Search Posts
Also, even in detective cartoons (like Bat Man or Big O), the detective still needs to beat the daylight out of his enemies before they magically confess. Depending on the game you're trying to play, simply defeating, outsmarting, or publicly embarrassing your enemies may be the way to go. Then have some NPC oracle deliver the final blow of summoning hard evidence, thereby taking all the credit, but that in itself could be a running gag. Can you tell us more about the concept?
What level are you playing at? The Cassisian Angel improved familiar (7th level) is pretty much a walking tape recorder. The Inquisitor has spells to discern lies. Philosophically, since you're a nonlethal detective, simple super Diplomacy seems like the way to go in terms of turning eye-witnesses to your side, and also arguing your case in front of others (Scooby Doo or Sherlock style) And there's the investigator rogue archetype. And divination magic. I don't think you'd gather proof so much as a bunch of circumstantial evidence and eye witness accounts, and then simply have to logically prove your case.
Are there druid versions that sway towards the Infernal or Celestial? Druid+Animal Companion seem like an interesting choice with more bang for your buck if you just want melee meat shields, and Planar Wild Shape may give a neutral druid the option to go celestial or infernal as the situation demands. And of course there are those spells. If the druid takes natural spell and disguises itself as the sorceress's familiar, then the sorceress could really appear intimidating by seeming to have twice the spell-casting capacity. That in itself would deter attackers, and justify the druid being around at all times, eyes open, and ready to take a hit if need be. Effective? I have no idea, but definitely flavorful. The Pack Lord archetype could be a fun thing to add. You don't get the domain, but you divide one animal companion into less powerful smaller ones. Not saying this would be effective, but having a bunch of wolves follow the sorceress, or having her being accompanied by a bunch of bats seems neat. The bats would make excellent spies, and an ambush avoided is better than an ambush survived. If you don't fear anti-magic fields, then another sorcerer seems like an obvious choice, since a good body guard isn't a hero, just someone who gets his charge out of danger. A specialized sorcerer may not be great on his own, and may even have an inferiority complex, but at least he'll be useful to the one he's sworn to protect. I recently stumbled upon the Paladin (Sacred Shield) archetype, with his Bastion of Good ability. This looks nice, but there's no way a Paladin would accept to protect my Sorcerer NPC Why not? Today, many argue that 'civilization' is the greatest achievement and boon to mankind, while others argue that disruptive technologies are (i.e. a culture's ability to grow and not stagnate). If your sorceress is important to any of these things, then a Paladin might protect her. Others argue that the previous two things are abstract and not personal, and that the greatest boon to mankind are interpersonal relationships--If two people cannot be loyal to each other, then what hope is there for a larger system of strangers? A Paladin may then protect the sorceress out of personal commitments, or as the first building block to building a larger society of good. I think there's all sorts of cool Role Play space to explore if you want a good aligned Paladin, and the diverse pantheon of deities allow for this.
I think the OP is entirely a bad idea. Your friend wasn't playing a prank on you, just keeping things flowing (and used a bad choice of words). Your decision to 'prank' him is down right stupid, and not fitting your role as GM. There is no 'getting him back,' because he didn't do anything to you. He was the GM; he was keeping the scenario fun for everyone as best he could. It wasn't about you. If you're going to do any kind of prank at all, I say do it with RP humor, rather than through mechanics. And if its through mechanics, it can't single out an individual. Maybe introduce a horny cat that meows all night and won't let players sleep (in reference to your vengance). Make this cat somehow end up wherever players end up, and consistently bother them at night. If they seek to investigate, keep things humorous. If they just straight up go to kill it, make it burst and splatter goo onto everything in a 10 ft radius, leaving a strange odor. Those caught in the goo smell for 3 days, and take a -3 on charisma based checks. Then set the players up to painfully fail a bunch of non essential charisma checks, which may then make the players henceforth be known as the 'smelly lords,' or whatever seems appropriate to the story. Or if the players try and trap the cat, or engage in a non-lethal solution, let it turn out that the cat is the unfortunate familiar of an unfortunate wizzard or sorcerer that's been tailing you, or otherwise following a similar path. This sorcerer will probably be non-consequential, but may be an NPC subsequent GMs would also want to make use of. You get the idea. But it's only funny if everyone's eventually in on the joke. "Pranks" are generally a bad idea, and you might as well direct your mischievous streak into planning mischievous encounters.
