Mirror, Mirror's page

People should really start using the "search" function for these message boards.

There's about 10 other threads completely dedicated to complaining about the Human Sorcerer Favored Class bonus. Post in one of those.

And now that I have spent a bloody hour LOOKING for said threads, could someone be so kind as to put a link in? It does not appear to be in the General forum or the Paizo products forum. "APG Sorcerer" and "Alt Favored Class" doesn't bring up anything meaningful in the search function either.

At least tell me what to search for, please?

My larger issue, though, is that the bonus blows out of the water any other FC bonus. HP or SP? No thanks, Ill take another SPELL, thank you.

First of all, thanks to Paizo for the APG. It's a great read and I enjoyed meeting James, Jason, Erik, Lisa, and everyone else at GenCon.
/fanboygush

Now, the human alt FC option for Sorcerers. WTF!! I must be reading it wrong, because it sounds a lot like every level a human sorcerer has the option of adding a spell to his list of spells known as long as it is at least 1 level lower than the max level he can cast.

Which, ignoring cantrips, effectively adds 17 spells known to the sorcerer. IMO, that's just TOO good. Sorcerers have always had issues with the whole "known" list, and they are not on par with Wizards in terms of varied utility spells, but an additional 2 spells at every level (sans 9th) goes a long way towards evening those odds. Especially with spont casting.

Now, I may be wrong in my reading of the ability, or there may be a misprint. If someone knows something I don't, could they please steer me in the correct direction? Thanks.

Wizard vs Summoner in AMF...Summoner wins!

Not that anybody really cares, but there IS an absolute advantage, regardless of the comparitive value of said advantage.

Take a Summoner and a Druid in that same AMF, however, and the Druid is better off (AnCom is not a spell, SLA, or SU).

The Eidolon/SLA nerf was harsh, as was the Linked item bit. However, I am fairly certain I can create a Summoner that can compete even under those restrictions. You just can't do the same thing you were thinking of before. Which IS a bit disappointing.

I would put a Standard, Improved, and Greater version with the corresponding Vital Strike feat as a pre-req.

Thus, for the Supreme Vital Striker, you absolutly NEED 6 feats to accomplish your goal. 6 feats is a pretty big feat tax (more than even TWFing), so I think that balances things out.

Personally, I have been leaning towards allowing VS to add 50% of non-dice damage, rounded down. Then IVS would add 100%, and GVS would add 150%. The result is a quad roll with 2.5x the bonus damage, which is still not as good as a full attack, especially with haste, but good enough to be more useful to Fighters and other full BAB classes.

VS is best when being used by a partial BAB character using a weapon with very high dice damage, especially if the character in question does NOT have other damage modifiers.

Druids tend to be good examples. A wolf has a single attack and high mobility, but no pounce. For a Druid in wolf form (med, large, or huge), VS is a pretty good attack overall. That single secondary attack (until hery high levels, when you are no longer WSing into wolves) will likely miss, but you can trip your opponent and move away next round to bound around the battlefield.

Alternatively, you could also become a giant ape, swing an appropriately sized club, and cast shilleligh on it. Now the club is 4d6, VS for 8d6. Since that secondary attack is unlikely to hit after things like Power Attack, you are probably better off swinging through trees, climbing obsticles, and taking one big swing every round.

Finally, Monk's NEED VS. FoB is a full round attack, and is already a good attack form. VS lets the monk use their superior mobility to get into position and hit HARD with that stunning fist. And after the Monk's Robe and Superior Unarmed Strike (if To9S feats are allowed), the base monk damage is great. Now the Spring Attack monk really CAN deal some decent damage without getting mauled by an enemy fighter.

My point was that with the trip-lock you dont use up any actions other than the first one to get them down. Once they are down you use free actions to keep them there, and your full round attacks to lay on the hurt. Grapple, which is designed as a "lock down" maneuver does not even do this. Should we just power grapple up also?

And I demonstrated, RAW, that you can still do this. Nowhere in the trip-disarm-trip sequence is a standard action called for beyond the first one. After that, it's ALL AoO's.

I_Use_Ref_Discretion wrote:

Another concept to consider in the debate between crossbows vs. bows: I'd really favor treating crossbows as something untrained folks could more easily use on the fly. Perhaps less penalties?

That's already covered by the simple weapon proficiency.

And I think this is a point often ignored. All but Druids can use Xbows with nothing but class features. Only half (excepting Elves) can use Longbows.

Wow!!! MM, that's just ... wow!

Admittedly, it only came to me as I responded in this thread, but seeing how the rules currently allow a version of trip-lock, I fail to see how allowing it normally would be that game-breaking.

And I revise my stance a bit. Either AoO's can ONLY deal damage, or all combos should be allowed, regardless. Fair is fair, after all. And I will likely error in the "only damage" direction for future games.

