The only time that Vital Strike might be worth it is if a Druid Wild Shapes into a huge creature w/ one big attack. And then only if you really like the idea of one big attack. I'd rather change that druid into something w/ pounce myself and have those 4 feats for something more useful.
As others have said, by RAW, no. I have seen it house ruled in games that you can use acrobatics, as a move action, to stand up and avoid the AoO. From what I observed it made tripping characters w/ high acrobatics a lot less useful (as they would just jump up and get an attack anyway), so I might agree w/ DeathQuaker that making it a standard action may be more balanced (or at least not make trip focused characters feel like they wasted their feats). I'd have to play test it to be very confident either way though.
I really enjoy people getting into their characters and your story is no exception. I'm honestly kind of surprised the people at your table (assuming they had played w/ you for 5 years?) rp'ed the scenario the way they did. One of the players in my group is way more interested in battles than RP opportunities, but even he would have said something along the lines of, "sorry your wolf died" and then probably zoned out until the next battle. ...considering how the party reacted, I think it would have been perfectly acceptable for your druid to leave the group when they reached a safe place again. Who wants to travel w/ a bunch of people who don't care about significant loses you have faced? I know I wouldn't, so why would my character? Just my 2 cp. EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not saying you as a player should be upset w/ them as players, but it would be reasonable to roll up a new character considering how little it seemed their characters cared about such a tragic event for your druid. I reread what I wrote and wanted to make sure it didn't sound too aggressive, it wasn't meant to be.
To OP: Upon following the link provided by someone above, which has this exact situation but from the GMs perspective, I have to say the best thing is for the two of you to sit down and discuss this. No amount of random people on the internet agreeing/disagreeing w/ either of you will do anything other than potentially further intrench you both in your positions and harm your game. Sit down w/ the other players if you want to as well and consider this issue as a group if it helps. If everyone present brings an open mind and is willing to be reasonable, you'll be able to hammer out a way to solve this. It can be difficult to determine how a good yet vengeful character should act at times, and this can only be answered at the table w/ the people you are playing w/. Hope that helps and that your game is more fun for it.
One developer thinks it means all words can target one enemy. If a GM is consistent in how they read the rules (either uber-conservatively or quite loosely) it really doesn't matter as long as the group is having fun. When there are disagreements on the forums the Devs can pipe up and clarify (when needed) or leave it to individual GMs (b/c they trust us to do that). And I'm fine w/ that. Now back to your regularly scheduled argument.
First, I'm glad it sounds like you and your players can discuss these things in a civil manner. a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly? I don't think so. Honor is a strong thing, and sometimes a person will do something they wouldn't normally do even if they are afraid (shaken). How many soldiers have rushed into danger knowing they may die? Even march into guaranteed death for the sake of honor? b) Should I have given him a passive Sense Motive when he did the Intimidate to tell him that's not what his character thinks is the best way? I also tend to not give passive sense motive checks. Of course, my players are aware that I expect them to keep up w/ everything that is going on w/ their characters (and they are good at not meta-gaming). So my players know to request such checks in cases like this. I would suggest making sure your players are aware of your feelings regarding this. In my experience players don't mind most things as long as it's consistent. Part of the learning experience is to discover how people don't always make the same assumptions and, as GM, make sure everyone is on the same page w/ basic things like this. c) Would you agree some people are just beyond Diplomacy/Intimidate when it comes to that for one reason or another? Or should that at most give them a bonus to resist it but if that's not enough they're still running, abandoning their family or whatever I would agree. As mentioned in A, sometimes circumstances dictate precedence over common sense. If an otherwise good NPC knows his children will die if he doesn't kill the PC's the diplomacy check might end w/ him telling them the situation but telling them he has no choice. I would hope the PCs would use non-lethal damage and then go to rescue his children and end the situation. I find giving too much power to diplomacy/intimidate can undermine free will, which is silly. Can you use diplomacy to convince someone to give you a discount on magic items? Maybe. Can you use diplomacy to convince someone to put themselves out of business so you can get some items ridiculously cheaply? No. In short, communication is key for good GMing. At times it's ok to "replay" a situation for new players, etc, but by book 2 I would think they would know what to expect from your game. If they did not, it is a learning experience for you that you should try to communicate what to expect in a better way. :) I hope all that is useful.
Who would the Step back feat benefit? Casters. Who are already very powerful and do not require another buff to protect them from melee opponents. Archers. Who if built correctly can usually out damage melee opponents who don't get as many full attacks. Melee Characters w/ reach weapons. Not overly powerful w/out it, but again, why let them avoid damage when they can return the attack w/ no fear of harm? Who would it hurt? Anyone playing a melee focused character not using a reach weapon. B/c, you know, they are so overpowered right now and need to be nerfed. That's why there is not a Step Back feat.
The alternative is that a wizard casts silent, extended shield and the spell level is treated as a 3rd level spell. Congrats, that's the same as the spell being heightened and you don't even have to take the feat and you get the added benefits of silent and extended. Yeah...I gotta disagree w/ that. Have fun w/ your debate.
If we're talking about what makes sense conceptually, then how come it's just as easy for a completely nonmagical race (such as human) to blend spell and steel as it is for a race with exotic and intrinsic magical capabilities? Shouldn't a more "magical" creature have an easier time achieving those capabilities? That's a good point, but I don't think it should be the difference between entering a PRC at level 2 instead of waiting for level 7. That seems a bit much to me.
