This will also means he misses more. High BAB vrs low Touch AC: he will still miss when he misfires.


I play PFS at 3 locations; at one location I prefer to exclusively play, at the second I prefer to exclusively GM and at the third I do either as required to get as many people playing as needed.

I HATE HATE HATE having the place where I play or the place where I GM need me to do the other. In the case of where I GM I have already prepared for the game by reading the scenario and drawing the maps.
The place that I am playing means that I do not have anything ready to go and am not in the correct frame of mind to run a game.

The third location I sorta prep something and hope to play. Not the best but still better then nothing.

I do not enjoy GMing because I can always see where I made the mistake. I will nit pick the little things that I forgot even after I have prepped everything. I hate the pressure that I place on myself and always feel that I let the players down. Unless it runs perfectly(i.e. players follow the clues and the encounters are effective.)


Andrew Christian wrote:

I haven't played that level yet, so I dont know how you gain knowledge of what's there. So please correct me if my assumptions are wrong.

1) I'd question how they even knew the bad guy was there, and how did they know it would be amenable to diplomacy, and how did they know it would fit their faction card?

2) this sound a lot like OOC knowledge being used for character benefit.

3) this sounds a lot like meta-gaming.

I'd be very suspicious that the player has played, read, and/or run the nodule before, and I wouldn't allow them to blatantly, essentially cheat, to do this.

Basically, its up to the GM to nip stuff like this in the bud!

1) You are informed someone is there. It was logical to assume that it would meet the requirements.

2 & 3) It was.

The real problem was that he blurted out what he wanted to do and the BBB responded with "Tell me more". He then locked himself in a room with it and negotiated the deal.

It was a complete dick move, but legal by the actions.


Take the Elan.

I would also really look at the Cha. I play one and use cha. as a dump stat. It dose not hurt as long as you do not want any of the exploits that require it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Bombs
2) Bombs
3) Bo...... Wait. What? we are not talking about the coolest class ever?
....
Oh....

1) Bows
2) Arrows
3) .............

I got nothing.

Have fun ;)


kinevon wrote:
Minos Judge wrote:
trollbill wrote:

Player 1: What does your character bring to the table?

Player 2: I cast fireball.
Player 1: What do you do when fireball isn't a good choice?
Player 2: When is fireball not a good choice?

I am still waiting on an answer!!!!!! I usually prefer lightening based spells.

I can even see his puzzled expression.

Really did make me laugh out loud.

Answer: When everything but your party is immune to fire/lightning.

Played it. Kinda sucked having my Arcanist do nothing but Echo Shout for 3 hrs of PFS. <Sigh>

I also had cold and acid. They had either resistance 10 or immunity to all of my attacks. Only sonic could get them and I had only 1 sonic attack.


mourge40k wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
edit: wow, i got a favorite in less than like 2 minutes... This is my way of shaming people into stopping the thread. works like 20% better than telling people to stop.
Yeah, if it's anything like my throw-away "why is this really a question that needs to be asked?" post on the first page, you're going to get a lot more.

The problem with that post was that it did not provide any answer. It was just a response without any context. Therefore irrelevant to the thread in question.

Plus with over half the thread being about the question and not overly-derailed. It obviously needs to be answered.


James Risner wrote:
Minos Judge wrote:
I have still not seen anything to support the stance that you fall prone and are disarmed. Nothing that is supported by a single rule.

If you are serious then here:

Quote:

Slumber (Su) is as per sleep

sleep says "causes a magical slumber"
Dictionary says "slumber" is "a sleep" or "sleep"
sleep also says "Sleeping creatures are helpless" and "does not target unconscious creatures"
Summary: You are now unconscious and helpless. Whether you stand or not is dependent on whether or not your interpretation of falling asleep and unconscious makes you prone and disarmed.

Thank you for the answer.

And again Unconscious is not used as a condition that results from the spell. If they wanted it to be there they could have listed it very easy or just said that you use that condition only. Especially considering that unconscious makes you helpless. That is part of the result of being unconscious.


