Tarik Blackhands's page

1,864 posts. Alias of ItsTheName.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,864 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing beyond the typical caveat for any other joke character (and make no mistake, this premise is a joke character) which is that it rarely takes a very long for the joke part to wear thin.

Other than that it's a typical Evil in Name Only character only instead of "does good things as part of the longest of long cons (the fruition of which is never seen in game)" you have "is too dumb to realize he's not doing bad stuff" and as much as I always roll my eyes when I see EINO characters, they do tend to play nice with the party which is my bare minimum threshold for acceptability. Just make sure everyone else is fine with having a clown in the party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure there's implicit common sense in play for suicidal/stupid/cheeky PCs (No, trying to jump the mile long chasm only results in you falling to your death Steve...).


Reminds me of a Dragon Age game I was in a while ago that consisted of a Dalish supremist, a City Elf mage, and a Tevinter solider. Party was about as dead on arrival as it gets.

Anyway, these days when I GM I say out front party members need to know each other in some manner and get along at their core. Just easier to keep the game flowing than trying to get the above DA party to work together rather than a) kill each other or b) immediately disband at first chance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Near as I can presume, failing forward can be loosely interpretted as railroading since whether you pass/fail the check to open the locked door, the door will open (difference being one might have an alarm raised) which you can squint and interpret as your character being along on the for the ride of the story.


You seem awfully confident that a GM who already denied you rerolling your character via fiat is going to just roll over and okay a new one just because your character decided to cut his own throat as an intermediate step rather than the far more likely result of you getting told to either get serious or pack up your dice and go home.


Ascalaphus wrote:


The classic Shadowrun mission is corporate espionage/heist: steal a prototype, perform industrial espionage, abduct a scientist, assassinate a pesky environmentalist. The PCs are rarely planning to permanently occupy any corporate building because eventually reinforcements will come. They need to get in, do the thing that needs doing, and get out before it gets too hot. There is no concept of "level appropriate challenge".

Technically there isn't such a thing as a level appropriate challenge is due to the way the game's designed more so than theme. An Ares Predator is an Ares Predator whether you're a 0 karma chump or a massive karma chump and that same Predator will (generally anyway) serve a runner as a fine weapon for their entire career barring bolting on more attachments and whatnot since weapons will generally get their targets dead no matter when in your career you meet them.

That said, not all challenges are made equal even in that context (IE you send a squad of Red Samurai with L3 Wired Reflexes against a squad of fresh runners and the latter will be a pile of meat faster than you can say 'chunky salsa') but it's still a far cry from Starfinder where levels are hardcoded into the system and your Level 1 Predator will be a useless paperweight in 3 odd levels since that's how the system and monsters are designed.


Problem with Insinuator is that ultimately you're still beholden to your temporary patron. Doom Slayer, while he may work with more sketchy folks like Hayden (presuming the general goal is kill demons) is absolutely not beholden to them. That's the whole bit with destroying the Argent Tower rather than just shutting it down after all.


Matthew Downie wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
You could make a Goblin with +100 to all stats and use it as a high(ish) level boss.

...but you probably shouldn't.

Player 1: "58 to hit."
GM: "You miss."
Player 2: "That goblin's AC is off the charts! I'll try something else. Hold Person! Give me a Will save."
GM: "Does a 68 pass?"

Sometimes you just aren't in the mood for falling rocks and desire something with a bit more panache.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Just for the sake of reference, wiki has this to say about what the science-fantasy genre is:

"Science fantasy is a mixed genre within the umbrella of speculative fiction which simultaneously draws upon or combines tropes and elements from both science fiction and fantasy."

And then it goes along to explain that when you cross the line into fantasy is when you include elements that violate scientific laws, even if you couch them in scientific talk/technobabble.

So yeah, Shadowrun is almost by definition in the umbrella of science-fantasy (having literal magic and all) although it certainly isn't the first instance of it since the term's existed since the early 1900s when pulp magazines were the main pushers of science fiction/fantasy.