WIz, Ftr, Clr, Rogue/Bard That's my first impulse too. Why Fighter instead of Barbarian or Paladin? Also, why Cleric? Is it because of the healing or because of the expected high AC?
I had never even considered the benefits of using illusions. And I'm a huge fan of gnomes. Can you imagine? I'm thankful for this thread. To contribute a little, I'm also a fan of prestidigitation. Adding taste (and odor if GM allows) might go away to strengthening an illusion. Added tip if your DM is a champ: If you're a small sized creature then your cloak will probably fit into a cubic foot, which means you'll be able to color, soil, or clean it, and perhaps make it more effective camouflage. This also means you could add odor to a sheet, and place it within the illusion to give it some odor and increase a will save against it. In theory, at least. As I said, I've never actually used illusions, or seen anyone else use illusions.
What would the composition of a quintessential adventuring party be? And how large would the group be? I know there are a lot of now-generic examples (ie. the Final Fantasy four, or the WoW DPS/Tank/Healer trinity), but I want to get the expectations of people who are currently playing Path Finder. And when I ask about 'composition,' that could mean anything from class to alignment to race--Whatever you think is relevant. This is a bit from left field, but I'm working with a sciFi robotic setting (Mega Man, but darker), and the idea is to have a set of top-ranking, warrior robots that are themed after an adventuring party. Each is the master of their own domain, as it were. This thread is basically research for that. But another task is to create an 'evil' version of the group. Rather than have the basic Paladin vs. AntiPaladin and Rogue vs. Ninja, I figured it'd be more fun to look at enemies that players find definitive. So what are the quintessential villains? Goblins have to be one of them, right?
Cavaliers and Samurai are mounted soldiers who you may want to give a try. Frankly, a cavalier seems as un-goblin-like as one might come, and I guess that's what you're going for. Look at samurai for mounted archery stuff. Basically a cavalier with different options.
^yup, multi-class. I think you're the type to enjoy the alchemist, so even if it won't end up being effective or useful, at least it'll be fun. Unless you've already played one, in which case I suggest playing a bard. You could sit around during battle with a scowl on your face, singing the blues. That'd be pretty funny. And maybe you'll be able to boost your knowledge checks too :).
Look, first of all, he's not going to get anywhere playing the wizard as is. By multi-classing, he's basically choosing to play a Level 1 character instead of a Level 0 character. That's a step up. Also, it's an effective, good-natured form of protest that his friends will all recognize--He gets the benefits of complaining/walking away without the costs of walking away. That's a big deal, given his ties to that social circle. If multi-classing does not, in fact, yield more benefits, then so what? The worst case scenario is that the GM basically planned to ignore and belittle him during the whole campaign anyway. The second-worst case scenario is that the GM needed him to be a high level wizard to save the world, and by multi-classing he basically ruined the overall arch of the campaign. But so what? Ruining the campaign seems to have been a pretty popular suggestion in this thread anyway. In that case, the failure's the GM's, not the player's. Secondly, as far as multi-classing options go, Alchemists benefit from similar stats as wizards, can retain much of the spells from the wizard books, can learn spells faster than this particular wizard, and can craft faster and cheaper than every other class (not sure if he can take advantage of the crafting feats he already taken, though). It's basically a leaner, meaner wizard. Story wise, this is the best option if the wizard wants to retain some connection to his wizarding roots, assuming the magus is a non starter. As far as crafting mutagens and the like, they don't cost more than standard spell-components, and he can make bombs with his radio-active urine if it comes down to that--And if he can't, then he'll at least have the satisfaction of throwing vials of his own urine at the enemy. Epic win. Auto-critical every time, if I was the GM. At the whole intelligence score thing--That was an appeal to role play. If he's roleplaying a smart character who's effectively powerless, the role-play appropriate thing to do might be to fight for more power and relevance, OR it might be to figure out the mystery. Not by rolling a dice, mind you, but by sleuthing out the world (not sleuthing out the GM by making fake rolls). Chances are the GM sucks, and is involved in bad game design. But if you're going to give him a chance, then give him the best chance you can.
I keep on coming across terms like 'orb of acid' or 'dart of acid,' and I realize that in every case the acid isn't being described as a ray, but as a physical projectile. Perhaps that's why both of my GMs, when asked about whether ranged weapon feats apply to acid splash, shrug and say 'Of course.' Even if that's technically true, what's the argument for why non-ray spells shouldn't benefit from range feats? What's the big idea?