The issue with the free tripping is action economy. Triplocking as a free action makes it basically an endless cycle. It is no secret that action economy wins the game. Timestop does not even damage you but because it gives you so many free rounds it is a spell that. I don't think anyone will be convinced that is not already convinced though.

Except, if that were true, you would only be able to deal damage with an AoO. You can trip someone, they stand, Disarm them with an AoO, they pick it up, THEN trip them with another AoO. All perfectly legal currently and completly OP by action-economy.

So, if action economy is the issue, the rules should be changed to allow only damage on AoO's. Which would also answer this issue.

We do this all the time.

Not just with classes. We decide "We want to all be circus performers, cruising around the countryside under guise of being a traveling circus." And then we put together a rough idea of a party, and then apportion roles and build characters.

+1. Our group fills "roles" more like something on A-Team. Who's going to do the talking. Who's the magic guy. Who's the tech guy. Who's the specialist. Etc.

That can result in a Ranger being the talker, the Bard being the magic guy, the Monk being the tech guy, the Wiz being the specialist, etc. basically, our "roles" are not defined by what class we play, but HOW we play the class. The Druid can be the healer and the Cleric can be the summoner and the Summoner can be the buff/debuff/pet guy. As ling as you fill your "real" role, you play any class you want. And we have enough players to make sure all roles get played, at least a little.

Multiple attacks.

Your argument is nullified.

No, it's not. You PAY to get those multiple attacks, both by needing the martial weapon proficiency and the increased monetary cost of the bow.

Crossbows require the same number of feats bows do for a single shot. Wait, not the exact same, crossbows then require an extra feat once the person has a second attack. But you're really going to say that the crossbow doesn't need point blank shot or rapid shot while the bow "needs" it? Please.

Needed for crossbow: Simple weapon proficiency, which essentially means EVERYONE, including NPC's, can use crossbows (excepting Druids) for FREE.

Needed for Longbows: Martial Weapon Proficiency, which means over HALF the classes need to burn a feat.

So, no, crossbows will require 1 less feat for half the characters in the game. With Rapid Reload, they become even.

And you can always say "shortbow" instead of "longbow", except the shortbow has a shorter ranger AND lower damage than the light crossbow, which is really what we should have been comparing anyway.

Scenario: PC attempts to use a move action to pick something up. He suffers an AOO and is tripped. Do they get to pick up the item?

You are arguing that they should not, that the move action should be ended automatically.

Not really. Being tripped does not interract significantly with the retrieving action. You fall, but you continue retrieving the item.

If you are in the process of standing up and are tripped, you must start all over again. That DID significantly interrupt the standing up, and so costs the move.

So, if you were retrieving from your pack and someone disarmed you, you now have to pick it up off the ground. And that costs another action, since you must retrieve the item all over again.

Sure, I can Ready an action to stop either of these from happening.

Which is not an AoO, which is what I was expressly arguing.

So, it's possible, it just takes more effort than a Free action.

An AoO is actually NOT a free action. You only get 1 a round, unless you spend a feat to get up to your DEX mod. It is a resource, like any other action.

After being tripped can one stand up? Yes. Thus a trip on an AOO for standing up does NOT mean that they cannot stand up afterwards.

And I would not, and never have, argue that you cannot get up afterwards. I do argue, though, that being tripped should cost you your move action. Which means you can now stand up using your standard action. If your opponent has only 1 AoO, they cannot now trip you. If they have more, they have now expended two to keep you in place PROVIDED they fail BOTH CMB vs CMD checks. I simply fail to see why this is considered so powerful. So powerful, in fact, that the designers feel it should cost more than just a couple of AoO's (and successful checks, and a feat to GET more AoO's, and a good DEX).

And considering the number of combat maneuvers that give the prone condition (1), I would argue that tripping IS the counter to standing. And when things do not have counters, you get weird situations where an actions is uninterruptable by any means short of killing the opponent with an AoO, which is just plain silly. It's not some sort of new computer game thing; I have been arguing this point (on various topics) since 1st Ed. What I consider a computer game thing is that you cannot do it because conditions are binary, either 1 or 0 with nothing in-between.

As it concerns consistency and casting spells and AoOs: The concentration check is a specifically called exception to the chain of events. So while the AoO occurs before the spell is completed (and technically before the action), the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed. No such exception exists for tripping, disarming, or moving, unless other game rules would dictate a interruption (such as going unconscious).

That's basically it, right there. Much thanks Mr Bulmahn for the clarification on that.

And so, back a few posts:

IMO, that is the situation we are in RIGHT NOW. A seperate rule on AoO's DURING an action (spells) vs BEFORE (combat maneuvers).

It IS a specifically made exception.