Melkiador wrote:
Minos Judge wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
The really condemning thing is that the Sleep spell didn't have to call out Helpless. Helpless itself lists Sleeping as being a cause of Helpless.
It called out Helpless after saying they go into magical slumber, which is defined as "a sleep". The target is sleeping and helpless. Whether they are standing while sleeping or prone depends on your interpretation.
One is a condition. One is not. "a Sleep" is never defined as a condition.
Helpless and Prone are "conditions", as they are in the Glossary. Sleeping is listed in Helpless as a cause of Helpless, but otherwise not in RAW other than its use in spells and effects.

This is why I object to the idea that people keep trying to use it in answers. Sleep is used repeatedly to describe things without ever going into detail as to what they intend. This is a problem. They can say anything they want until they put something in writing. Then they have to be sure that it says what they want it to.


James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
The really condemning thing is that the Sleep spell didn't have to call out Helpless. Helpless itself lists Sleeping as being a cause of Helpless.
It called out Helpless after saying they go into magical slumber, which is defined as "a sleep". The target is sleeping and helpless. Whether they are standing while sleeping or prone depends on your interpretation.

One is a condition. One is not. "a Sleep" is never defined as a condition.


I have still not seen anything to support the stance that you fall prone and are disarmed. Nothing that is supported by a single rule. Everything has been based off of what they believe the intent of the designers is.

I have now even seen people arguing that maybe you should take damage.

Now the thread has degenerated into arguing what RAW means.


James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
No. RAW is Rules as Written. There is only one RAW.

Sigh.

Simply not true. No matter how much you want it to be.

You are inserting an interpretation that says "Despite being unconscious, they stand rigidly and grip items tightly."

I am inserting an interpretation that says "Use normal real world understand of what happens when you go unconscious."

Both are interpreting the RAW.

Sigh.

You are adding the condition of "unconscious". The spell uses the condition of "helpless". There can be no debate as to which conditions are stated. The debate is over the use of the term "magically induced slumber". This is NOT a condition. Slumber and sleep are not listed as conditions, however they are used repeatedly throughout the CRB to describe things, without ever being properly clarified in the texts.


James Risner wrote:
Minos Judge wrote:
we realized that there were many minor things that we had been assuming that were not supported by RAW.
There is no such thing as One True RAW. There are lots of interpretations of what the rules say. I'm fine with you saying the rules say sleeping people stand and hold their objects. I've just never seen that interpretation in my life, ever. Including on a forum post.

I can accept this as a given.

James Risner wrote:
My RAW is you go prone and you drop your stuff.

This however I cannot accept. This is clearly a case of RAI ruling by you. RAW only takes what is written and uses it in your argument. Not what somebody wished it to say.

Also do you rule that they take damage when they fall? If not why not? If you are going to make a ruling then you have to be willing to deal with all of the consequences. Do you believe that it is the same as going unconscious? I Could accept this, but that is not the case as per RAW. It is clearly differentiated by the way it is listed in the conditions.

James Risner wrote:
It comes down to permissive or non-permissive. It comes down to do you think the RAW must include every corner case and if not covered, it doesn't happen. Or do you think they assume you will make reasonable extrapolations. The developers have said too many times to count that they do assume you will extrapolate and the rules would need to be significantly larger if they didn't assume so.

I do not believe that this case of permissive or non-permissive. This is a case of changing how some classes are being played. Others have stated that it tones down the slumber hex from the Witch and changes how low level games are being played. This means that there should be no table variation. If you were to show up at my table you would be expecting your characters to do certain things, if I have other interpretations you will be either surprised or disappointed. Your character will not work as you expect.

This is what I like to avoid. This is why I try to only argue RAW. I do not like to argue what anybody intended. I do not have the same mind set as the designers, if I did I would then be comfortable stating their views.
The views that have been attributed to them are not something that I would desire to have stated of me. I can accept being wrong, however they feel that rules open to exploitation is the best thing in certain cases. I have trouble supporting that stance.


James Risner wrote:
Minos Judge wrote:
Nice logic, until you ignore EVERYONE who has SEEN and posted about somebody asleep on their feet.