To clarify, I meant first science-fantasy RPG.

Mm. That might take some more digging to verify. I personally believe that someone would have adapted a golden age sci-fi type game before the local cyberpunk one but I have no examples off the top of my head (and suck with dates anyway).

Well, first thing that popped into my mind for Science Fantasy was Spelljammer which was published in 1989 coincidentally the same year as SR. Might dig more later.


Just for the sake of reference, wiki has this to say about what the science-fantasy genre is:

"Science fantasy is a mixed genre within the umbrella of speculative fiction which simultaneously draws upon or combines tropes and elements from both science fiction and fantasy."

And then it goes along to explain that when you cross the line into fantasy is when you include elements that violate scientific laws, even if you couch them in scientific talk/technobabble.

So yeah, Shadowrun is almost by definition in the umbrella of science-fantasy (having literal magic and all) although it certainly isn't the first instance of it since the term's existed since the early 1900s when pulp magazines were the main pushers of science fiction/fantasy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

23. [Party size] individuals meet in the tavern and answer a call for adventure.


Slyme wrote:

I love morality debates about a world where you run around murdering sentient beings and stealing their belongings, then leave their bodies to rot where they fell the vast majority of the time.

Always remember, every villain is the hero in their side of the tale.

Thing about that is that its generally a pretty rare occurrence the party just massacres a local gaggle of orcs because they were there. Usually it's because they were raiding villages, forming the local dark lord's army, stole a macguffin, etc. Or they tried to jump you first natch.


David knott 242 wrote:

Most hags have higher charisma scores than Amiri, the iconic barbarian. That in itself should tell you that charisma and beauty do not correlate with each other.

Don't beauty shame hags. Next you'll tell me Krakens aren't sexy sexy beasts themselves.


Yqatuba wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Considering 99% of the spawn are just very big monsters, standard protocol of stabbing them in the shins till they stop moving works fine. If you happen to be against the 1% (Read: Tarrasque) stabbing it till it stops moving and throwing the regenerating carcass into the bottom of the ocean/positive/negative energy plane/similiar inhospitable location works fine.
actually all of them have the super regeneration not just the tarrasque. So ya in order to beat them you have to imprison/banish etc them.

Or just use a death effect. So fine, minor extra step of getting the local wizard to Power Word Kill the not-Tarrasque (or other death effect of choice).


Quieting Needles are more just an extended inconvenience than anything permanent. Basically you just set the folks back the cost of one rez spell when they grumble and get a sawbones to root out the needles and then recast the spell.

Disintigrates, zombification, or just bagging the corpse and running are more semi-permanent solutions if the assassins don't have a handy Sphere of Annihilation nearby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Considering 99% of the spawn are just very big monsters, standard protocol of stabbing them in the shins till they stop moving works fine. If you happen to be against the 1% (Read: Tarrasque) stabbing it till it stops moving and throwing the regenerating carcass into the bottom of the ocean/positive/negative energy plane/similiar inhospitable location works fine.


blahpers wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Agénor wrote:
blahpers wrote:
in my experience most players want a bit more agency than that.

Players need to feel they have agency. Whether they indeed have it is another question.

A good way for players to feel they have agency is indeed for them to have it but is definitely not the only way.

Also, in most games, the scenario is already written and then prepared by game master before the game session begins. It is by no means an improvisation of the moment by the game master who would have almost perfect knowledge of the in-game universe and could make it react in real time to the actions of the P.C.s. Hence there is already a level of railroading that everyone accepts and enjoys.

I feel like you discard this and place the baseline zero of railroading at the beginning of the first game session of a scenario. I say the game begins when the game master starts preparing.

Further, even if we go into the zany world of pure improvisation, at the end of the day GM's the guy doing majority of the work. A player can say he wants to open a shop on the frontier and that's all well and good but he doesn't get to say the shopkeeper he hired is really a cultist of Rovagug or that bulettes will invade in three days. That's stuff the GM's writing.