So do you think that simply hitting for damage on an AOO should be able to stop someone from any of the following:

1. Standing up
2. Picking up a weapon
3. Leaving a square
4. Casting a spell
5. Firing a projectile weapon

Using an AoO is not the same as hitting for damage with an AoO. Damage disrupts spellcasting, but to disrupt your list:

1. Trip
2. Disarm
3. Trip
4. Damage
5. Trip(bows) or Sunder

I simply see these actions as having obvious counters, and would prefer the rules be consistant in interrupts.

You can disrupt other actions than spellcasting with an AoO--you simply have to use the AoO properly (or have the right feats) in order to do so.

But not, apparently, standing and retrieving an item, which you cannot, RAW, stop from happening. Unless I am mistaken, which is possible. CAN you stop those actions? And how, if the AoO takes place before the action? Why can't Indiana Jones, while in combat with the thugge cultist, use his whip to pull a gun out of some guys hand that he just picked up? That qualifies as an AoO, and is cool for the player, would definitly add to his fun, but is expressly disallowed RAW. Does that not seem odd? In a game where mages bind devils and druids teleport through trees, a Bard can't stop a Wizard from retrieving a wand with an AoO EVEN THOUGH THEY GET AN ATTACK?

For AoOs to work, there has to be a consistent rule for when they happen, preferably a simple rule and easy to apply. Do you have an alternative to offer that is as simple, consistent and easy to apply?

Oh, I never take such questions as snark, only as challenges.

And Speaker has one I would fully support:

You know? I'm kind of partial to AoO's ==> DAMAGE DEALING only, though - if we're to keep RAW as is and AoO's more or less alone. It's the most simple change that addresses all fronts.

For myself, I say the AoO triggers when the action has begun, but before the action is completed. I reject what I consider to be too artifical (binary conditions) and instead say that when you are standing up (but before you have completed the move) you are NOT PRONE. What you ARE is immaterial, except that you are currently NOT prone and NOT standing.

Thus, you could rewrite to say that trip can only be used on standing opponents, which means automatically you could not trip flyers or swimmers or prone opponents. Or, for that matter, opponents standing up, since they are NOT standing. You could do the same for disarm (only against armed opponents). That would keep the existing ruling in place.

Alternatively, and my own feelings are such, you can keep the current wording of the maneuvers and just let anyone be tripped that qualifies (is not prone, has legs, is not flying/swimming). That means people standing up (NOT PRONE) can be tripped, and people retrieving an item (NOT UNARMED) can be disarmed.

Excellent summary on "Gamist"

Congrads. Much better than I could have ever done.

And for the record, I don't really have an issue with "gamist" games. I play tabletop WH40K. I LOVE Battletech (classic, that is). These are pure gamist systems.

I dislike that approach with RPG's, however. Even though I dislike it, I understand the NEED for it. Nothing makes you love 3.X/PF combat systems like White Wolf combat, IMO. My major objection is that, again IMO, the rule being discussed was created to prevent a percieved exploit in a "gamist" frame, and it runs counter to intuition and realism (simulationism, if you will). What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, so being able to disrupt a spellcaster with an AoO means you should be allowed to disrupt any other action with an AoO. Deciding to trip or disarm should not affect the base rule, ESPECIALLY then the action provoking should logically be countered by the action (trip someone trying to stand, disarm someone trying to retrieve).

If it were a bigger gamebreaking issue that defied reality by relying on rule exploits (3.0 Bag O' Rats, this means you), then I would be just as strongly FOR inserting an explicit rule to prevent the action. I would see the exploit as "gamist". I just so happen to fall on the other side of the line on this issue.

I have read Jason's post, and I DO see where he said the technical timing. However, note that he also said right after that that the rules pushed it to before for the sake of simplicity.

"The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). Technically, the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place, but since we can't have "middle ground" conditions, they are pushed to before to keep things straightforward. This is the only way it makes sense for spellcasting, movement, and, in this case, standing up and trip."

In case you missed it, this means that they did NOT want a condition to be in the middle, preffering to keep things simpler by making it binary, and so pushed the timing to before the action.

Which is inconsistant. The technical "middle" timing is used for spellcasting, but the rule adjusted "before" is used for combat actions.

So, look at this again:

A Standing Up
1. Character begins standing up.
2. Attack of Opportunity occurs.
3. Character finishes standing up.
Issue: The character is considered prone until they have stood up. This is, they are treated the same as they were before the triggering action (standing) takes place.

B Moving Through Threatened square
1. Character begins to move to new square.
2. Attack of Opportunity occurs.
3. Character moves to new square.
Issue: The character is considered to be in the starting square until they move. that is, they are treated the same as they were before the triggering action (moving) takes place.