Do it in such a way that the character can return in the future. Weave it into the longterm plot somehow. Once you start thinking of how this might happen, I'm sure you'll start to overflow with ideas.
Re-Focus: Does a Druid's Wild Shape(SU) get a bonus from this trait? What about when Monks spend Ki points to enhance movement?
I'm just a noob, but 1) This game sounds pretty interesting. You're the smartest guy in the party, have you figured out the secrets behind this post apocalyptic world? There HAS to be some payoff to all the weird stuff you've been put through. 2) If you're roleplaying, why is your wizard still a wizard? Have you thought about taking a level in Alchemist? They can freely learn stuff from wizard books, of which you have one. Not the best choice, I know, but it seems like a credible path your wizard might take in this post apocalyptic world. By the way, what's the rest of the adventuring crew made of? Is everyone else having fun?
1. My guess: treat it like the druid's wild shape.
Wanderlust: Halflings love travel and maps. Halflings with this racial trait receive a +2 bonus on Knowledge (geography) and Survival checks. When casting spells or using abilities that provide or enhance movement, halflings treat their caster level as +1 higher than normal. This racial trait replaces the fearless and halfling luck racial traits. The obvious application for this is the expeditious retreat spell, but how much else is it useful for? What are relevant abilities that provide movement? I'm specifically thinking about spells that provide climb speeds, or the druid's abilities to change into forms that provide alternate movement options. Are both of these subject to benefit from this racial trait?
My interpretation was always that the acid splash disappeared by the end of the next round? Ergo no double damage. But if it did stick around for another round, how much damage would it do if it was modified by sneak attack, bloodline powers, precision feats. etc? I assume it wouldn't be.
=> Level 1, Acid Splash + Brutal(Abyssal) Bloodline + Point-Blank Shot
On topic
I assume the Acid/Brutal combo is still better? Off topic
What are the weaknesses of relying on acid splash over a good bow? I can't take feats as quickly, so end up doing less damage? Am I unable to make use of feats like rapid shot? context: Level 1 one-shot: My current, 15 pt halfing build has 6 str, 20 dex, 14 con, 7 int, 7 wis, 14 cha (after racial ability adjustments). The two level 1 spells I went with were Mage Armor (+4 AC, 1hr/lvl) and Shield (+4 AC, 1min/lvl), with the understanding that both stacked. And I think the Lore Seeker trait lets me use those at +1 caster level (twice the level 1 duration). So my ranged attack is at +7, damage around 5, and AC from 16-24. On the downside, I have no CMD, and my only skill rank is linguistics (to speak abyssal). Is this a remarkable travesty of a sorcerer, or is he passable enough for the group to tolerate? Could I go further with him, or have I severely limited his chances of being useful at the higher levels? Level 2 Rogue sneak attack(+1d6) seems like an obvious way to boost damage at level 2. I can put my one skill rank into stealth, and get more use out of the halfling swift as shadows alternate racial trait. I could also use Reduce Person instead of shield to get a +1 dexMod and +4 stealth when I need it. Alternatively, I could keep my focus on high AC, acrobatics and bluffs (using bluff/feint to help with sneak attacks). Flatfooted against ranged touch attacks means their AC can't be more than 10, right? So that sounds pretty nice. Level 3 A second level in rogue will get me a +1 BAB, evasion, and a rogue combat trick. So I can take deadly aim(combat trick) to get +2 on all damage rolls, and precise shot. One of these can be a rogue combat trick, the other can be my level 3 feat. 1d3+4 damage w/out sneak attack? While I'll be skilled enough to disable traps, I don't expect to be finding very many, so I might use a Rake rogue, or an acrobat, investigator rogue instead to switch out the trap-finding stuff. Level 4
I could've use the magical knack trait to keep up the power of my sorcerer spells until now (I would've used that instead of lore seeker), but that ends here. Not the biggest loss, for what it was. After that?
Sorcerer Level 1 Looking at these two cantrips (because that's how much of a beginner I am), I assume Acid Splash is subject to damage reduction, while Ray of Frost is subject to spell resistance? Or is one actually better than the other? If these are my ONLY damage dealing options, which one's the better pick, or would really rather have both?