Okay, I guess the player could say that, but its not like he has any real power to make that happen beyond the GM humoring him or he's really a L18+ caster mashing miracles/wishes and is playing a character that is some stripe of completely insane.

Sorry, it's been a long week and I'm pretty dense at this point, but where is this going? I don't think I said that the players have Cosmic Powers of Fate and decide what happens in the game world. The levers the players are given are pretty well-defined; they act through their player characters and have commensurate influence on the world around them.

(That being said, if my players decided that they really wanted a secret cultist shopkeeper and...

What I'm getting at is you said the GM isn't the guy writing the story which...I really don't know how else to interpret besides the players having weird cosmic fate powers where they can just say the local macguffin is in the Underdark rather than Atlantis. Players can pull all the levers they like, but the guy determining/writing the effects that go with those pulls is the GM hence the general point the GM is basically the primary 'writer' of the game as far as responsibility/workload goes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Let's face it. Desna herself is probably just a colossal 7-dimensional mass of tentacles and insect wings.
Yes, but a beautiful one, or Shelyn wouldn't be her lover.

Shelyn confirmed Japanese?


Agénor wrote:
blahpers wrote:
in my experience most players want a bit more agency than that.

Players need to feel they have agency. Whether they indeed have it is another question.

A good way for players to feel they have agency is indeed for them to have it but is definitely not the only way.

Also, in most games, the scenario is already written and then prepared by game master before the game session begins. It is by no means an improvisation of the moment by the game master who would have almost perfect knowledge of the in-game universe and could make it react in real time to the actions of the P.C.s. Hence there is already a level of railroading that everyone accepts and enjoys.

I feel like you discard this and place the baseline zero of railroading at the beginning of the first game session of a scenario. I say the game begins when the game master starts preparing.

Further, even if we go into the zany world of pure improvisation, at the end of the day GM's the guy doing majority of the work. A player can say he wants to open a shop on the frontier and that's all well and good but he doesn't get to say the shopkeeper he hired is really a cultist of Rovagug or that bulettes will invade in three days. That's stuff the GM's writing.

Okay, I guess the player could say that, but its not like he has any real power to make that happen beyond the GM humoring him or he's really a L18+ caster mashing miracles/wishes and is playing a character that is some stripe of completely insane.


Matthew Downie wrote:
When I do it, it's fudging. When you do it, it's cheating.

Perks of being the guy behind the screen.


Hey, Asmodeus is supposed to be quite the handsome devil you know (Although he's also a fallen empyreal lord...)


Couple of things for me:

The cosmology is one of those things that basically can only be viewed at a glance lest you dig in and find out it barely makes any sense due to having 10+ years of baggage being added onto an already rickety framework to begin with.

The other thing is that Golarion's just a place that never clicked into an actual place for me and is basically stuck in the purgatory of fantasy disney world (aka a bunch of unconnected themed attractions). Can't exactly explain why really since I buy in to Star Wars just fine. Might be some of the attractions (like Alkensor and Nidal) are just bridges too far/too tight a gimmick and break the illusion.


rdknight wrote:


One thing I'm curious about is how do you handle undead? They seem to be very much outside anything found in Star Wars.

Just saying Force Ghosts and that whole zombie stormtrooper thing are/were things that happened in Star Wars. That said, refluffing basic zombies as derelict/insane droids is possible and worst to worst just keep them the same and say there's some Sith/Dark Side malark reanimating them. The Dark Side has many powers that people would call unnatural after all .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's an unhelpful answer, but basically know your group. I've a friend who more or less despises the rng be with ye wild magic/miscast tables and the like while I cut my teeth on Warhammer Fantasy RP/Dark Heresy which have far more punishing tables than PF and I wouldn't have it any other way (At least in those games).