C Casting Spell
1. Character begins casting spell.
2. Attack of Opportunity occurs.
3. Character finishes the spell.
Issue: The character is considered to be currently casting. They are not the same as they were before the triggering action (casting), but in the process, as per concentration rules.

D Picking something up
1. Character reaches for something (ground or pack or etc.)
2. Attack of Opportunity occurs.
3. Character picks up / retrieves the item.
Issue: The character is considered not holding the item until they have retrieved it. This is, they are treated the same as they were before the triggering action (retrieving) takes place.

Three of these things belong together, three of these things are kinda the same, but one of these things just doesn't belong here...

We could have separate rules for various situations, but that gets too complicated for my tastes. Think about this as a situation--you change the AoO to occur after the action that provokes. So, now that person that has stood can be tripped, or that person that picked up the item can be disarmed. But it also means that person casting the spell already cast the spell and so cannot be interrupted. You could make separate AoO mechanics for spellcasting and such, but again that's too complicated for my tastes.

IMO, that is the situation we are in RIGHT NOW. A seperate rule on AoO's DURING an action (spells) vs BEFORE (combat maneuvers).

If this is how AoO's are going to be treated they should really just disallow Manuevers as AoO's rather then go into this level of abstract rules.

An excellent point, btw. If it's too unreasonable to allow someone retrieving an item to be disarmed or standing up to be tripped, why should it be more reasonable to trip or disarm someone as part of their movement? At lease that would be consistant with the spells mechanics, since there it IS the damage triggering the concentration check.

It could use a specific call out that the attack granted is a trip attempt, but that is probably just because we have snipets right now. I think such a change would be fine.

It also would need to be expanded to Disarm as well. Otherwise, someone picking up a weapon could never be disarmed.

Although, personally, I see no big issue with allowing trip-locking or chain-disarming. Mostly because it's not more powerful than what the casters can do, there is always a chance of failure, it is a dedicated build, and good tactics can easily negate the benefit.

As such, I disagree with our lead designer up there. Certainly in my games it is allowed, and nobody has ever been able to break an encounter by doing so (despite having a tripper fighter and a whip bard in two seperate campaigns).

But OT, I think the change would be just fine.

Actually, what I want to do is knock the item out of his hand as a reaction to him picking the item up, which the game rules supposedly allows me to do.

+1. When things should be obviously possible, like disarming, which I did bring up pages ago, the game should allow it. IMO, this is the case with disarm. And since it requires me to re-write the RAW, it is this way for trip-lock as well.

As for my example with the Grease spell, I read that to stand requires a DC10 Acrobatics check (moving in the AoE). If in fact standing up in the spell is free, I withdraw the argument. I don't really see why it would NOT require said check, but meh.

Incorrect. You are still considered prone until the action of attempting to not be prone is completed (think about that logically; the goal of the 'stand up from prone' action is to remove the 'prone' condition. Therefore, it logically follows that, until the action is complete, the condition is not removed). Further, there's no support in the rules for AoOs happening before the triggering action. The spellcasting text is not a contradiction with or exception to the AoO timing.

Well, logically, what then happens in a Grease spell:

You are prone in the Grease spell. You attempt to stand, but fail, so...now you get up anyway? Because THAT is the logical conclusion of this thread.

It's all in the form. You have condition X (prone). You attempt to stand. Effect Y again gives you the prone condition (Grease spell). You cannot become prone while already prone, thus the effect did nothing and you stand up.

That SAME argument can be made with the tripper, and be considered valid, but it is nonsense with the Grease spell, which means that either the form ITSELF is invalid, or the conclusions are NOT following from the premises.

I say the latter is occuring. And the rules are specifically written to cover this. And that is gamist.

Considering you changed your statement, I would have to make the assertion that you too realized you were making an incorrect statement.

At no time did I change my post, if that is what you mean. If, instead, you are stating that I knowingly engaged in such hyperbole, that is correct. As do we all, from time to time, to make a point. Just like saying the Greatclub has no advantages over the Greatsword. Hyperbole, but essentially true, given context.

As for another tactic: Shot on the Run. In the event you are being fired upon by the enemy, you could move out, shoot, and move back to full cover.

And, dang it, it really SHOULD stack with VS!

Or you could follow the specific rule for Concentration needed if you take damage while casting a spell (or using certain magic items, or using a spell-like ability...).

PRD wrote:

Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).

Please note the following:

Injury: If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you're casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).

It is clear that the AoO happens during and interrupts spellcasting. The previously stated reasoning for trip not working is that the AoO happens BEFORE the target tries to stand, which is why they are still considered prone. If you cannot see the inconsistancy, I don't know what more to tell you.

This is false. Amusingly, it's already been proved false by several posts in this very thread.

I am trying to discern what you are doing here. Did you honestly not understand my hyperbole of what I was getting at, or did you deliberately misinterpret my statement as a form of ad hominem?