Fair enough. How about "in every game I've played since 1984 every GM and player immediately assumed prone when someone fell asleep".

I supposed since you assume otherwise, had I been at your table I would have experience my first table variance on this subject.

This may sound like I am antagonizing you, because tone is hard to do through typing.

You mean sense 1984 nobody read what the book said and just assumed that it did more then it says? I have played longer and will admit that until somebody new came into the game and asked why we did something I was in the same school of thought as you. However when we actually started re-reading the rules, we realized that there were many minor things that we had been assuming that were not supported by RAW.

What I am gleaning from this is that people go into the game with preconceived notions and no amount of showing the rules will change their view point. That is too bad I have had to adjust my view point when people have shown me that the RAW dose not support my view. I do not understand why people will argue RAW for some rules and then for something like this they argue RAI. (I also dispute that they intended for it to do what people have ruled it to do.)

I have also had people point out that Sleep is a very OPed spell and then STILL argue against the view point that if you followed RAW that it would be on par with other spells of its level.

I will wait for next month when this question comes up again and ask the same questions again and still get no clear answer to hopfully bring more people into the light of RAW. ;)


James Risner wrote:
FLite wrote:
basically, the arguement is that unlike (for example) the stunned condition, unconsious does not say you drop what you hold, nor does it say you fall to the ground.

The reason stunned says you drop is because I might be stunned at witnessing someone say something rude. But it doesn't make me drop things I'm holding. In Pathfinder being stunned is more severe than in real life.

But in real life, when you go to sleep you don't keep standing (no one does) and you may or may not be able to hold onto your things. Most tv/film use people holding something to make a noise if they drop it to keep them awake.

Basically, it wasn't included in unconscious for the same reason they don't have a line in dead condition telling you that you can't walk, talk and fight while dead.

Nice logic, until you ignore EVERYONE who has SEEN and posted about somebody asleep on their feet. Other then ignoring that you almost have a point. Except that you then point out that the condition Stun has a more serious result in game then in life. So the results only go one way? They could not have a less serious result?


Lincoln Hills wrote:

There actually is a seldom-noticed line in the rulebook which the GM can use to resolve these sorts of rules questions.

Core Rulebook, p. 440: "The Material Plane [...] operates under the same set of natural laws that our own real world does."

(Not that the rulebook does particularly well emulating that elsewhere, but that's where "specific trumps general" comes in handy. And it's hard to imagine a more general statement than the one above.)

I am going to make the assumption that you believe that the sleep spell makes you prone and disarmed.

Now ignoring all of the points about RAW.

The problem with the statement made on P.440 is that some of us have seen things like a roommate who sleeps standing up. Not for 8 hours, but for easily the duration of the spell in question. We have also seen people standing watches who were asleep standing up. Now I personally cannot do this, I have to have a horizontal surface to sleep on. However that dose not help at all with the balance of power that this spell has.
Color Spray, which is considered to be equivalent, lasts for rounds and gets progressively less effective.
Sleep lasts for minutes. It also according to some inflects at least 2 if not 3 conditions[Helpless(all agree, prone(some agree) and disarmed(this is newly listed and I had not seen it listed before)]

Now I am not counting player actions that can impact this, because then you have to count for bad dice rolls and I am strictly looking at what is listed.


lemeres wrote:


EDIT: Minos Judge, you forgot to tell her about the bombs.

I knew there was something I forgot. ;)

Also if you pick up random splash weapons while adventuring you get to add your Int modifier to the damage. Just like you do with BOMBS!

In PFS ,y lvl 2 beat a lvl 7 Boss with all the alchemist fire we picked up. Had to play up because of the other high lvl players who all failed their fear checks or just got pummeled into lala land.

I will say this though if you have no interest in bombs there is always poison. However the bomb mechanic is the most interesting to me. The Mutagens allow you to make some changes to your character on the fly.


