Glabrezu

Tarkeighas's page

76 posts. Alias of Micah Watt, Pyromaniac Press.


RSS

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squeakmaan wrote:
I encourage you to check out the Way of the Wicked AP by Fire Mountain Games, it goes all the way to 20th lvl. I would say it does a good job at offering advice at dealing with high-level spellcasters.

I second this.

WoTW is written for evil characters, but the principles of dealing with high level casters remain the same.

Essentially the latter part of the AP is very much a sandbox that embraces the fact the high level characters have extraordinary abilities to 'bypass' obstacles.

There are no linear dungeons, and encounters are designed so that the PCs would either want to face them, or have no choice but to face them or have their resources threatened.

On the whole the entire AP is excellent from start to finish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Synthesist summoner (I'd allow other summoners)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Inviktus wrote:


Here's one silly, but entirely RAW legal example:

1) Cthluhu awakens, already briefed on any major foes or obstacles by the dreams of his worshipers.
2) Before he sits up to get breakfast he Wishes for all copies, clones, simulacrums and such of said wizard to be permanently stripped of any magical powers, reverting said wizard(s) into a powerless commoner(s).
3) This is an extraordinary use of Wish, so the GM must approve this use.
4) GM approves the Wish and applies it's effects.

I see it now

Anzyr sits at the table

GM asks for Anzyr's character sheet, "ok, so Anzyr's wizard is dead and he won't be joining us. Everybody else please describe your characters as you meet in a generic Inn"

Anzyr "what the...?"

GM "sorry Anzyr. But it's within the rules. I'll let you think about why your character was dead before it began. It's pretty basic system mastery really..."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This had been fascinating to follow (though it's getting a little tired now). Not because of the content but because of how far people will argue to be "right" on the interwebs.

In the flagging stages it seems that people are more annoyed with the way Anzyr conveys his concepts than the concepts themselves. Truthfully just because it's wrapped in smug condescension doesn't make them wrong. I can see how that would irritate some people but that's the way of the world.

It boils down to two inevitable conclusions;

1) if you GM for Anzyr expect him to find "basic, simple and kinder garden reading levels of system mastery that everyone that isn't him is clearly just a little too dim to understand but if you are real lucky he'll patronizingly tease you toward but not actually tell you so it doesn't stunt your development" ways of trivializing every challenge you give the 20th level wizard you allowed him to have.

2) don't game with Anzyr, or dont give him a 20th level wizard.

People, you can't win the internets.

Of course you can win pathfinder if you really want to. Everyone knows the system is broken. That's why it can be gamed.

Some people want to win pathfinder and some just want to experience it. It's all good people. Like for like. Play the way you want and let them play theirs.

Anzyr's not wrong. He's just moderately clever with a talent for getting under the skin of people who insist that breaking PF down to its components is wrong.

If you bite then you are idiots.

More power to him. Well done Anzyr.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Come on FLite. Using rules against Anzyr won't end well.

I'm sure there's a perfectly rules legal way to have a 150+ Strength, or some other little known method of circumventing it. After all, this is basic, non impressive system mastery stuff here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Tarkeighas wrote:


2) anzyr displays a level of exploitative system mastery that would make azmodeus proud
Hardly, this is like... 8th grade system mastery, in my honest opinion. Not even College track stuff. If people find it impressive, it's not that I'm standing to high, it's that they're standing to low.
I didn't want anyone to misconstrue that as personal attack. But no really this isn't impressive system mastery, this is very basic stuff. Core only basic stuff. I can't imagine that anyone at all would find it impressive. I don't think anyone who is supporting me considers this particularly impressive though so...

No need for false modesty now Anzyr. You've blown away all opposition to your arguments on a rules basis. Now they are just arguing that winning RPGs isn't the right way to play. They are just coming at you with "made up nonsense" now.

Seriously guys. Fantasy role playing games is not the place for made up nonsense.

Rules are all that matters or there wouldn't be any rule books.

*Edit* because I lack sufficient system mastery of forum posting structure


Killed the thread...

Guys? Was it something I said?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Tarkeighas wrote:


2) anzyr displays a level of exploitative system mastery that would make azmodeus proud
Hardly, this is like... 8th grade system mastery, in my honest opinion. Not even College track stuff. If people find it impressive, it's not that I'm standing to high, it's that they're standing to low.

They have grades?!! Boy did I ever go to the wrong school. I only learned boring sums and stuff.