No exception was made, no nerf unless you are confusing what you want to be the case with reality and finding the later lacking compared with the former...

Come again? Play this all out in sequence. First, assume that AoO is delivered before the action that triggers the AoO is STARTED, like many claim:

Wiz is on init 7. On init 8, he takes damage. Does he make a concentration check on init 7 to cast because he took damage? No. On init 7 he casts, triggering an AoO, which hits. As per above, the AoO is delivered BEFORE the action. Thus, the attack must land BEFORE the spell is cast. And that's before the casting STARTED. Why should he have to make a concentration check now and not before? What is the fundamental difference?

Answer: It's what the RULE says. Which makes it different from, and inconsistant with, the rule governing tripping as an AoO while an opponent is standing.

I agrue there should be no such gap. Either AoO's are delivered BEFORE the action, which negates the concentration check for spellcasting, or DURING the action, which allows tripping an opponent while they attempt to stand.

You've just stopped reading my posts, right? Spellcasting is the exception, not tripping. The exception is right there in the rules. Every other AoO pretty much works just like it does for tripping--action that provokes an AoO starts to occur, AoO occurs, action that provoked the AoO continues if possible. This is consistent all the way through, and even the spellcasting exception is simply an expansion of the rules clarifying how the concentration check interacts.

So why the nerf to spellcasters? Since that is EXACTLY what it is. A nerf.

OR you see that the nerf was to combatants by removing a way to interrupt actions. In that case, all that was LEFT was a way to interrupt spellcasters. In any case, they (original game designers) felt strongly enough about it to include an ENTIRELY different mechanic into the game. So why so strongly about spells, but specifically against it for other actions? Why is stopping a caster from casting and forcing them to loose the spell not unbalancing to the casters, but trip-locking, which causes NO permament resource drain, is OP?

Wow, this thread is still going, even after we've laid out the specific rules and had a "yep, that's right" from the dev...I guess some folks never give up. I already even pointed out the specific mechanic that covers how spellcasting and AoO's interact, since that rule is indeed an exception to the standard AoO mechanic of the attack happening before the action.

Perhaps you missed the part where I stated unequivocally that I know what the rules say? And where I say that the specific exception is the gamist quality I abhor?

Now, for the above statement, there you go again being insulting. You do realize that the entire Pathfinder ruleset is gamist, right? Gamist is not a negative term, as you apparently want to use it. It simply describes how the game itself approaches play mechanics. Pathfinder is not a simulation. It is not a narrative system. It is a gamist system. There are a few more subtleties in the overall application of game theory to Pathfinder, but no matter how you hack it its going to come out the same. I'm not sure why you keep brining this up, acting surprised by this, and talking down to those that enjoy this approach?

Well, if you happen to think that a rule created for the sake of making things flow in a certain way, even if it is internally inconsistant, is ok, more power to you. I do not. In fact, I play PnP games BECAUSE I dislike gamist rules. You know what gamist rules remind me of? NWN, NWN2, KotOR, ME, etc. You can't "say" this until you finish a certain quest. You can't go "there" because you havn't unlocked the zone. You can't just shoot the guy because the game won't let you target him yet. You can't break those boxes, or damage that wall, it cut that rope because the game isn't set up for it.

There is a term I am using. It is "gamist rule". That being a subset of rules that relate primarily to the game as a meta-concept, rather than in-game play. A rule that disallows a specific event that should otherwise be allowed because the event is deemed inappropriate is a "gamist rule".

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Why the difference? Why does an AoO obviously come into play DURING one action but only BEFORE another?

And THAT is why the rule is gamist.

No, it's not, at least not in this case. Short of grappling or entangling, there's really no way to keep someone prone.

Um, yeah, that's kinda my point. The ruling is specific enough to only count against a narrow set of circumstances, of which trip-locking is one. However, by logically extending the ruling to another action, in this case spell casting, you render invalid another mechanic (concentration checks for damage during casting).

So, any way you look at it, an exception was made, and not made for reasons of simplicity or realism. It was a nerf. Now, it may very well be a nerf to spellcasting! I can't rule that out. People can't stop others from taking actions, except where spells are concerned. That fits the evidence as well.

However, either way, it was a nerf. And since it seems to be a nerf against a specific tactic (either casting in meele or trip-locking), I call it gamist.

As to the discussions, by all logic, you cannot trip someone who is already prone. AoO's take place as an immediate action in response to someone attempting to do something and happens just before. The tripped opponent has not removed the prone condition before the AoO has went off, so a trip would not work. The AoO was in response to them attempting to remove the prone condition and happens while they are still under the prone effects. After the AoO, they have no removed the prone condition and are now standing. It seems very straight forward. Someone trying to cast a magic missle on you, you get your AoO before the spell is cast, not after. So someone is standing up, you get the AoO before they stand.

