I failed my will save to a bard, and then my party who always disrespected me and fighters was on their own. In a few rounds they were almost on the verge of a TPK, while my character was made to laugh uncontrollably on the ground, which I might have done anyways. Finally, the bbeg was the last man standing, and was about to deliver the final blow to the only remaining PC in the party that wasn't below 0, or laughing like a madman, and the GM said, "you're up, and able to take your turn as normal". I stood up and said "Look whose laughing now" and crit natural 20 with my longbow to 1 hit the BBEG.
No one healed me, and no one thanked me... but the fighter thanked me for choosing him as my one and only mistress.
Gwaithador, you just look at other classes, and you're like, "What the hell? Isn't there a thing called, "Game Balance" when making classes?"
Take what you imagine about a rogue, and when you look at other classes, you find that others can do what the rogue can do, but better. The same goes for the Fighter in most aspects. THE GUY IS NAMED FIGHTER, AND HE ISN'T THE BEST AS WHAT HE DOES!?
People have no idea how I am obsessed with the fighter. If you meet me, and you say you like the fighter, then there is no escape for you, because I will use standstill on you, and you can never leave until I am done talking.
When people write about their views on the fighter getting so many feats, I rage. I am a feat fiend, and I need all the feats I can get, because I am the human fighter.
Why human fighter? Do you have to ask? MORE FEATS!
I need time to read through this entire thread, but I too love the fighter. I am, THE HUMAN FIGHTER!
Fighter is awful, and it's the best worst class in the game in my opinion. Why do I love the fighter? Because screw spells and all that gooble gobble! I want to be some dude in some crazy world just effin' things up like a madman.
You can instantly change everyones perception on reality to fit exactly what you make of it? Cool! I'm going to smash you in the face with my two handed reach weapon anyways. I don't care if you can one hit me, because when I die a thousand deaths to you, I know who the real winner is... and that's you, but me as well, because I played the fighter, and that makes me the BEST!
This class gets the screw job all the time, and gets it everywhere, and I still love him. It's like being the fan of the worst sports team ever, and people just don't understand why the hell you do it. Well, I guess I was just born this way.
I joined PFS, and I currently am running 3 human fighters. I started with 3E when I started to seriously play these games, and it's been nothing but Human Fighter. Who wants to do all that fancy book reading anyways?
Me "Conan, what is best in life?"
EDIT=Like my introduction to the game was first choosing the fighter, and of course I heard "they're a great class to begin with" and now I want to just punch people in the face for that. Anyways, I saw Monk and Rogue, and thought one day I'd try those out... NOPE! I say Monk and Rogue are better than the fighter when you look at the bigger picture of course, but what the hell happened with them too!? Monk is a dude dedicated to super mastery and focus to put his mind and body together as one, to make himself a living weapoMedium BAB.... Huh? That's weird? Fighter gets full BAB, so FIGHTER!
Rogue is just... no. FIGHTER!
I love the fighter, and if my fighter gets dominated, then I don't even care. My fighter gets to show off to the rest of the PC's how awesome he is by slaughtering them all with his full attack of erasing people from reality, MWHAHAHAHA!
I've mentioned on the boards before, profession baking and craft basket weaving.
To just talk combat because I'm short for time, you in combat bake treats and weave baskets. Baskets you make will be big enough to game cover and hamper movement, and you can improvise weapons them. Bake treats that you put in you're basket that you use as throwing weapons, perhaps shaped like ninja stars.
Time to make the donuts
I've never seen a full on grappler, and every time I ever grapple or someone else does who has the spikes... we completely forget about it.
I read the Druid grappling a succubus thread, and I stopped building my grappler.
I always cite the monk in terms of improved unarmed strike to show redundancy. You have NO IDEA how many times people think the Monk is the only possible exception to holding objects and hitting others with their limbs other than their fists. I take a deep breath and tell them the crazy world of "i use unarmed strike to attack" and you can literally say anything you want for the rp of your attack.
