1,405 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

 1 to 50 of 1,405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ion Raven wrote:
Unless you're playing in a vacuum everything you shoot or cast is going through some sort of material. The only way to alter the course of something be it arrow, bullet, or fireball is for something to hit whether rain or wind. The only thing that should set off a fireball is something that actually stops it, otherwise you bring in crazy plans where people start tossing sand around as a fireball defensive mechanism...

Too be honest if a wave of flame was coming toward you and you had a bag of sand you could throw it into the air and keep from being burned, wih a magical fireball there is no explosive pressure so it would work even better.

So as far as realism goes, that would totally work

Shifty wrote:
Okay so someone mentioned the absolute kill for this thread in that other thread. Do you give dagger wielders a 0ft reach?

Wait, your arm is 0' long, even when holding a 12" weapon?

Similarly, why does your 6' dude always hunch over to fit in a 5' tall imaginary cube?

Draw yourself a 5ft square, stand in the middle, draw another 5ft square and have your friend stand in the middle, without going into his square try to touch him with a ruler, my arm may not be zero feet but it cant even leave my square without help from the ruler, and even then it only barely makes it out. So if I want to hit him with it I have to enter his square, which is represented in the rules as 0 ft of reach.

Okay so someone mentioned the absolute kill for this thread in that other thread. Do you give dagger wielders a 0ft reach? your 4 inch long pointy thing cant possibly reach as far as my foot and a half long pointy thing (abstract numbers, point is the same nonetheless) so either one needs reach or the other needs to lose distance, cause as far as "can I imagine it" realism goes, I cant see the dagger wielder not having issues with reach in a sword fight, but much like tight spaces there are no rules for that.

It is bias to penalize one if the other has obvious constraint your willing to ignore.

Yes, your old. Yes realism is really really boring. If you want to play realistically then either dont play a fantasy game, or let me DM you so you can learn how bad an idea this is.

Besides, protecting a spellbook is almost too easy. You do know you cant target something with full concealment right? You know a wizards robe could probably give it full concealment.

Also charisma is your personable stat, the higher it is the more naturally personable you are. Has nothing to do with how personable you can be. Thats why everyone gets to roll the same d20 and can but the same points in diplomacy.

And penalizing people for small spaces just drags the game out when they stop bothering to crawl through small spaces. Or if forced to will just shield rush there way out. Making that small space a pointless waste of time.

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Shifty wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:
Did archers ever have to wind and unwind their bows? (I've only ever played 3.5 and Pathfinder)

No, but then combat rounds used to be a minute... :p

Anyhow the point is that if the BIG WEAPON players insist on getting into cramped quarters then either they adapt, use a sub par weapon, or find another way to get to where they want to go that doesn't involved cramped quarters.

Get a reduce person going or something, dunno, don't care... but if you can't operate as a class and become completely ineffective by not being given your optimal terrain for your optimal weapon then its a worry about just how specialised you have become.

Ditto to the nerfing of close quarter fighters, you have nerfed their builds arbitrarily, which is a bit uncool... especially as those sort of builds have been put in RAW... :(

And yeah SOD might be just as happy giving the Kobolds a punch in the chops, I still like the concept of daggers or a hatchet though.

in my last post, i said i wouldn't put too much effort into sundering a weapon or stealing a spellbook without some temporary replacement tools.

those tools would not be exact replicas. they would probably be nerfed and difficult to work in. but they would be available.

i don't give a damn what the wealth by level table says after you start play. i see it as a quick way to calculate one's starting wealth qwhen making a higher level character. nothing more.

Gotta say i disagree here, first I never do weapon drops, where there is stuff because they need stuff, not because it makes sense. Also if they lose there stuff then they werent prepared, probably bout time to roll a new character cause you fud up. If i forced that situation past any precautions im a shitty DM and shouldnt be dming.

Having said that, I dont think penalizing two handers in small spaces makes a lot of sense. These guys are super human, it probably takes 2 inches of space for him to flourish his weapon in an effective manner, then again if this was a rule in a campaign I played in I would carry a heavy/tower sheild just for this occasion when I can crouch foreward with no fear of being hit ( cause realistically nothing is getting past the shield and it also makes no sense that anything could swing there dagger hard enough to sunder it.)