Problem: With the spell, the attack definitly comes DURING the action of "casting". That is why the caster needs to make a concentration check. The spell has not been "cast", however, the AoO is also not coming before the act of "casting". If it did, dealing damage to a caster before they had cast a spell has no effect on the spell itself, and thus the spell would not now require a concentration check.

So, therefore, the AoO for a spell happens DURING the action and can disrupt said action.

However, there apparently IS no action for "standing" (move action per SRD), and no possible way to disrupt said action with the AoO it provokes. Why the difference? Why does an AoO obviously come into play DURING one action but only BEFORE another?

And THAT is why the rule is gamist.

Could someone choose a greatclub over a greatsword? Yes and they'd lose some damage. Could someone choose a crossbow over a bow? Yes, but they'd hamstring themselves entirely. That's the difference. 1 Feat for Rapid Reload, 1 Feat for Exotic Weapons (Repeating Crossbow), and that would be the minimum to make the weapon equal to a standard bow. Auto-loss to a composite bow.

Um, no. A LIGHT Xbow with Rapid Reload is exactly equivelant to a Longbow in everything but Manyshot. And before you say "it cost a feat", not all classes GET martial weapons. It WOULD cost a feat for any of them. Making the cost all but equal, except where Manyshot is concerned.

The big difference is where it concerns the Composite Longbow. So, unless you shell out for the composite longbow, AND have a str score for it to make a difference, you have decidedly NOT hamstringed yourself in choosing a crossbow.

Too much to respond too, but...

1) The issue of "how is a DM to not TPK the party" is a strawman. The DM is in TOTAL control of the opposition and their tactics. A DM can, at any time, throw an unwinnable encounter at a party. Trip-locking makes no difference, and the entire issue should just be thrown out.

2) From level 1, any decent Cleric or Wizard or Druid or Bard is likely to have a plethora of tooks that will do far worse that a trip-lock. Forget Sleep or Hold, Grease will seriously nerf any dex opponent AND make them vulnerable to SA with NO SAVE!! Trip-locking is a tactic that needs 1 feat (Combat Reflexes), at least a dex of 13, and is better with 2 more feats (Imp Trip, Gtr Trip). Spells come free, and many call for no save at all. Compare trip-lock to Wall of Thorns. In fact, denying trip-lock is kind of a "fighters can't have nice things" position.

3) I do not dispute what the rules say. They are clear, but, IMO, gamist. While you are radically realigning your center of balance, like you are while standing using ANY method other than a martial arts jump, you are vulnerable to being tripped.

4) Specifically, I see the standing as provoking an AoO, a trip disrupting the move and costing the move action, and the options open to the character at that point is:
a-Stand up. Use that standard action and stand. Yes, you provoke, yes, they can try to trip you again, but so what? They burn another AoO, which is better for your party.
b-Attack them. Yes, attack from prone. Is the weapon the issue? Sunder. Or Disarm. Them standing? Try to trip THEM. As long as you remain prone and do not try to stand, they cannot trip you.
c-(houserule)Make an Acrobatics check to move in a threatened square without provoking an AoO. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and gives the character two chances for success (Initial Acrobatics check, then the CMB vs CMD if that fails) instead of one.

5) If trip-locking is not a big deal vs monsters, since they tend to have very high CMB, and the DM is in control of when or if monsters can use that tactic, WHERE is the issue, again? If it's not a big deal for PC abuse, and not a big deal for DM abuse, WHO is abusing this such that it is unfair/unfun, prima facie?

Why does it need to have a "main drawback?" I've asked multiple times in all of these threads what the "main drawback" of the bow is, and never got an answer.

The basic longbow does not get any STR bonus, and needs a whole chain of feats to be a decent weapon. For instance, you really REALLY want Rapid Shot, which requires Point Blank Shot. There's Manyshot, too. Not to mention precise shot, and anything else you want on top of that.

That is the disadvantage of the bow: it needs a load of feats and additional costs to become an uber weapon. Anyone can use a Xbow. If your intention is to fire and forget, like if you are a mounted charger, or a TWF rogue, then you really don't need ANY feats to support the Xbow. Not for an opening shot. And the TWF rogue is BEST when letting the enemy close with him first. An ally moves into flanking, and the Rogue lays waste. A shortbow is just too much of an investment for not getting that SA AND needing to be upgraded a lot to make up for the damage difference when they already have TWO weapons they are trying to support.

Now, the composite longbow is an issue only because there is no equivelant for the Xbow. This, however, does not make the Xbow "suck". It also does not make it strictly weaker than the longbow. It DOES make the weapon weaker IN GENERAL, much like a Greatclub is rubbish next to a Greatsword.