People have armor and add spikes, then they're going to give back questions of "huh?" because it's a weapon in the core rules that you don't need a hand to hold onto, I figure. I remember reading this and was like, "how does this work? I just have it on my armor?"
I've had friends in the past think it was only for grappling purposes, and others who just thought it was weapon purposes. Both instances we looked up the rules and they were pleasantly surprised that it did grapple damage and behaved like a weapon.
I'm sorry if this upsets you, but I am honestly trying to grasp what you are writing to me, and it's confusing to me.
I originally was writing that on an AoO snap shot and combat reflexes will allow you to load your weapon as a free action during the AoO, and every AOO beyond that which comes from Combat Reflexes will also work out where you may free action reload when the AOO happens. You writing to me "outside of your turn" is what I don't understand, in regards to what I had written.
Here is the FAQ I took from here, just so people can have that.
I don't understand how this negates the clear line of sight or hampers movement like an obstacle. If this isn't relevant, then please inform me, but right now this does...
Like, normal movement can move in between squares of enemies and not count as going into their spaces. One can't imagine that during the charge they moved over before getting to the enemy or ally that was in the square, or even the object in the way, right? The action doesn't seem to enforce that you are on such a perfectly straight course that this should be an issue, but rather you make the shortest route you can that is going forward to the target.
what I think you're considering wrote:
If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge.
I'm having a bad day and perhaps someone could assist me in finding normal tactical(?) movement rules on where it states that you can't move through specific squares during combat or otherwise, and then perhaps it can be seen side by side with these rules?
EDIT: added "---" things so my diagram doesn't get spaced out oddly due to avatars. My avatar is effin' sweet. Skull mask and stuff. AWESOME!
sharp pointy things that hurt wrote:
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.
I read for pf that it's the closest square which you can attack, and how it doesn't talk about straight lines, but direct path. I had a brief disagreement during a pfs game, but I said I'll move on from it until we can both review it and discuss it for the future.
I'm not understanding James' post on why it would be affected by a when you'd change lanes before you got into the space of a.
Mark, I made multiple examples of things that happened in my original post, one of which was about the demoralize option. That instance specifically wasn't about the option, and was specific to the attitude. I had already explained that the gm transparently explained after the game that his decision making wasn't affected by anything else beyond what we discussed. I specifically asked about things like "cannot be intimidated" and he said nothing else influenced his decision, and he ruled it that way because of his subjective view on the game.
So, he was applying his subjective views to EVERYTHING in relation to intimidate and increasing the dc.
Can't you see why I am so frustrated with you and others? I have directly explained to you these things, and you still write that I didn't do things absolute, when I indeed did. Why should the boards be this way? Moderate people who can't responsibly use the boards maybe and you won't have emotional cry babies like me perhaps?
what exactly is incorrect? An faq specifically says that snap shot works. This is a thing. Please take note that my wording about describing the attack with the musket was just taking the aoo, and wasn't about taking a readied action, incase of any confusion.
I've run into free action on aoo plenty before, especially on the boards. People don't like it and I have pointed out two things.
Snap shot, improved snap shot, and combat reflexes. An faq says that it's expected that as long as you have a free action to operate your attacks with your ranged weapon, then you goto town.
So, it's okay for a guy with a musket to grab specific ammunition, load the weapon, ready their firearm, aim and pull the trigger to fire, because it's on an aoo, and you built your character to get to load as a free action.
People have an issue with a guy who last used their longsword one handed that they can't use their free hand on an aoo to just two hand it for the attack.
Immediate actions take more time than free actions, right? Strange how people limit free actions, compared to it, granted you only get one immediate.
I want to charge straight, but during the charge move over into another lane as so.
p= player x= spaces t= target the player wishes to attack A= an ally D= destination
As above, it's technically a straight line, but it's also not.
If that's possible, then I would like to know if this is legal.