@ volume of verbal components
When talking about rules as intended, do we suppose we're considering the intention of the game mechanics, or the intention of the lore and pseudoscience of arcane magic? @ Mending
Sorcerer level 1, arcane bloodline, monkey familiar If I have a monkey as a familiar, can he use my ranks in use magic device to use a wand of cure light wounds at his own volition? I figure he will only be able to use my skill rank, and not any extra bonuses I have. Also, he'll likely be doing so at a penalty to charisma. So I see it's not a great option, but an extra pair of hands to bring party members back from the brink of death seems like something worth considering. Can I use my handle animal skill to improve its use an emergency medic? I'm not sure to what extent I can use the empathetic link with the monkey to get him to help out on the field. I've had the impression that my familiar is basically a little version of me, and I should use him accordingly (which is why there's such a penalty for putting your familiar in harms way--it's akin to putting yourself in harms way). Here's some reference text I looked up in the process. "Use a Wand, Staff, or Other Spell Trigger Item: Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand's spell on your class spell list. This use of [use magic device] allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. Failing the roll does not expend a charge." "To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole"
Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell of the polymorph subschool, increase the duration of the spell by 50% (minimum 1 round). This bonus does not stack with the increase granted by the Extend Spell feat. I thought this would be a useful combination with reduce or enlarge person, but those seem to be from the 'transmutation' school...I can't seem to find much info about 'polymorph.' Question 1: Do bloodline arcana's kick in right from level 1?
So how off base was the GM's decision? My dex was 18, could picking up the fallen weapons be fudged as a 'swift action?'
Even though the GM allowed this, I'm sure I did everything wrong here. I somehow had the impression that fighters could combine move actions, ie. move and draw a weapon, or move and pick up a weapon. What are the actual rules on this? Scenario Spoiler:
(Level 1, Hollow's Last Hope): My injured fighter is standing around with a readied bow and arrow, as a rogue and paladin are searching at the base of a tree, 30 ft away. A creature jumps down from the tree, and reduces the paladin to one or two hit points. Round 1: I drop the bow and arrow as a free action, and charge the creature, drawing my falchion as I move. My first turn ends with an attack. On its turn, the creature has taken enough damage that it flees, climbing 30 ft vertically into the tree. Round 2: I drop my weapon as a free action, run back to the fallen bow and arrow as a move action, and wishfully combine that move action with the action to 'draw' the bow and arrow from the ground. After expending a free action and a move action, I used my standard action to shoot at the creature, taking it down. What did the GM let me get away with that the rules don't explicitly permit? In his defense, we would have been completely crushed if he didn't allow us some liberties, but now I'm confused about the rules.
With the limit of one object of up to 1 lb./level, how useful is Mending? Especially at lower levels. I suppose it could be used to retrieve ammo that have a chance of being lost or broken, but aside from that? I was listening to some conversation on sundering, and it was suggested that sundering can be used more often by GMs, because it's now easier for players to fix broken weapons and armors. Is that really true, given the weight limits?
Common. Undercommon. Check. Dwarven, Elven. Surprised, but check. Elemental languages. Check. Infernal...Why? If those types are constantly trying to manipulate people for souls, wouldn't they speak the languages of their victims? Sylvan. I like the style of it. Do woodland creatures and plants understand the language, even if they can't speak it? Would this provide some sort of circumstance bonus to handle animal checks? Druidic. How often do druids talk to other druids in game?
I'm trying to pick out trade languages, and I assume that any race that handles weapons, armor, or other goods are likely to trade with other races. Which are the exceptions to that assessment?
I understand that the linguistics skill can only get you one language per level, and that players can learn appropriate new languages as the campaign unfolds. However, what are generally useful languages to have? Here's a list of them, in case that will help aid discussion. http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/linguistics.html#_learn-a-languag e I'd imagine I should skip the common races and the purely elemental languages. I don't have any opinion on the devil, demon, and angel stuff.
I know you can't have more ranks in a skill than you have hit die, so at level 1, when looking at a class skill, do you have 1) 1 rank
An example of a trait skill bonus might be
So does one have a) 1 rank?
And how does this affect something like the following pre-requirement for a prestige class?
Theoretically, can one meet the requirements after 1st level, or must one wait five levels?