Being perfectly honest, PF's Wild Magic is pretty tame and is supremely unlikely to dramatically affect anyone other than the caster or hostiles meaning there doesn't need to be a table wide buy in if some guy wants to take a wild magic archtype or the like. Universal wild magic on whatever condition you probably should ask about and something that only happens in certain zones I'd just treat as any other hazard.


Yes

and

Within 30 feet and while the target is denied their dex bonus (barring other rules to the contrary) respectively.


Java Man wrote:

The broader question is when the benevolant overlord, who makes the decisions for everyone because he is smarter, wiser, and more virtous, crosses the line to be another tyrant.

Isn't that any given king of any given land only without potentially the smarter/wiser/virtue bit?

Say what you will about Mengk, at least he very likely is smarter and wiser than virtually everyone not packing PC stats around by a fairly massive margin.


Derklord wrote:
*Historical stuff*

Trust me dude, I'm well aware of the historical usages, drawbacks, and operations of bows both long and cross. I'm also aware that an autocross (or crossbolter or whatever you want to call it) is absurdly unrealistic just about as much so as a longbowman notching and firing two arrows at once and having that actually be effective to say nothing of the standard machinegun routine PF makes the norm for them. My preferences are just that; preferences, including the visual one.


Goblin_Priest wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Derklord wrote:


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Speak for yourself. Crossbows are a classic if you're going for a vampire hunter/van helsing vibe or a more traditional sniper type.
Depends on your preference and background, I guess. For people into anything real-life medieval, or classical medieval fantasy, a crossbow is usually more of a common soldier's weapon, not something for a PC to focus on. If you're more interested in, say a movie that's set in 1888, rather than the time periods Pathfinder emulates, you might prefer crossbow.
I wouldn't say you need to go to 1888 to get the time period where crossbows were fashionable, late medieval/renaissance works perfectly well for when crossbows were in vogue. I'll also add that the only reason I'd ever not be using a crossbow with a dwarf character would be because there's firearms I want him using instead. Probably can boost that to any small character in general. Hate the mental image of small races and longbows while dwarfs are that in combination with my inner Warhammer fan.
In my setting gunpowder is extremely limited, its secrets only known by an isolationist gnome island nation. Crossbows targetting touch AC at half-increment helps fill the void the lack of firearms creates.

Like I implied, my bit about gunpowder mostly stems from me being into Warhammer before DnD and there Dwarves used crossbows and firearms, bows are the stuff of the filthy elves and whatnot. I'm aware that in PF proper crossbows are basically trash and gunpowder has setting issues in ADDITION to largely being trash (outside of those gunslinging goons) but if you simplified the system to where there was only a profile for "ranged weapon" and the blackpowder proliferation wasn't a thing, you bet your rear my dwarf would be rocking his crossbow or handgun.


I mean, I don't play at your table but is AC 30-33 at level 5 really a common occurrence for you? That's going to be crippling vs any martial character that isn't near bleeding edge optimized and thus not a huge concern unless your GM really doesn't like you.


Derklord wrote:


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Speak for yourself. Crossbows are a classic if you're going for a vampire hunter/van helsing vibe or a more traditional sniper type.
Depends on your preference and background, I guess. For people into anything real-life medieval, or classical medieval fantasy, a crossbow is usually more of a common soldier's weapon, not something for a PC to focus on. If you're more interested in, say a movie that's set in 1888, rather than the time periods Pathfinder emulates, you might prefer crossbow.

I wouldn't say you need to go to 1888 to get the time period where crossbows were fashionable, late medieval/renaissance works perfectly well for when crossbows were in vogue. I'll also add that the only reason I'd ever not be using a crossbow with a dwarf character would be because there's firearms I want him using instead. Probably can boost that to any small character in general. Hate the mental image of small races and longbows while dwarfs are that in combination with my inner Warhammer fan.


Erpa wrote:
Since no one in their right mind takes crossbow or the heavy version as their thematic weapon (meaning, when they design their character, they conjure up some fighter with a big ol'crossbow racked lazily over their shoulder)

Speak for yourself. Crossbows are a classic if you're going for a vampire hunter/van helsing vibe or a more traditional sniper type.