The example is just quickly made, but it's the same method that during the charge you would take a minor change into a different lane, but it would matter to avoid the allies blocking your way kinda
I just need to point something out. I have many times have had people seemingly just ignore what I was saying, not bother to read the entire thread, intentionally been difficult, or selectively reading.
I was quite busy with much today, and I see that someone believes that my position of the skill as a whole is that if I intimidate someone, I can make them go against sacred oaths that they have made. I have absolutely no idea where in the entirety of this thread, nor even outside of it that I have done anything to give off this impression. The skill states pretty much in the skill that you shift their attitude in another direction. If someone thinks that because the initial attitude is friendly on a published game they're GMing that a PC can go and tell him to kill himself, or his entire family because of how friendly they are with the PC, then they clearly have issues. For intimidate the target acts submissive, and does certain reasonable things within the confines of the skills bounds.
I read an explanation for someone to feel justified to say rude and ridiculous things to me. Writing in absolutes that are clearly exaggerated, I'm told that I have been completely unreasonable, and also lacked to give people necessary information. The information that I feel is irrelevant, and have explained why multiple times within this thread was even given at a later time within this thread. If someone just read what I wrote in its entirety, and even another person who gave a specific link to how to obtain all the specifics of all the irrelevant information, then they wouldn't be posting things that make them look like a complete fool.
When I am talking about something that is objective, I am talking about something that is absolutely factual, and when I apply that to let's say the basis of discussing a rule in this game, I am not talking about the subjective elements of it. Weapon focus gives a +1 bonus, and I can objectively say the feat in some way shape or form gives a bonus of +1. It is not impossible to have objective things within this game, which I don't see why anyone would really think otherwise.
My GM blantly told me he does not care about the rules in general, or in PFS. The table is his, and he will do whatever he wants at his table. However, as mentioned he is willing to have the mediated talk, and it's not 100% on how he will deal with it, but I believe I am to expect demoralize to work, which is great because the build I have been going on relies on it being a thing.
Throughout this thread I've lost respect for some, and I've gained respect for some others. I will take this also as a learning experience on how to deal with others on the boards, and try and be more tolerant with those who are the reason everyone I know (but like 2 people) refuses to post on these boards. Someone doesn't decide to read things properly, and they post something that makes no sense, or unfair, then the next person who only wants to read the last 2 posts on the thread just assumes everything written is true and continues the madness and rudeness.
I'd love to debate and discuss specific matters on the skill and such, but this to me doesn't seem like the appropriate place to do so for obvious reasons.
Troll Bill, it was already sat down with, and I mailed last night, and in moments I'm seeing him again.
I like a few pages ago wrote how I done with the main focus of the thread, and then I participated in other aspects of the thread.
People aren't reading the entire thread, and when people write misinformed things, then others who don't read just read misinformed things, and it just exponentially gets worse.
Bill I did find you helpful, so thank you.
Michael, things were addressed that I indeed did move on like a page or two ago.
TrollBill, absolutely not. As described, the monster was helpless and I could have talked to him for hours and whatever I wanted. I could get in the first attack even. If I attacked the creature, then I would have hurt the game, but then again, you are there to rp, and if you kill demons, then you kill demons.
Anyways, the demon specifically said he knew secrets. That to me is time to figure out a way to extract them, and I chose for the very first time in my life to use this skill. Dm said roll, and when later he admitted I passed by raw, I failed by his +I or more that he added just because.
To answer your question bluntly, no it wouldn't have hurt anything, but rather would have made the table WAAAY better. My results on my roll got people excited, then I'm told I failed. It was a bummer for others as well as me.
This dude isn't trying to cheat or be a jerk, but rather he honestly feels so strongly that he's right to modify things and that he needs to protect this demon. He is telling me in a way to break my character to auto succeed with intimidate and hurt the game for others, or never use this skill. This creates munchkins or makes players leave pfs.
...but the decision had absolutely no bearing in regard to any other factor. How is this unclear? How else do I express this to be understood? If I buy a hit dog at the store, it doesn't matter how many gorillas have been throw out of an airplane in Africa into a giant hoolahoop. You have all information needed, which was the issue that was argued against me saying I did not.