On pink dragons, let me say that I wholly approve a silver/red combo. On drakes, dragons, and wyverns -- I thought drakes and dragons would not have evolved from the same source, simply because drakes have no arms. It's not that the arms would have evolved into something else, but they simply have two less limbs, it seems. Then again, who's to say that magic wasn't a strong part of that evolutionary process. From 3.5, could Dragon Born reproduce? They weren't born naturally, but underwent a ceremony to be reborn as (kind of)dragons. Still, I don't know what would happen if two mated. I assume the situation for dragon borns would be similar dragons'.
This seems perfectly relevant: paizo.com/traits The first incarnation of [traits] appeared ... disguised as six new feats that your new character could take (we recommended that GMs allow players to pick one of these six as a bonus feat). These new feats were more than just additional tricks and powers, though; they were crafted to infuse newly created characters with built-in links to the then brand-new realm of Varisia. You could make locale specific skills/abilities (like sailing, horseback riding, or weapons training) additional feats that players get for free. They're designed as slight boosts, not game breakers.
The other question would be why dragons would mate with other creatures? With birds, for example, small rituals and flourishes are what distinguish species, even though their genetics might be compatible. I thought the same would be true for dragons, but then why would they mate with non dragons? The answer is that they wouldn't. Unless they did so out of some experiment to create stronger minions, or something.
My biggest barrier to role playing is that things have to make sense, so I'm interested in this topic from a purely theoretical view. So for me this is a lore question, not a question about role play options or possibilities. The following is conjecture. But I really want to know what's the 'official view' in Golarion. As magical creatures, I thought dragons were simply physical projections of some abstract principle. So genetics be damned, their powers and personality are defined by magic. I think of the magic as flowing water, and dragons (or other magical beings) as soil or sand that can be shaped by water. So the more magic or divine power you call upon, the less freedom the creature has to carve its own unique path (as it's carved for them). So dragons, strongly magical beings that they are, are magically compelled to be what they are. Their hybrid offspring are not born from genetics, but from the fact that draconic power now flows through the offspring, similarly limiting that offspring's ability to be its own creature. In the case of dragons mating, the result could conceivably some union of the parental power sources, or be another power source entirely. If my theory is correct (or applicable to Golarion), then dragons are excellent conduits of magical power, but who's to say what power flows through them? It would be possible for two red dragons to, very very very rarely, give birth to a blue dragon. Now that would be interesting, wouldn't it? Though one might argue that if an egg is incubating in a red dragon, that dragon egg would be bathed in red dragon energy and would thus likely come out a red dragon. But what about an egg surrounded by mixed dragon energies? (A quick aside: Could drakes have come from chicken eggs hatched near dragon lairs? I really have no idea how drakes could've evolved from dragons) There are two other factors to consider, though. (1) Dragon societies are often strongly structured, and there probably a lot of cultural taboos and prejudices concerning a dragon's color, just as some human cultures only trust their own. That might be the main reason different colored dragons don't mate. (2) This same prejudice might compel either the parents or the larger dragon society to destroy a mixed hatchling. Most likely though, if magic is what we're talking about, opposing primal energies might cancel each other out, or warp each other. In that case the color wheel thing makes sense.
speaking of 'improvised ranged weapons,' can I make and use improvised arrows? Ie. stick a lump of tar onto a straight stick, maybe fashion a leaf or flower onto its tail end to give it guidance, and then shoot the thing through a fire and into an orc?
Is that from 3.5? I couldn't easily find it on the Pathfinder PRD.
What determines weapon damage and crit stats? The physical characteristics of the weapon, or the way in which they're used? I'd imagine that the weight, blade, and attack style determine the amount of damage, while the technique determines the crit, but it's hard to say.
Real quick: What's RAI? Alright, this is a bit off topic, but I feel this is the best place to discuss this. Improvised Weapons: ... Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.... Based on that wording, doesn't it seem like the -4 penalty is applied exclusively because of nonproficiency? So removing that penalty would mean that proficiency has been granted. Realize, though, that granting proficiency in this way would not let PCs follow the feat chain to specialize in a weapon. Because of this trade off, I'm not immediately crying foul at the feat. It does not, indeed, render other weapon proficiency feats useless. But then there's this idea that a medium character using a small light dagger he's not proficient in will do so at a -6 penalty...Say what? -4 from the non proficiency, and -2 from the size difference? Ok, I'll accept that the -2 is from discomfort, but then why would improvised weapons not suffer this? Is it because one doesn't have to unlearn trained habits? Ok, but now I'm thinking about arrows, and how they can function as improvised light daggers--Do they function as small size, medium size, or large size? I don't know what the original thinking was behind this stuff.