1) Bombs
2) No Arcane fail chance for med armor
3) Good skill list and points to utilize them
4) Bombs
5) Mutagen to give a stat boost when you really need it
6) Discoveries that are unique(i.e. extra limbs)
7) Combine extracts. Used to make to potions take effect at the same time.
8) Did I mention Bombs?


Kudaku wrote:


I gotta say I don't really understand the reasoning here. What do you mean with "EVERYTHING is on you"?

Every time I have been made prone. I have just gotten pummeled. You trigger an AOO for almost every action that you can do. My best action to date is to go full defense and hope that the rest of the party kills them before they attack me again.

I have had a bad GMPC with heavy armour move out of the way to get the non-sentient dog to charge me at the back of the party. PFS needed 4 to play and only had 3.

I have been beaten trying to stand-up and pick up my weapons to attack( learned to carry twice as many weapons as needed to by-pass that AOO)

You are -4 to AC against melee +4 for range; however I am usually based so that is not relevant most of the time.

I hate that I seem to have no good options. Most conditions you have no control and you just go with it. This one just makes me pick how I want to suffer.


trollbill wrote:

Player 1: What does your character bring to the table?

Player 2: I cast fireball.
Player 1: What do you do when fireball isn't a good choice?
Player 2: When is fireball not a good choice?

I am still waiting on an answer!!!!!! I usually prefer lightening based spells.

I can even see his puzzled expression.

Really did make me laugh out loud.


When I mess this up I will blame you:)

Kudaku wrote:
Bit of a leap, not a reach. :)

Sorry my mistake.

Kudaku wrote:

I don't think I'm ignoring the rule for picking up items from a ground, I'm suggesting instead applying an alternate rule that I think is more applicable to how I envision the situation. Drawing a weapon states that the weapon needs to be within easy reach. I think that if you wanted to, you can make a reasonable argument that the weapon dropped while falling prone could be within easy reach. Whether or not it actually is within easy reach would depend on the GM. YMMV.

Two quick questions for you: Consider this image. What kind of action would the archer depicted on the far left need to to draw an arrow from the ground? What about the archer to his immediate right, who keeps his arrows in his belt?

I would have to say that they would use whatever action it normally is, because they set up a special circumstance. They intentionally set things up to be easier. They also did not drop it while they were effected by sleep. When you drop them in an uncontrolled manner then you would say that they provoked attacks. The reason being that they have to look around and figure out where the weapons in question are located. Even if they are close by they are still not where you last had them.

Kudaku wrote:
I prefer prone to disarmed because prone is character-neutral. Disarming is more of a hassle for characters that expect to hold two items or wield two weapons. TWF users have it bad enough as it is.

I HATE prone. While asleep you cannot control what happens. When prone EVERYTHING is on you. Posted it in "things that get you shunned"


I have a friend who refuses to play with anything that is not fully optimized. He will not put a single skill point from a fighter into anything that dose not make him a better killing machine. This makes it harder when the rest of the group has points put into face skills and are less then fully optimized. You might consider lower your optimization into the level of the rest of group. If you notice everyone else has social skills and you do not maybe take a couple and see how it works out for you.

Ok to look at the last post you are going to make all your social skills which will continue the trend of him not liking your characters. Try a more balanced approach.


I find the condition "PRONE" to be the most annoying possible circumstance to be in as a character. If you are helpless you have no control. Make your save and then carry on. If you are rendered Unconscious, Whelp nothing for you to do but wait. If you are dead, well then you just make a new character and troop on. Only in prone is everything that follows based directly on your actions. Stand up: get hit, crawl away: get hit, sit there doing nothing: get hit on their next turn and have everyone b&!!+ at you about not helping them at all.


I am not as skilled in parsing out the sections I want without re-posting everything in the text. So here goes.

Whereas it may seem "like a bit of a reach for you" you are ignoring the rule that explicitly stats that you provoke when picking up an item form the ground. Anything else is strictly done at the GM wish and i do not see how you can say any different.

Plus you are still rendering them prone. If you do not render them prone it will tone back how powerful/annoying that you feel it is. It will still be very useful but not overwhelm encounters.