Problem with Saurus is that they're generally described as pretty sharp cookies presuming the topic at hand is "best ways to murder someone else"

The other stuff is quite literally not their job (and unlike skinks/kroxis they never get forcibly conscripted outside their intended role)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most magic spells in general are pretty scummy things to do to people. I mean geez, ripping away the life essence from people (enervation), dessicating them (horrid wilting), or just regular ole chemical warfare (cloudkill), to say nothing of just regular ole immolation/acid bathing of people. All horrible ways to go and then there's people just run around striking people blind for giggles.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ShroudedInLight wrote:


My second dislike is Conjuration, because it does literally everything. Talk about a one stop shop for school specialization. Teleportation, summoning monsters, dealing damage, creating area denial, healing...like what doesn't this school do?

Doesn't let you CONJURE illusions or CONJURE mental commands directly into people's heads.

Not yet anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Conjuration for me mostly because it's basically the dumping ground for any spell that doesn't neatly fit into the other categories and even then just gets spells that cut into other school niches without a care in the world.

"I'm not evoking cold or anything, I'm CONJURING an orb of snow!"

Pah.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean "this game has rules for pregnancy, coitus, seduction, etc." might be the biggest and reddest flag imaginable for a tabletop game.

Seduction's an eh. Plenty of games (and no, not just your FATALs and similar kinds of trash) have a skill for flirting/seducing and generally its not much different than your local deceive/intimidate/persuade in terms of mechanics.


Goblin_Priest wrote:

\

I find it unfortunate that the default for races in most fantasy settings is to take a human body, and just add antennae or scales or another cosmetic detail. These aren't actors that we need to put makeup on with a limited budget! We already have humans, why would we need 5 different species of quasi-humans? ?

Because we're designing a game here. Lets go for a fairly normal not-demihuman race. Centaurs. Think about adventure design and the relatively simple premise that a centaur more or less can't climb a ladder among various other quality of life things that become headaches to work around our new quadruped friends. Things are easier to design when everything roughly conforms to the same basic paradigm of bipedal jerk with thumbs and at least 2 arms (if you have more they're more or less cosmetic). Plus the common denominator prefers familiarity. Human with pointy ears is generally more appealing to play than a sentient gelatinous cube.

And speaking of sentient gelatinous cubes, you can check all the oozemorph threads about how unplayable that particular concept got even if its not technically a race.


Amusingly enough, in the actual ASOIAF RPG, Jaime Lannister is the third most combat proficient character statted out. He falls behind Gregor Clegane who in turn gets mudstomped by none other Bobby Baratheon.

Ignoring that the entire argument of trying to bolt ASOIAF into a D&D framework is kinda dumb to start with, it is amusing that the two best beatsticks are indeed the musclebound oafs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Biological determinism has iffy implications for PC appropriate things.

It's a power fantasy; the whole point is creating characters that do things that are not possible in the real world. Making either gender/sex better-suited to a specific task ultimately undermines one of the central features of the game. There's a very good reason that sort of thing doesn't get published very often.

Honestly the premise isn't that far off from racial bonuses in general. I mean, there's isn't a whole lot of difference between elves being decentivized from rolling a fullplate fighter due to +int/dex -con and I don't know, male anglerfishmen getting the same spread and being stuck in the same boat.

That said, elves are graceful, smart, and weedy has less baggage attached to it than women being graceful, smart, and weedy (as an example).


doomman47 wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Derklord wrote:

.

@GRuzom: Your right, I wasn't paying to much attention too my writing - sometimes, I play fast and lose with what I type. I'd apologize too any english speaker for misusing there language.

I think you'd mean you'd like to apologize four misusing English.

Also I think the assumption with the actual attack routine is that Up Close and Personal lets you deal proper unaware hidden strike damage on a successful use which I guess makes enough sense to qualify the * conditional. I'd frankly allow it but it is one of those janky bits of rule interactions PF loves doing where it could go either way ("No you're only treating him as unaware, he isn't actually unaware of you")

Please don't troll the ESL people.