Why is this happening?!
I am just getting more and more annoyed.
I'm going to try really hard here, so please, also put forth equal effort.
Originally I was showing how the gm would unconditionally show bias in regards to applying house rules to discriminating races with this skill and other situations. I explained that we personally talked about a specific instance that was also general in application. He would rule just because a demon was a demon that it gets a bonus to their dc against a human using intimidate. This would always happen anytime that this was preformed. If the demon was in outer space, or it was xmas, this bonus would be applied, because it's a demon.
Moving on. It was discussed with complete transparency exactly what the gm did with the demon in the scenario. I told this as well, and I explained what was considered. Regardless if the published rules said that other factors applied, the gm said he didn't use them if it was he chose not to, or they don't exist, or he overlooked them, I don't know that. So, we again make up a hypothetical where we take the game and do different things, and he tells me what happens. Always gets the bonus, and I'm unable to threaten unless I literally put a knife to the monsters throat, or otherwise I couldn't even get the check. There is a little bit of stuff I left out because I didn't want to go into that.
So, people for some reason think I initially was on the matter with the exact published game and his ruling at the time. It matters that he did it didn't do things wrong in that situation, but I'm focused on his decision making as a whole. I provided all the necessary information that was needed to accomplish this, and other things that were mentioned so far that I didn't give notice of being a factor or not don't matter.
People dismissing me with "I don't know what else to say", and telling me that I have my mind made up and won't ever change it does not make me feel very good, and I don't understand where someone thinks that's reasonably a respectful way to communicate.
I wrote Mark personally on somethings, and he did not respond, so those are unresolved matters. I hope this finally gives clarity to everyone, and for this issue to stop!
Mark Stratton wrote:
responding like this is what's bothering me.
Player does x to y under normal circumstances = z
X is intimidate to a creature that is a demon, and the answer will always be +7 bonus.
So with this situation it can be objectively viewed. Now let's say you ask, "was the creature affected by the rules saying he was immune, just because I'd like to know" then I'd say yes or no, but in this instance the creature was not, because we're taking about it absolutely succeeding without any other situations.
So, anyone can go, "so the gm will for under the baseline situation, always rule that way. That's not correct."
So again, the stuff you are taking about wasn't relevant for me to add. I gave the necessary information.
Am I saying that the other variables wouldn't matter? Considering that I blatantly repeatedly answered that says that I do consider them relevant when they're applied, but here it doesn't because it diverts things away from what is important.
Please, stop responding to me like I'm some fool, and perhaps apologize.
Wow, I'm annoyed. I am not saying those factors don't matter at all, but when they're irrelevant to what's going on, why do I say them? You want me to provide possibility of what wasn't a factor to you, or will what was suffice?
We discussed in the general situation of given creature, successfully getting the minute off, and then the final results. I'm told that I'm a human, and he is from hell, and thusly, he gets +7.
What else matters there? If you ADD in special circumstances, then yes, it matters, but I provided ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING NEEDED. If you feel I miss something judging it objectively across the board like we set it up with the baseline conditions, then I would love to know so I can make sure everything in the future works or more smoothly.
Bnw, the specifics of what happened in game don't matter when the gm says under any circumstance that the demon would unconditionally always react the same. You don't need to know about not able to intimidate rule, or the scenario. I provided what is needed for people to understand the situation, and the situation is not limited to the factors you're saying I didn't provide, understand?
Mark Stratton wrote:
nope, some people use everyone should have fun during the game, and if they're not then the gm may disregard all rules to do as they wish. I'm saying that the justification of that is absurd. I do find what others have stated to be reasonable within the rules that pfs has in regards.
The argument that unconditionally that a mechanic cannot work is b$*+*&%*.
Deal with your jerk at the table separately, and someone who gets a 20 and beats it by one shouldn't be punished. They did it and it happened. They played their character the way they wanted.