Kudaku wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
LazarX wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Option 2: Cast a 1 round slumber on a TWF fighter. He falls to the ground and drops both swords. A round later he wakes up and loses his entire second round as he tries to pick up one sword (provoking) and then the other sword (provoking), and then he loses half of his third round as he stands up (provoking). If he survives being asleep for a round and then survives THREE AoOs, he can finally attack with just one of his weapons.

Or he can choose not to play like an idiot. He can simply get up... picking up ONE sword as part of the move action given that he has a BAB of 1 or higher. And be ready to fight only having to endure ONE single AOO and no rounds of delay, assuming hopefully the AOO doesn't bring him down.

He may not be fighting at his optimal two handed best, but he's still a fighter, and he has his iteratives and any other tricks he's learned.

Where in the rules does it say that you can pick up a weapon as part of standing up?

For that matter, why wouldn't he pick up both given that the rule for drawing while moving allows you to draw 2 weapons with TWF, assuming what you said is RAW and based of the move+draw rules?

1. You can draw a weapon as part of a move action. I would consider picking up the weapon lying along side you as the same as drawing.
Not quite accurate - you can draw a weapon as part of a charge (provided you move less than half your speed) or "as part of a regular move". That specifically means when you use your move action to make a 'move', to move your speed. With that said, I think ruling that you are able to pick up the weapon you dropped while falling unconscious as part of the action to stand back up is a reasonable call. Barring extenuating circumstances (flying, fighting on a ramp or in a staircase) the weapon would have fallen straight down and landed close to your hand anyway.

The problem with that ruling is that you are ignoring the rule that states you provoke a AOO when you pick up a fallen item.

SO you change the conditions imposed on you by one spell and then you have to ignore the rules in order to make it more balanced. That makes even less sense to me then not imposing extra conditions on a character to begin with.

Plus you now have to decide where the weapon has fallen so how would you determine that?


It does not change the type of action that you can take. It takes a standard to take a "ready" action. However if you have used the swift action already it will not trigger. It will activate and then nothing will happen, because you cannot exceed the 1 swift action per turn.


Oddman80 wrote:
Option X: You fall prone, and anything you were holding in your hands stays in your hands, but are no longer being clenched. Any Disarm maneuvers done against the sleeping target are vs. a DC of 10 +/- any applicable size modifiers. When the target awakes, they are not considered to be wielding any held weapons or shields until their turn in the initiative order (i.e., if they are woke due to taking damage, they would not be able to use their weapons for Attacks of Opportunity until their turn in the initiative order comes back around).

Why are you adding more complexity to a situation.

Ok your hands are full, but you do not count as having your weapons in your hands.

Plus you still have to deal with all the AOO if you make the mistake of surviving and then doing anything.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Minos Judge wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Personally, I would allow a TWFer to pick up his weapons just like he draws them—in the same action—but that's just me.
The problem with this solution is that it is TOTALLY against the rules. It was a situation caused by not following RAW and then you have to change a rule to have it appear as more balanced?

Not really. It's how I would read any "I just got double-disarmed" situation.

I am confused. You would allow them to not use the rules and just pick them up? The rules state that you have to spend a move action to pick up the weapons individually as per table 8-2.


Asleep or awake it is still a CR3 creature.

Would he have ruled that you did not get full exp for making a CR3 human fighter sleep by using the spell?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:


1. You can draw a weapon as part of a move action. I would consider picking up the weapon lying along side you as the same as drawing.

2. I'm not that grounded in the rules for two weapon drawing, so I went conservative.

1. Picking up provokes a AOO. It is listed as a separate action from drawing a weapon which does not provoke an AOO.

2. Nothing here


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Personally, I would allow a TWFer to pick up his weapons just like he draws them—in the same action—but that's just me.

The problem with this solution is that it is TOTALLY against the rules. It was a situation caused by not following RAW and then you have to change a rule to have it appear as more balanced?

That to me is the main problem with people not following RAW they have to modify the next ruling to compensate or worse they complete throw out the rules and just try to appease people at the table to overcompensate for something that should have never arisen.

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>