Yes its as boring as it sounds, welcome to realism.

Shifty wrote:

Ummm how are truck drivers compensated when they turn up at a suburban McDonalds drive through and the space is too small for their 18 wheeler and they can't get it around in the carpark.

I find converations about compensation a bit humourous... you know you could just buy a dagger and not be fully tricked out with it.

Why buy a dagger? grapple or an unarmed strike would be more effective/less expensive. (no I'm not afraid of melee kobold's getting AOO's)

Or hell, just hold your enormous hammer or shield in front of you and keep moving foreward, nothing has the strength in that small a space to stop you and eventually you'll hit a larger space.

Alternatively invest in wands of expeditious excavation, or have the druid burrow a tunnel under the tunnel to make a bigger tunnel. Point is, buying that dagger is still the least effective option.

So let me get this straight, I can do gun damage + bonuses + smite bonus x 2 to an enemy (and hopefully drop them and do it again) or I can do gun damage x2 + bonuses x 2 on a regular full attack.

In my experiance bonuses times two would do more damage, sure you could do it when you cant take a full attack (as a ranged combatent) but your less likely to drop someone tk gain grit back.

So this smite is actually gimping my attack?

A homunculus alchemist/necromancer that affixis those rings that explode to his humonculi before sending them into combat. Also they should carry you on a throne whenever possible.

Alternative.

step one: make the character you want to play
Step two: let him b!#@\$ until the other players get annoyed and say "can we just start already?"

InsaneFox wrote:

Ignoring low-level characters, a mid-level character with full hp, who could survive a salvo from two barbarians, could find himself suddenly dead, not dying, without being able to take a single action to prevent it.

I think that's a flaw in game mechanics.

The guy who can survive the two barbarians obviously has a bad will save, the guy with a good will save wont survive the two barabarians, so both are instant kill depending on opponent, you havent shown one to be worse then the other. Fighter dies to hold person+cdg, wizard dies to barbarian full attackx2.

Unless its a paladin then neither tactic will save you....

So this is down to, if you fail your eave against a spell you shouldnt be boned, funny I thought every spell with a fort or will save killed whatever failed it, bestow curse effectively shuts down an opponent until you feel like killing him. Hell witch hexs are much scarier then hold person.

Do they get an extra save if its a fight near water and the PCs spend thier turn tying a rock to thier feet and pushing them in? ( saw that uothread and had to ask)

I disagree on two things, one I doubt it would be uncomfortable, hold your vreath for 3 seconds, you barely notice, thats how the internal alchemist feels in three hours. Two, he could still probably talk, it only forces a little air out to talk and you can still hold your breath while doing it (go ahead try it), so if the alchemist is a loudmouth go ahead and knock an hour off his time (sure he can just restart it whenever but meh)

ProfPotts wrote:
I'm sorry... what do you think the words written under the Feat actually say? I didn't write the thing. Yes, it makes no sense (apart from as game balance)... but shooting the messenger isn't going to help, now, is it? ;)

Look at it this way, your fatigued but your immune to the effects, so go ahead and write fatigue on your sheet, just dont write any of the penalties.

First paragraph, "ninjas suck cause I dont want eastern in my western fantasy" < irrelevant argument.

Second paragraph, the fluff implied... Uhh no fluff is not and was never intended to be concrete, if I want my barbarian to be animal loving and worship nature it doesnt mean I have to play a druid. You can call your ninja a prissy loud richboy if you want, the fluff of the class is irrelevant.

Third paragraph, a 4d4 greatsword would very easily break the game in numerous ways, low levels would be a walk in the park, crits would be worse then they already are and vital strike would go from situational to OP. Balance means it doesnt make cr appropriate encounter irrelevant, theres power creep and theres unbalance, they are not the same thing. Power creep is usually considered bad because it pigeonholes builds because those options do everything for you, but if the rogue was so bad only hardcore fans use them then it isnt power creep to release something people will actually use, and those same rogue fans will play rogues to their death. So nothing changed for the rogue.

All I got from that is you dont like the ninja because it isnt called a rogue, seriously just call it a rogue. And the ninja area of the forum is for playtesting for balance, does it do obscene amounts of damage or allow for instant no save encounters? No? Then it isnt unbalanced. Comparing it to other classes has no relevance to balance. Wizards are easily stronger then most classes, do they break the game? Yeah they can but only at high level and only if you built your whole career to do it. The ninja isnt even that strong and yet your advocating he should be toned down.

edross wrote:

An issue to be discussed in a monk forum probably. The fact that the sink's broken doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the stove.