Quick defense of Jackie: Lots of enemies; more combat maneuvers; weapons used defensively rather than offensively. Speaking of which, what feats would I need to do for my PC to be able to create partial concealment for himself, using a ladder? (kidding) My biggest problem at the moment is that there's no lore explanation behind why one would be able to effectively use 'improved weapons,' yet still be incompetent with 'untrained weapons.' It doesn't make role playing sense to me, at the moment. But then there's the issue of whether being able to use any weapon would break the signature style of the monk class. I don't think it would. Even if a monk could improvise any weapon, as discussed, wouldn't flurry-friendly combat still be the better option? Both in terms of hit% and damage? So it would be a very strange monk who chose to run around with a mace or a mop as a main weapon. And wouldn't combat maneuvers still be made with a higher base attack bonus than attacking with an improv weapon? If so, I have a hard time accepting that the ability to use improve weapons would take away from the core monk style, since flurry and combat maneuvers would still be their best options, most of the time. But that's most of the time. I still think it's up in the air as to whether my reading of the feat would break the class. I'll give some examples: 1. Some of the time, you'll be facing an unarmed enemy, and the feat in question would let you roll against their flat footed AC...I guess that could be useful. It'd be neat to disarm and enemy, and then stab them with their own weapon (not in a single turn, unfortunately). 2. If you're fighting an enemy with resistances you're not prepared for, it'd be neat to pick up your fallen comrade's weapon and use it well enough to make a difference. ...That's all I can think of at the moment. Frankly, the former just seems like a style choice, and the latter seems to correct a problem people have often brought up about weaponless monks' inabilities to bypass DR. PS. I thought of third game breaker, but I kind of got carried away with it. Spoiler: There's also the issue that some GMs might just not be sensitive to a monk's needs, and won't give them flurry-friendly weapons as treasure. Or the GM could be excellent in every way, and strive to be 'authentic.' Perhaps the local black smiths are just unfamiliar with monks' strange style of weapons, and are unable to make masterwork quality monk weapons--The monk is a stranger in a strange land, and must find a suitable master and prove his worth to him, so the ancient one will give up his heirloom weapons that have been passed down over the generations...That's excellent and all, but being able to improve weapons in the mean time seems nice.
First, if anyone could point me towards articles where I can read about the 'intent' behind certain feats vs the 'implementation,' I think that'd be an awesome behind-the-scenes look, and I'd really appreciate it. Second, I have questions about 'improvised range weapons.' A bow is a ranged weapon. Could I use a hammock, tied between two palms, to launch coconuts at a hobgoblin, and NOT take a -4 to the attack if I had the feat under discussion? I'm concerned as to why they said 'improvised ranged weapon,' rather than 'improvised thrown weapon.' Is the title of the feat the giveaway? But I was under the impression that a lot of feats have names that convey the spirit of the feat, but not the totality of the content?
Edit: Oye, I'm ashamed of all my spelling errors(can't go back and edit them now). I'm also ashamed I haven't thanked you guys for helping me. Thanks. update: I've looked at a few threads, but I haven't yet come across interesting discussion on whether letting monks actually be like Jackie Chan breaks the class. I have, however, come across the idea of letting improvised weapons do damage based on their size, but that clearly goes against the established rules, which (at first reading)only apply a penalty to the attack role. And I think that makes sense. Doesn't it make sense that the difficulty in using an improvised weapon be in using it? Ie. It may be hard to use a normal hammer in combat, but when it hits, are you going to tell me it does less damage? How does that make any sense? Though perhaps I do have a proposed change to the existing 'improvised weapon' damage calculations. Rather than comparing it to any existing weapon, how about only comparing the damage to a weapon you're proficient with? I.e. you can't use a chain of salami as a nunchuck--unless you actually do know how to use a nunchuck...Of course the GM should apply a -4 or something for damage...though if that was done, would rolling low on damage let your enemies eat the salami to regain health? Hmm... Though I'd argue with myself on this--I think one should be able to use an improvised weapon as any other, because the -4 to attack roles already accounts for this difficulty. And likewise, if a character is talented at making intuitive use of an object as a weapon, then really, making an exception for unfamiliar weapons seems like rules-lawyering against the players, rather than even respecting the intent of the monk class. As a side note, the monk's flurry-friendly weapons were all designed to be improvised weapons in the eyes of their opponents, originating as simple farm tools and the like when peasants weren't allowed weaponry. The sai, for example, were meant for planting seeds and weeding, later adopted to pierce through samurai armor and to break samurai blades. And you know the weapon that's described as 'like a scythe?' Well, yeah. You guessed it. But all this goes out the window if this change breaks or overpowers the class. I do understand that rpg games place game design over realism.