It might be ridiculous, but it isn't really all that powerful. Several of us are looking at ways to make it break the game and really, there aren't any. The best anyone has so far come up with is early entry into mystic theurge, which makes mystic theurge just not suck. Although there may be the potential for abusing this for power gaming purposes, I'm more concerned w/ the whole point of prestige classes being undermined by this idea. I've never thought of a second level character as particularly prestigious. If they really want prestige classes to start at level two, then I think they should just rewrite it as an archetype or an alternate class. It would be like making the ninja a prestige class w/ a requirement of being able to sneak attack. It's silly. Prestige classes should be something people strive to become, not something that every gnome or aasimar can become at level 2.
I think this is ridiculous. I'm hitting the FAQ button in hopes there will be a quick official answer to shoot this down. I find it hard to believe they want people jumping into prestige classes at level 2. :/
This is what I get for not looking up Shadow Strike before posting... I'll agree w/ you that Shadow Strike might be a bit much then, but I have no problem allowing my characters sneak attacking in low light conditions, so I'll extend that advantage but not the others that Shadow Strike offers.
Rogue says, "No thanks wizard, don't cast invisibility on me, I want to be able to sneak attack that barbarian when I sneak up on him! You know being actually impossible to see would be counterproductive to that goal!" No, that is just too silly.
FAQ'ed
There's a different between good and bad options due to limitations on balance, and filling the game field with landmines for unwary players to explode in their faces. That's what stuff like the crossbow Fighter are, and there's a lot of things like that. And pretending these things are "simulationist" doesn't truly justify them. They aren't simulationist, they're just not that great design (whether accidentally or due to a desire to make system mastery matter or something else, I don't know). I think you go far in describing a fighter crossbow build as a "landmine". In most games such a character would be fine. Only in the games that focus only on optimization will it be a "landmine" and in those games the players wouldn't choose that build anyway. I'm not participating in the "simulationist" argument, talk to someone else about that. I like having options, and as I said before, that means some have to be better than others, otherwise they don't really exist.
I've been following this thread, and I have to say, I don't know how there could be options if there were no good or bad options. I mean, if I'm trying to figure out which restaurant to eat at, and every one of them has the same menu, prices, and service, do I really have an option? If one of them has clearly better food but is more expensive, perhaps I'll go there for the quality. Maybe another place is cheap but has lousy service. Maybe I just really like greasy food despite the fact that everyone else thinks it's nasty. My point being, if a feat is lousy, or a certain weapon is inferior, those are things to take into account when choosing between my options. If I really like the flavor of a weapon, I may choose that option regardless of some of the drawbacks. If I don't like the flavor enough, I'll pick something else. I'm afraid a game where there was no mechanical differences would have much less options than one where there are clear distinctions between the options. Life is full of options and they are rarely equally good. Why would we expect anything else in a game?
I would just like to say that I don't care for that FAQ response and have house ruled it away. It over complicates things where a simple 1hand used=X, 2hands used=y setup would suffice. That being said, it certainly looks like they wrote it to mean that any two handed weapon being used in one hand can use the +50% bonus from power attack. There certainly needs to be some clarification as to what this is supposed to mean. Is it supposed to apply to a bastard sword? A katana? Quarterstaff Mastery? Phalanx Soldier? Just the Lance but they wanted to leave it open ended for future weapons to be used from horseback? I have hit the FAQ button! EDIT: To clarify, I don't like this FAQ response.
Pretty sure no GM is going to NOT let you sneak attack if you're using stealth. The whole point of stealth is to not be seen, and when you cannot see your attacker you are flat footed to him. Agreed. I house ruled this since the first Pathfinder game I ran.
So, I would say the GM should act like an advisor during character creation, with veto power if it gets TOO weird. Veto power=good. Informed players can make informed decisions. Punishing player after game begins w/ no warning=bad.
I find the easiest way to force a druid to fall is by using a trip attack.
Moles maybe? Larger-than-average-but-not-quite-giant insects? Rodents Of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist.
But not everyone likes sprinkles. My question, would it really be any trouble to ask the player before you make a change like that? You might be surprised, he might like it. Or, you may inspire him to be a little more imaginative all on his own. You changed him from what I assume was a human into the descendant of an orc. That's a serious change. I have no problem w/ filling in holes, like you say, but there's really no reason to not include your players when doing so. You can provide depth while still including the players in the process. If they didn't want to be involved, and enjoyed the random backstory elements, that's fine, but if he's not, then that's a problem that requires almost no effort to fix.
But not everyone likes sprinkles. My question, would it really be any trouble to ask the player before you make a change like that? You might be surprised, he might like it. Or, you may inspire him to be a little more imaginative all on his own.
I just ask my players to give me some heads up on what they plan for their characters. If the rogue wants to take levels of wizard, great, let me know and we'll make it happen. Some players get really into making their characters and love to write back story (making my job easier). Others love numbers and have difficulty with the story aspect, that's fine too, means a little more work for me, but we'll figure out why your barbarian wants levels of wizard, or whatever. I am of the opinion that the player should be able to make the character they want, but be willing to inform the GM ahead of time so that everything makes sense in game, which tends to make the world feel more alive and fun.
Your alignment is an abstraction meant to represent how you view the world and interact with it. If you are attempting to play a lawful good character and are planning on how to assassinate people w/out altering your alignment...well, then you failed, just planning this out and carrying out the plan, rather altering your memory or whatever, means that you were not lawful good to begin with. |