To me the rule seems pretty clear...

Except for the whole "spells can be interrupted during the action but you are either standing or prone all the time with no period where you are getting up where an opponent may be able to trip you again" part.

Alternatively, "you are either armed or disarmed all the time with no period where you are drawing your weapon/retreiving an item where an opponent may be able to disarm you, despite the fact that retrieving that item is what initiates the AoO."

Though I can see where that may be an issue with unreality rather than rule incohherence.

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

I suppose you have a site where such "facts" can be verified?

I have exactly as much verification as you do, except mine makes sense and yours doesn't (considering tripmonkey builds weren't around when they were designing AoOs).

Which is what I figured the case was, and did the rule change from 3.0 to 3.5? If it did, or became more precise, then, guess what, it was a reaction to trip monkey builds. I don't have my materials at hand, so I cannot verify at this time.

And trying to trip someone "during" an attempt to stand up is exactly what the rules prevent. You aren't standing until the action completes. If you aren't standing, you can't be tripped.

Facinating. So a crouching or kneeling person cannot have their feet knocked out from under them, thus rendering them prone? Or I suppose they count as standing? Or prone? Or not provoking the AoO? So, what SPECIFICALLY does provoke the AoO?

Or, instead of bothering with all that sillyness, you can just accept it is a gamist rule meant to prevent rule exploits, based in part on the MtG instant/interrupt concept, that really should just be revised to reflect the fact that hoisting yourself up with any extremity will lower your guard (AoO) AND allow you to be tripped (removing the support for your weight).

AND, you can look over the rules and see that you get TWO attempts to stand, one move, one action, and thus trip-locking not only REQUIRES Combat Reflexes and a DEX bonus of at least +1, but eats up AoO's at a rate of 2/round, and forces a CMB vs CMD roll TWICE. So while it CAN be done, you are probably better off using a combo of Whirlwind Attack/Greater Trip.

If you're going to rant and rave, at least try to get your facts straight.

I suppose you have a site where such "facts" can be verified? Because hitting them DURING casting instead of BEFORE casting does, indeed, trigger a concentration check to not loose the spell. In other words, the "before" qualifier is unnecessary as far as spells go and both spell disruption and trip-lock can co-exist (AoO's triggered during move actions, which also allows disarms on retrieved items and substantially fits within existing AoO scenarios).

*rant and rave*

Ah, gamism has been invoked, and so we all lose for being such silly people (of course, D&D and it's iterations are known as the pinnacle of gamist approaches...). A much better approach, then, would be to work out the exact physics of how tripping occurs and develop a set of tables, checks, calculations, and cyphers so we can make sure this stays realistic?

No, that's not it at all. The reason for the RULE is gamist. That does not reflect at all on it's supporters, but I will reiterate that I believe it is one of the WORST reasons for creating a rule. So stop being all sensative about "name calling".

And the "much better way" is to either make a feat, which you suggested, and is a good suggestion, OR just ignore the gamist rule and allow AoO's to work like that.

And as to being tripped and kept down, that usually will require a fantastic series of rolls, AND you can use other methods to escape the situation, AND the rest of the party is there to help you out, AND if you mindlessly rush a trip-monster with a high CMB vs your own low CMD, you deserve what you get.

And I have played in a game with a dual-whip weilding ranger with disarm and trip feats stacked up and she never dominated combat like the ROUGE did. Additionally, I also have cast while prone, making the check, and laughing as the now flat-footed tripper got shot with a barrage of sneak attacks. I then asked politely if he would let me up, or if I should just cast something else (it moved to engage the rogue, so I stood up).

So I have never seen trip-locking being that big a deal. Player and DM tactics always won out over one-trick-pony builds.

Hilarious.

So you can ready an action. In other words, give up your standard action to roll a single CMB vs CMD to trip someone up. But, if they lower their guard and try to stand, there is no way to prevent them with an AoO. Despite your trip feats, and reach weapon, and the fact you get to HIT them, you cannot TRIP them or delay your AoO till AFTER they stand.

As I said, gamist. It is a rule that exists solely to prevent people from trip-locking. It has nothing to do with logic, or reality, or facts. It exists to plug a leak.

Which, IMO, is the worst possible reason you create a rule.

Curioser and curioser...

So, it takes a move action to stand, but if standing initiates an AoO, like a trip, it happens before the attempt to stand occurs?? Isn't this a bit chicken/egg?

What is also great is that there is absolutely no way to prevent someone from standing up whatsoever. They could be surrounded by trip fighters with whips and they still get to stand. All the whips can do sting or disarm. Unless they are drawing a weapon, in which case they are disarmed before they draw, and proceed to now draw. So nothing can prevent them from drawing a weapon, either.