If that entire block of text wasn't a deliberate joke (getting every permutation of to/too and they're/there/their wrong after showing previously they have a solid enough grasp of the language) then consider an apology given. Otherwise consider it finishing the joke.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll repeat. So what? Virtually everything in this blasted game is based on a caricature or stereotype; good, bad, and ugly. That's half the point of having races of monsters to begin with.


Serum wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Serum wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Oh you don't need to rule that a rock suitable for throwing is roundish, rules actually do describe what a throwable "rock" looks like under Rock Throwing

"A rock is any large, bulky, and relatively regularly shaped object made of any material with a hardness of at least 5."

Balista bolts are large, bulky, and relatively regularly shaped with a hardness of 5+ so clearly it is a rock and catchable along with virtually anything else that isn't just a chaotic blob of material.

Regular is a mathematical term describing objects that have sides/faces that are equilateral and equiangular. Spherish rocks are roughly regular. Many boxes are roughly regular, but generally won't have the hardness (unless they're made of stone). A ball with spikes on it is even roughly regular. Ballista bolts do not come close.

Regular also has a dictonary definition of "arranged in or constituting a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances."

You tell me whether the rulebook means regular in the dictionary or mathematical sense although I'll wager a guess the devs were not writing that particular rule with a copy of their old high school math textbook open to the glossary.

Your dictionary definition is talking about patterns and the arrangement of objects, so it doesn't really apply to the shape of a single object.

I honestly want to know what elementary school you were going to where geometry was on the curriculum.

Either way, if you're telling me a spikey ball (which per your definition is about as irregular as you can possibly get) then I'm not seeing how a giant spike (aka a cone) is beyond the pale. Hell, they don't even have those pesky bits of irregular fletching (not that it matters since random spikes aren't enough to get past "roughly" evidently, so a few extra triangles on the end shouldn't either).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Saedar wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Do we really improve things in any kind of a diversity way by having male stereotype versions of female stereotype monsters?

On the other hand, sticking the same stereotype on the monster whether it's the male or female version can get weird too.

For me, it is about leaning less hard into the toxic stereotypes about "bad" behavior of women from the cultures those monsters are taken from.

It is a rough line to walk when presenting something monstrous, but I think the conversation is good.

Okay I'm lost. It's a bad thing to have monsters (aka bad things 95% of players will be stabbing for their lunch money and feeling good about it) rely on negative stereotypes to be monstrous...so the plan is to add even more monsters that rely on negative stereotypes to be bad but it's okay because it's for the other gender and equality I guess?

That's the thing about this conversation in general that kinda left me lost. That it's a problem that hags are only female or satyrs are male or whatever. I don't think anyone can seriously accuse Paizo of hating any gender if you take a look at their work or catalog as a whole. Monsters are monsters and they do bad things to make us feel good about beating them, good things do good things and we want to help those and there's plenty of both.

It's bad when those bad things rely on negative gendered stereotypes - mostly female ones despite a few like satyrs. It's got nothing to do with Paizo hating any gender. That's not the point at all.

But it's a monster. It's supposed to be bad. We as players are supposed to feel good about stabbing it in the neck and taking its trinkets. Those evil women in the woods who steal babies and souls are distinctly bad things just like its a bad thing for orcs to do orcy things in their evil patriarchy manner. They're monsters and they aren't the sole representative of their gender in the game universe. What's wrong with a monster being evil?


Serum wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Oh you don't need to rule that a rock suitable for throwing is roundish, rules actually do describe what a throwable "rock" looks like under Rock Throwing

"A rock is any large, bulky, and relatively regularly shaped object made of any material with a hardness of at least 5."

Balista bolts are large, bulky, and relatively regularly shaped with a hardness of 5+ so clearly it is a rock and catchable along with virtually anything else that isn't just a chaotic blob of material.