Except the rogue is the stove, the ninja is the fix. And if you really believe that then why are you only trying to "fix" the ninja? (regardless of how well balanced it is next to the other classes) Why haven't you made a thread or two about many other things just as bad (Eg. monk) are you just biased against the ninja or do you actually think your helping the game?

edross wrote:

I posted about this in the general UC forum, but since I think I came up with a pretty elegant solution, I'll summarize my position here:

Ninjas are better versions of one of the core classes. Therefore ninjas are not balanced to the core rules.

** spoiler omitted **...

Every monk archtype ever is better then the monk, so they all need toned down too right?

Oh then yes, but people have been doing that with the whip for awhile lol

That wording says you can only make one attack at reach, so I dont think so.

Lobolusk wrote:

again i am not reading rolled into equal in my mind equal replaces rolled so the grapple rule is an exception.

But as stated it is = to 1d8+x, in order to do 1d8 you kinda have to roll.

Lobolusk wrote:

in the grapple context it says "equal to" i read that to be my total unarmed strike damage?

in the coudecrace or how ever the hell you spell it. it says you do critical damage? and an auto hit i read that to mean you dont roll.. it makes sense in my mind you would never hold back if you are trying to kill somebody? and they can'mt ove or defend them selves

It says equal to your unarmed strike, your unarmed is equal to 1d8+x it is not equal to 8+x

unarmed = 1d8+x
Unarmed =/= 8+x

and about the not holding back, you do realize you still roll damage against inanimate objects right? it has nothing to do with how much effort you put in (that's what str is for), The weapon damage is things like their throat muscle twitching as you cut so the vital spot ran against the flat of the blade.

You don't do max damage on a crit either. It is an auto crit, not auto max damage x2/3/4

Few things

1) No you don't get max damage

2) Greater grapple is debatable on whether or not you can pin in one round.

3) When in a grapple you can take one attack (this ends the grapple without greater grapple to maintain), your opponent can take his full attack.

4) If you grapple, eat a full attack, then pin instead of attack, your opponent can escape the whole thing just by resisting the grapple.

5) Be a druid, be a snake, have fun constricting things. That's what I do for a grapple character.

Jason S wrote:

The exception to the rule is if you're in a Monte Hall campaign and the GM is giving out +4 greatswords at level 7 and you've just sundered it. In that case you probably owe everyone an apology (and pizza) then. :)

In order to sunder a +4 weapon you have to have a +4 weapon, so if you do then sundering may not be a good option for that extremely high wbl game. Much more efficient to TWF, hard to miss.

Nah sunder away, they might get annoyed every once in awhile but if you really destroy something worthwhile your high enough level where the wizard laughs, waves his hand, and makes reality believe it never happened.

At lower levels you can't sunder any of the good stuff anyway so I've never seen it hurt loot then either. Not sure why so many people are put off from using it.

This seems to obsolete the 15th level cavalier ability that does the sane thing.

Ravingdork wrote:
Well with the tiger pounce mentioned above you could actually use the combat expertise, with power attack being free you wont even notice the penalty from combat expertise, its free ac.

So you take a penalty to attacks in order to gain AC. Then you lose the AC to gain Power Attack.

Um...why not just use Power Attack by itself? You end up with the same net result.

Cause I dont have the book and dont know what the feat entails xP

Gregg Reece wrote:
Or jus let him have fun with it, at the level you can afford one of those a dc 19 reflex isnt horribly difficult to make and it doesnt sound that disruptive, im not sure why the wizard and archer dont just use the thing after he plants it.
He got it fairly early due to a rather failed experience (on the GM's part) involving plot cards and gambling.

So in other words, your nerfing an item because giving the fighter a plus 5 holy sword of instant killing was a bad idea? Either deal with it or take the item from him until he should reasonably have it.

If only the caster could use it then pearls of power would be cheaper and more useful. Anyone can activate a ring of spell storing provided a caster can imbue it everyday.