And people are ok with this. Not only ok, but actively advocating it. Despite the nonsense and gamism that is needed to envision such a rule.

Plus, am I the only one here who keeps asking themselves why the prone creature doesn't just acrobatics tumble away from the enemy first?

That's exactly why trip-locking SHOULD work. It's trivially easy to get out of the situation, and it prevents nonsense like my earlier example.

Interesting...so your AoO happens either before or after, but not during an action?

Forget trip-locking. You have a reach weapon with the disarm ability, like a whip. An enemy caster provokes an AoO to retrieve a wand, which he intends to use on the party cleric. You CANNOT disarm them as an AoO? They are taking the wand out of their pack, which is provoking the AoO, but the attack needs to be resolved BEFORE the wand is available for disarm?

I find the lack of verisimilitude distressing...

For my homebrew I'm currently thinking reloading a regular crossbow is either a move equivalent or swift action, while reloading a repeating crossbow is either a swift or free action, respectively. What do you think of this?

Honestly, I don't think ROF is the big issue. It's the lack of other options.

I truly thought for a time that Vital Strike would allow all bonuses to be multiplied. To me, this was the ultimate in single-shot performance, and would make builds that could easily compete with multiple attack builds.

Crossbow was one of my first thoughts on this.

I like just adding strength to the crossbow as a bonus. Of course, I take it one step furthur and say it should be double the bonus to damage. I may also be inclined to say that the STR bonus should be multiplied for Vital Strike, but it likely wouldn't come up. I also like the larger Arbalest (2d8) as a martial weapon, reload as heavy crossbow.

I ran for a character who was a Favored Soul with an Arbalest as a secondary weapon. She had a 16 STR, so the Arbalest (built as composite and with a 16 STR rating) did 2d8+6. She didn't even bother with Rapid Reload; she loaded when she thought there may be trouble, fired off a very respectable first shot, then went in with Bastard Sword.

If anything would improve the lot of the crossbow, it's an improvment to the Vital Strike chain.

Instead of more spells, I want a system for generating new spells and effects on the fly. A systematic method of generating any spell such that the level and power is consummate to the existing spell list.

Maybe a system for non-vancian casting, but that is a far second. I want a section devoted to BUILDING spells. Teach me to fish!

You're just full of bull aren't you? :P

Can we steer this in another direction?

So why did the French win the 100 years war?

Because the English were fighting on the other side of a sea, and had less resources in both men and material. The longbow was their ace in the hole, and while it helped deliver some stunning victories early on when the French treated it as being as effective as the crossbow, once they got a handle on how dangerous it was - and how to counter it - they were able to make their greater resources and shorter supply lines count.

Or, to put it more cynically, English merchants stopped making money on the war. Just as soon as that occured, England had to pull out eventually. The war was lost on mainly on the economic front.

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

I understand everything Shuriken says...

Can you translate, then?

"Gothic Tian-Min Loli"

In short, an extremly young looking asian girl with a flair for dark toned victorian garb.

Zaister wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

i wanted to try a Gothic Tian-Min Loli for a while.

Pardon me, but I understand about one word in six out of everything you say. Please, if you're going to babble like that, at least provide a translation for those who don't speak Manga.

I was thinking the same thing. :) "Huh, what?"

Im still trying to figure out how it was relevant... I guess elves cant be pretty little goth girls? Bwuuuh?

I understand everything Shuriken says, but it somehow makes me sad inside....maybe guilt?

Pirates tended to use pistols the same way, loading and carrying a number of them for close-quarters.

In fact, Edward Teach was known for having at least 6 on his person when he died (and he shot all of them).

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Oh, and for Blunderbuss, I use 6d6 in a 30' cone, REF for 1/2 damage. It's a non-magical cone spell.

My blunderbuss works like this: the first 20ft. is 1 line that deals 4d6 damage, the second 20ft. is 3 lines wide, the middle line deals 2d6 damage and the 2 outside lines deal 1d6 damage, the last 20ft. is 5 lines wide with all the lines dealing 1d6 damage. After the first target is hit in any line all the lines it behind stop. A small creature reduces the die to d4’s and a large creature increases the die to d8’s. When using a Blunderbuss, precision damage (i.e. sneak attack damage) may only be applied to the 1st enemy hit, if more than 1 is hit simultaneously choose 1 to take the precision damage.

Granted it's slightly more complicated than most weapons if you don't see little crappy diagram I drew up but it works more closely to the way a real blunderbuss would (i.e. the closer the enemy is, the more damage you'll do).

That's pretty good, but it acts more like a modern shotgun, with choke, than an old style blunderbuss. With a smoothbore, widemouth powder weapon like that, the dispersion of the rounds begins immediately, thus the cone. I just decided it was simpler to do the REF save and static damage than do something more complex, but to each their own.