Regular is a mathematical term describing objects that have sides/faces that are equilateral and equiangular. Spherish rocks are roughly regular. Many boxes are roughly regular, but generally won't have the hardness (unless they're made of stone). A ball with spikes on it is even roughly regular. Ballista bolts do not come close.

Regular also has a dictonary definition of "arranged in or constituting a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances" and a ballista bolt definitely has a constant/definite pattern.

You tell me whether the rulebook means regular in the dictionary or mathematical sense although I'll wager a guess the devs were not writing that particular rule with a copy of their old high school math textbook open to the glossary.


Oh you don't need to rule that a rock suitable for throwing is roundish, rules actually do describe what a throwable "rock" looks like under Rock Throwing

"A rock is any large, bulky, and relatively regularly shaped object made of any material with a hardness of at least 5."

Balista bolts are large, bulky, and relatively regularly shaped with a hardness of 5+ so clearly it is a rock and catchable along with virtually anything else that isn't just a chaotic blob of material.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Do we really improve things in any kind of a diversity way by having male stereotype versions of female stereotype monsters?

On the other hand, sticking the same stereotype on the monster whether it's the male or female version can get weird too.

For me, it is about leaning less hard into the toxic stereotypes about "bad" behavior of women from the cultures those monsters are taken from.

It is a rough line to walk when presenting something monstrous, but I think the conversation is good.

Okay I'm lost. It's a bad thing to have monsters (aka bad things 95% of players will be stabbing for their lunch money and feeling good about it) rely on negative stereotypes to be monstrous...so the plan is to add even more monsters that rely on negative stereotypes to be bad but it's okay because it's for the other gender and equality I guess?

That's the thing about this conversation in general that kinda left me lost. That it's a problem that hags are only female or satyrs are male or whatever. I don't think anyone can seriously accuse Paizo of hating any gender if you take a look at their work or catalog as a whole. Monsters are monsters and they do bad things to make us feel good about beating them, good things do good things and we want to help those and there's plenty of both.


What the hell even is the shape of a rock? Rocks don't have to be round, flat, smooth, jagged, thin, thick, or any of the above. You might as well say you can catch a ballista bolt because spikey rocks exist and that's basically in the shape of a bolt.


Derklord wrote:

.

@GRuzom: Your right, I wasn't paying to much attention too my writing - sometimes, I play fast and lose with what I type. I'd apologize too any english speaker for misusing there language.

I think you'd mean you'd like to apologize four misusing English.

Also I think the assumption with the actual attack routine is that Up Close and Personal lets you deal proper unaware hidden strike damage on a successful use which I guess makes enough sense to qualify the * conditional. I'd frankly allow it but it is one of those janky bits of rule interactions PF loves doing where it could go either way ("No you're only treating him as unaware, he isn't actually unaware of you")


CommanderC2121 wrote:


Maybe as an aside, what would be needed for any martial class in general to allow it to reach a similar power level as casters? What are they lacking that casters arent?

Magic.

It sounds like a glib reply (and to a degree it is) but its also true. Magic's king in this mad mad world that is PF and those with more magic are better than those with less. You can make all the silly ragelancepounce or similar stuff you want, but at the end of the day, the guy having a field day with reality is the more useful guy overall.


Matthew Downie wrote:

There are very few systems that allow for such extreme optimized characters. D&D 5e doesn't have any way of making mid-level PCs who do 400 damage per round. The Pathfinder 2 playtest didn't, and presumably the final version won't either.

On the other hand, no game system is perfectly balanced (and the ones that come close tend to be pretty bland), and if the players are determined to try to break the system, the GM's choices may come down to (a) ask them nicely to stop trying to break the system, (b) let the players win every battle easily and hope they have fun, or (c) look for new players.

Or (d) Crush them anyway. At the end of the day no level of optimization, rule exploitation, and gumption beats the guy with infinite resources at his disposal.

1 to 50 of 1,864 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>