Quick questions would be: Where do I look to find out how to calculate damage for improvised weapons? I'm sure this stuff must've been spelt out somewhere by now. Ie. If I tie two metal bars together, do I get a nanchaku? What if I attach a kitchen knife or a butchers knife to a mop? Or simpler yet, what if I were to stab someone with a pen? After giving it moderate thought, I'm still hung up on the 'improvised' weapon thing, so I have two types of concerns: The first has to do with game balance, and the second has to do with style. I'm pretty confident I'm correct on the style point, but concerning game balance, well, I really have very little real game experience. First, assuming a GM were to allow untrained weapons to be treated as improvised weapons (house rules), would that break the game? Sure, monks would be able to pick up absolutely anything and use them as weapons, but they'd be doing so at -1 BAB compared to flurry of blows (and other fighters), would never be able to increase their proficiency at these weapons (ignoring alternatives such as the open handed style, discussed above) , nor would they gain the special properties of weapons (though I think this should certainly be debatable from a style perspective). Simply, this [false reading of the] feat doesn't seem like it would make monks that much stronger than they are now, just more versatile. Though yes, for non monks, I see how this feat could be overpowered, but they'd be missing out on some other feat that would allow them to get increasingly better at a particular weapon. ie. Even exotic or martial weapon proficiency are for a single weapon, not the entire class of weapons. The feat seems to have players trade versatility for specialization, which passes the smell test, at the very least. But speaking of smell test, how could a monk possibly be better at wielding an improvised weapon than an actual weapon? Normally both have a -4 to attack roles (I think), but then some monk gets a talent for using a pale, but can't figure out how to use a spear? How could a monk be -4 less likely to hit with a sword than an egg plant? The other issue has to do with special abilities, ie. using a whip to trip. Stylistically, I've seen Jackie Chan use ropes and chains to great affect, and he's even made great defensive use of a ladder, using it to obtain partial concealment (you've seen the scene, right? I think he's wearing yellow). Or you've seen Fat in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon using a birch to whip away the chick with the prized sword. Concerning the 'catch of guard' feat, I know the rules are there to make the game better, and I wouldn't feel right going against the intention of the designers (it's their art, after all), but monks being able to use anything seems to fit the lore exactly. The only real question is if it breaks the game, I feel. Of course I'm not even slightly equipped to answer that.
From a role play perspective, halflings are actually the 'little guys,' or the real 'common man' in this dangerous, monster eat monster world. That's really appealing to me. I also like the gnomish tendency to look at the world differently and affect the core assumptions of the game. But yes, I understand that I'm playing the game wrong--It really is about hacking and slashing, and taking other people's stuff. However, I think players who want to play a gnome barbarian, or whatever, know they're playing the game in an unorthodox manner, and maybe they have good reason for doing so. Ask them. Sometimes asking those questions will either make the player realize how silly and disrespectful they're being to the game, OR come up with really meaningful fluff that makes the game better. And anyway, I think gnomes or halflings should be the vehicle behind what drive the story forward, rather than be 5th or 6th random party members. Of course, maybe their reasons for playing a gnome or halfling aren't that deep. Personally, I'm a tough little guy. Back in highschool, I benched 195lb when I weighed 119. Do I want to play the huge giant? No. That's kind of lame, and people would accuse me of overcompensating. Truth be told, I want to play a vegepygmy. Kind of like a mini Swamp Thing. Tell me that doesn't sound awesome.