Anburaid wrote:
Though its a bit of a pain to grab (requires combat expertise :P), Felling Smash looks decent, and seems to be stackable with vital strike and furious focus. Grants a swift action trip attempt with a successful power attack. If you got greater trip, then you also get an AoO out of it, allowing you to move, vital strike, trip, AoO in one round.

Well with the tiger pounce mentioned above you could actually use the combat expertise, with power attack being free you wont even notice the penalty from combat expertise, its free ac.

Edit: thanks about the tiger pounce, shoulda figured it would be in tiger style. Ill have to wait for the book to see what can be done with it.

Or jus let him have fun with it, at the level you can afford one of those a dc 19 reflex isnt horribly difficult to make and it doesnt sound that disruptive, im not sure why the wizard and archer dont just use the thing after he plants it.

Mergy wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Wiggz wrote:

I just got finished with my perusal of the new Ultimate Combat, looking through feats, new archetypes, etc. and found nothing that I would add to my Two-Handed fighter. Did I miss something? I'm sincerely hoping that I did...

Perhaps they should have called it Ultimate Combat for Monks instead, eh?

Tiger pounce: you ignore PA penalty but get the bonus to damage. You're welcome 2 handed Fighters.
I agree that Two-handed Fighters don't need much love, but don't tell them to spend 4 feats just to get one thing that benefits them.

Would two of those happen to be power attack and furious focus? I dont have the book so im actually asking

So gunsmiths make a 1000 gold gun at first level and wandsmiths can make 1st or 2nd level wands with literally no chance of failure at first level, which are close to and more exspensive items respectively.

Gunsmithing is a dead profession as soon as you can make 3rd level wands automatically because it gives better profit. Dont see the brokeness.

And as for the touch AC thing, alchemists have been all over that since the apg, and I can throw as many bombs per day as bullets you can make per day, only they cost me nothing, sure you can buy more ammo but I can spend that same gold on alchemists fire which will do as much damage as your gun. All that plus splash damage, mutagens and extracts

As long as im DMing its strict raw.

Attack> free grapple check with grab> immidiate damage on successful check with constrict.

grasshopper_ea wrote:
Phasics wrote:
Constrict as a general rule uses your primary natural attack for damage. Could you thus apply vital strike modify constrict damage ?
Vital strike is a standard action, grapple is a standard action, they cannot be combined. If grapple was an attack action you could combine it with vital strike.

Standard action vital strike, free action grapple with grab, constrict does damage equal to your base attacks damage, so the question is wether vital strike modifies that damage or not.

overdark wrote:

I wasn't commenting on the general system, just the fact that Gunsmithing bypasses all the previous checks and balances for crafting items.

Boy I sure do hate repeating myself.

Well previous crafting had checks (sometimes) but I'm not aware of any balances as hardly anything about them is balanced, so your fact is slightly flawed.

Quote:

I'm not aware of any source that says that mithral is easier to work with than steel.

It's not he just made that up.

Be back with the quote for that, had it when I posted that but was on my phone so couldn't link it or anything.

Hard to call when you consider creatures with grab, yu can vital strike the first attack and then get a free grapple for constrict damage. Is the vital strike still applying for the constrict? If it is a separate attack how did you vital strike in the first place?

Yes he can, yes he does, the designers said you shouldnt pick dieties with alignments two steps or more from LG.

Any other questions? :)

What was the intention of this thread again? What are we supposed to be discussing? As far as I can tell some guy just wanted to tell people what class he was playing, dont think he even asked our thoughts on it.

So getting back on topic, ahem "cool sounds like a fun character for your group, hope your DM has the same view of LG as you do, good luck"

You know an alchemist who takes extra bombs as his feat every level would be able to throw enough bombs to last all day even with his 4-6 per round (he can even supplement a few with alchemists fire if he likes ) and he will still out do the gunslinger in damage, utility, and overall cost of adventuring (bombs are free! And alchemists fire is less exspensive then bullets because you need less per day) Sure it would be boring to play with extra bombs being your only feat, but unlike the gunslinger who is just as boring because of his forced feat selection in order to even get full attacks the alchemist still has extracts and discoveries.

So why are the gunslingers full attacks all of a sudden so broken? You know the crafting DC on bombs? Zero, the cost? Nothing!