Leave the jerk issue as something else.
Mark, the end means that anyone saying that a gm allows a player to roll, then upon them succeeding just fails it because they think it's unfair isn't allowed. Success was made, and you let the roll happen.before the roll maybe the gm should put more thought in it with what you pointed out, but that's that. My mind is made up but open to listen to reason that would consider changing. Are we good now?
From the start I provided everything that was necessary to get an objective answer. The creatures, the fact that it successfully got to the 1 minute mark to make the check and that the check would have normally succeeded. So exactly what didn't I provide? What am I imagining and not writing to help everyone out that makes me seem like a psychopath that cannot have his mind alerted? Constructively tell me how to properly do this and I'll follow the steps to avoid this entire mess in the future. I thought that this wouldn't cause issues by how I did it, but apparently not, although I believe it's others with the issue, and not me. I'm willing to consider otherwise though.
Mark, I just want to make sure about what you wrote to me. You absolutely feel I'm unreasonable, and inconsiderate with how I deal with others that I just have my mind made up and unconditionally won't change? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but asking for clarification. I feel that's really unfair, and what I write is directly proven by the rules. I get you're trying to be creative, but baseline what I write is what it is.
I just don't see why people argue otherwise. Those are the facts. You allowed the roll to happen, and just because I'm successful you'll then just say I didn't pass? I need to kill everything in the game, and I can't have creative and helpful solutions to problems?
If I tame balor then I did it. I'm the guy as the hero in the story that did the thing. If someone intentionally made a game breaking character that's one thing, but to just deny because you feel it's not realistic isn't fair to everyone who expects to play pfs.
I'm going to be reasonable and objective, just like I've always been. I don't like how you say I have just made up my mind, when it's apparently you that made up yours with me.
I should definitely amend my pretty sure, to just saying, I feel that sometimes there were exceptions. I think what I wrote before is too unfair for me to say.
Broken Prince, your advice to have him discuss it alone definitely seems like a great idea so I won't have to get involved in further fallout.
Broken Prince wrote:
I'm pretty sure that tons of alterations happen in game by me thinking back on stuff, and I feel sick to my stomach that I already e-mailed the guy and will be seeing him tomorrow. Pretty much, I'm worried that he will just be crushed and not want to play the game anymore if he can't get any bit of his style into the game. I really do like he will be loose with some things, like adding in more creatures so everyone has a chance to have fun, but I understand how if people want strict RAW how that might have to certainly go due to it being an exception.I just feel terrible that this is possibly putting things at jeopardy not only for me, for his game experience too.
@Kiinyan, I understand, hahaha, and I think most people just need to experience it to fully appreciate it. You have no idea how much I appreciate you sharing, especially because it can possibly show others that I'm not crazy in my position, or that I'm a selfish jerk that they somehow came to the conclusion of. Usually people think I'm a nut job, and by the end of the thread I'm seen as a completely sane person, but I will have to wait to see how things turn out this time.
@Broken prince, I've dealt with being the ultimate nice guy who just bears and grins it to the max, and it feels horrible to keep it all inside. I don't have anger issues at all, but to just be bullied and walked all over is something I can't allow. I'll give the benefit of the doubt most the time, but I can't tolerate that behavior. Specifically if someone comes to a PFS game, I don't care if the person being picked on is someone I don't particularly like, I will be an advocate for them, because I wouldn't want someone to allow someone else to treat me like that, nor do I feel the person is justified in doing so to the other person.
I understand how if you're already on the other side of the argument, and you see the guy being absolutely a jerk, you tend to let it go, and when the person fights back regardless of how tactfully they did it, the people just turn you into a monster, and that's that. If people want to be ignorant unfair jerks and judge me like that, then they're not worth my time, and I'll be sure to reflect my lack of respect for them to the absolute minimal levels that I give to anyone.
Prince, I too appreciate what you wrote, and understand that you have my best interests in mind with your wisdom. Thanks.