Side Note: There are rules for zero level 'apprentice' characters. As a noob, I'd want to learn the game a piece at a time. Races and Classes add complexity, I feel. I think the 'basics' have all to do with equipment and skill checks. Sundering, disarming, subdual damage, heal checks, all that stuff are at the core of the game. Without understanding those basics, none of the rest of the game can really be that fun. It'd be like playing a game you didn't know the rules to. I was a complete noob a year ago, and I was started off as a sorceror. That was a bad idea, because I had to keep track of spells in addition to good old armor and weapon stuff. And since I had no frame of reference, I had to imagine what being magical and all powerful was like, and then be surprised as the game imposed reasonable limitations on me. That was a tough intro into the DnD style world. Fighters are simple and effective, and introduce players to the core mechanics they'll need to enjoy the game long into the future--That's the biggest benefit. Fighters actually introduce players to the game so you don't have to shield it from them. Give them melee weapons instead of ranged weapons so they can get over their fear of taking damage. Also, don't work too hard on who the character is, becuase you don't want preconcieved character concepts to clash with who players discover their character is as they roleplay. You want players to enjoy who their characters are, rather than spend their efforts protecting their character-concept from the outside world (and the GM). But if your player likes magic, I recommend the old Battle Mage over the sorceror. Their spell progression is largely set in stone, and they focus on blasty evoker spells that are very video gamey. You can occasionally add a spell to the list, and I'd choose one that has a different attack shape from what you already have, ie. Jet Steam (or whatever) that's a long line rather than a cone.
I'm not an experienced player, so I fear I'm reading the rules too favorably in some cases, and not favorably enough in others. Please help. Questions about Catch Off Guard This stuff might be 'too good to be true,' OR it might be the stuff that lets monks compete on the battle field. 1) Does the 'Catch off guard' feat effectively allow a player to be proficient with any and all weapons? It takes away the -4 penalties to using an 'improvised' (feat description also adds 'unorthodox') weapon, and when looking at how much damage an improvised weapon does, you're supposed to compare the improvised weapon to one that's most comparable--In the case of using a weapon you're not trained in, would this weapon be itself? 2) Additionally, an unarmed opponent is flat footed against such an attack. SO, say I had a monk and disarmed an opponent (freely taking the weapon for myself), would I then be able to attack him with his own weapon on my next turn, or on his if he provokes an attack of opportunity? And would I then make that attack against his flatfooted AC? 3) Alternately, does this feat allow me to wield my sais in an unorthodox manner, using them to do piercing damage instead of bludgeoning damage, all while getting to make the attack against an opponents flat footed AC? 4) It seems that weapons of a different size classes might also be perfectly usable as well, though as different weapons, ie. a short sword sword instead of a long sword, or whatever. Again, attacks would go against flat footed AC. 5) What's the deal when it comes to using broken weapons as improvised weapons? Questions about 'Throw Anything' I imagine the 'catch of guard' feat does NOT apply to improvised thrown weapons, since that might fall under the 'Throw Anything' feat, which deals with ranged weapons. 0) Bows, crossbows, and slings are all ranged weapons. If I wasn't proficient in them, I'd have to use them as 'improvised' ranged weapons, right? Would the 'throw anything' feat apply, again making the PC able to use any and all ranged weapons? 1) If I threw a great ax 10 feet at someone, what damage do I do? Do I do the damage of a great ax? So, with the 'throw anything' feat, could I replace my shurikens with sais? The sais would do bludgeoning damage, but they'd do more of it. Although sais are 5 times more expensive than shurikens, they don't have the same risk of being damaged or lost, which seems nice. 2) With the 'catch off guard' improvised weapon feat, can I fashion improvised but effective shurikens relatives cheaply from sundered weapons and the like? They're just sharpened pieces of metal, after all. 3) I think it was TreentMonk's 'guide to monks' that suggested using a combination of Flurry of Blows with shurikens as the ranged attack of choice with monks...Perhaps the Quick Draw feat made this possible, but is that right? Could you throw a bunch of shurikens as your flurry of blows? The alternate reading would be to use shurikens as melee weapons when using them as part of a flurry, but then it seems they do less damage than fists, and that hardly makes sense. Perhaps they're an option to do non-bludgeoning damage, but I have a hard time visualizing that unless they're doing slashing damage...Maybe they're useful to sunder armor, or something? 4) Will the Quick Draw feat allow me to take out and throw multiple shurikens on my turn, as part of flurry of blows? Would I be able to do the same thing with sais if I have the 'throw anything' feat? Some last questions about Overrun: 1) If I run through an opponents square and he's flanked by his allies, do they get an attack of opportunity on me, even though my and their ally are in the same square? Would they risk damaging their ally instead of me? 2) When the target of my overrun chooses to let me pass, does he remain in his square the entire time, and I simply pass through? 3) Overrunning is a standard action. If my target chooses not to engage me, and lets me pass, have I burned that standard action, or am I free to use a different standard action at the end of my move action? |