You could do what my group does to the player who always rolls well and even rolls in his own special little box. We just dont give him any limelight, the DM never gives him any important rolls or challenges his character. During encounters he throws fodder at him until we have all dealt with his actual encounter. Basically his fake rolls dont mean anything, he always survives and likes to boast how he is always the last one alive when we make new characters but as long as he is having fun and his cheating isnt ruining encounters and puzzles for the rest of us then no one bothers to say anything.

Stynkk wrote:

Not to be terribly snarky, but every person has their own personal code.. giving into your whims could be one of them.

Code: Live your life to the fullest and explore all opportunities as they arise.

Many people characterize Batman as Chaotic Good, would you say he has a personal code?

No, he has one rule (which in certain cannon he eventually breaks)

Umm how about your level 15+ and are literally 9 levels stronger then someone considered super human? I wouldn't be surprised if the fighter hooked the giants leg (with his massive 30+ str, also 10 points higher then someone super human) pulled him down to his level slashed his face and the giant stood back up in recoil.

Your like 5 levels from being early Goku, yes this stuff is trivial for you.

Kais86 wrote:
Jeranimus Rex wrote:

Wizards get a number of spells in their spell book for free, and the material components pouch is specifically called out as being purposefully nebulous so as to decrease the amount of logistical work needed for both the Players and GM.

Now if you're talking about expensive material components, or additional spells, then that's a different kettle of fish.

Most of the good spells, the really powerful ones, have expensive material components, ones that are defined. Those are the ones that the noncasters have to do lateral thinking on.

Fly doesnt, neither does dominate person, or dispel magic (on those pretty flying boots the fighter has).

Or any other "make a will save" spell... You must have taken iron will and improved iron will, now you only have a 50% chance to die... Every round... (Cause im flying and your flying will be dispelled).

 4 people marked this as a favorite.

We may have another problem though guys, i just found this crazy spell called fly, it actually lets me never get attacked by a melee until like level 9! (When fighters can theoretically get boots of flying) Waaay more op then crane style.

Sigil87 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

It is an OP class that ripped off the good parts of the rogue then added in more OP stuff for seemingly no other reason than to remove the rogue from existence

-Its NOT overpowered though. Its only overpowered compared to the rogue.
The fact that the ninja sits at "about right" compared to the other classes yet blows the rogue away clearly spells out the problem: rogues were useless. They needed near constant sneak attacks to be relevant but the systems prohibitive stealth rules didn't allow that and they didn't have a mechanism to get it. If you pumped their talents into trap detection they could be the best at that but... so what? Traps aren't as big a deal as they used to be.

That may be 100% true. But as long as the rogue is that far below the ninja it makes rogues 100% useless. That is why i say the ninja is OP. Because it removes a class from the game. That is horrible design.

I see many people defending the ninja by just saying its the rogue that needs work. I agree totally...BUT as long as the rogue doesn't get that work done to it there shouldn't be a ninja. Rogue should of been fixed first before they even came up with the ninja.

And until the rogue is fixed i think many people will continue to hate the ninja, call it OP and various other things that the forums have been full of for ages.

Amazingly though it has a fairly simple solution... paizo needs to fix the rogue. The fact that they haven't and continue to deny there is even a problem with the rogue is like having a blunt object to the head.

THAT is why i am so angry and against the ninja, cause it appears that they have just gone "buy this new shiny book, cause buying more stuff will just replace the old crappy stuff!"

I love the rogue, its fluff, style, ideas are all both legendary and very cool but as long as the rogue is way underpowered and the ninja exists the rogue mays well not exist. And it will be a cold day in hell before i accept that.

You mean like.. oh say... Every monk archtype ever made?

Sigil87 wrote:

I am sorry but i can never accept this. The ninja is NOT the rogue. It is an OP class that ripped off the good parts of the rogue then added in more OP stuff for seemingly no other reason than to remove the rogue from existence. I wouldn't care if the ninja was all powerful if the rogue was up to scratch. But its not. And to me that just seems like laziness. Not just laziness but to a point where it looks like they are just trying to remove the rogue from existence and replace it with the ninja cause they can't be bothered fixing it.

What if we took away the iconic picture a renamed it the psionic spy? Now its just an arctype with a ki pool instead of trap stuff.

 1 to 50 of 1,405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>