*Edit*
Way to burn your supporters! I love a bloke who's willing to slap the faces of his opponents and friends alike. I'm not sure why you deleted your post though. Have some conviction man!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh man. This thread has had me laughing so hard I've been getting funny looks from my co-workers.

After having read the entire thing I feel I can summerise foe the TL:DR crowd.

1) OP asks question that is derailed and completely forgotten
2) anzyr displays a level of exploitative system mastery that would make azmodeus proud
3) some posters argue against the 'bad' exploiting and some defend it.
4) thread devolves into an "you can" vs "but should you" debate of the rules.

While I'm sure some people are impressed with the depth of Anzyr's rules knowledge others will be less impressed. I myself fall into the group that feels it's about as useful as most magic tricks. Pretty but pointless.

I'm left with the feeling that some sort of validation is being sought on both sides. It'll cost nothing so here goes;

Pro system mastery crowd - congrats y'all on finding the loopholes in a very leaky game system. You all win RPGs. High fives and buttslaps all round. But now the game is over what will you spend all your time on?

Pro "a good GM wouldn't allow that exploiting" crowd - They are technically right but that's ok cause we'll be enjoying our RPGs the "right" way with "good" GMing.

Now you can all stop sniping each other and turn on that bastard that is mocking you both... Let the hating commence! :)


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
+1 for CON. Really, people should stop rolling for stats.
Throw in racial -2 by playing an elf. Look at the GM in the eye and DARE him to call you on it.

Laughed so hard. +1 to this


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Our group is experiencing a similar issue at the moment. A relatively inexperienced GM has allowed greater than WBL treasure (through added side treks) and added a mythic level in an AP not designed to cope with them.

The characters are not min/maxed but are reasonably well crafted and have effectively all become glass cannons with damage outputs that could kill their clones in one round. My character is probably the heaviest hitter with a fauchard (trip build), mythic power attack, crit range of 15+ dealing over 100 damage on successful crit.

I'll give you the same advice I gave him - variety, numbers and BBEGs that are smart and prepared.

As some of the other posters have commented, if you put your party up against numerous foes then the ability to one shot them becomes less of an issue.

A variety of foes with various abilities and defenses can challenge heavy hitters in all sorts of ways. Try to build encounters with depth and foes that don't simply charge the big guy with the sword.

BBEGs are so for a reason. They are smarter and more prepared than the average opponent, even if they haven't encountered the PCs before. They should have ways of reducing or avoiding damage (stone skin, blur, mirror image, terrain advantage, nasty traps and surprises etc). If they are recurring or know of the PCs (by reputation or scrying) they should be specifically prepared for fighting them.

Final thought - want to make a martial cry? Disarm or Sunder will ruin their day. Any semi- intelligent opponent will realize the big sharp thing being swung at them is the cause of all their pain. This should be within the reasoning capabilities of almost all opponents.

Hope this helps

Tark


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:

Player says: I want my character to be Chaotic Neutral

Player means: I'm not that worried about alignment, anyway.
Player means: I want to be Chaotic Evil, but since Evil isn't allowed...
Player means: garfanableagulumpugu WHY DO THE BANANA PLATE!kupokupo

For the love of god tell me why do the banana plate? The suspense is killing me


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Player says: "alignments are straight jackets to force players to play the way you want them to".

Player means: I want the freedom to have my character act based on my current mood, whim or state of bordem.

Player means: regardless of the alignment I write on my sheet my character will be CN. By the way I'm thinking of playing a paladin.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

GM says: *describes encounter* they haven't noticed you yet, how do you want to proceed?
GM means: I'm an optimist. Just because you always draw weapons and slaughter anything that looks like it might have loot I still hold out a tiny hope that you one day might actually *talk* to something before killing it.

GM says: would you like a few minutes to plan?
GM means: please, for god's sake, take a few minutes to plan!

GM says: are you sure you want to play a rogue?
GM means: I'd love for you to *play* a rogue, but we both know it's going to be played like a weak, light armour fighter that you'll get bored with and killed within 3 sessions.

GM says: you answer the riddle and nothing obvious occurs
GM means: how the f$&k did you figure out my incredibly clever and obscure reference so quickly? Now I need a new gateway tactic so you don't skip half the plot.

GM says: the individual introduces himself as (generic fantasy name)
GM means: feel free to give the NPC whatever amusing or pop culture referencing nickname strikes you first.


seebs wrote:


Do you understand how incredibly insulting it is to immediately leap to the assertion that no one could ever, possibly, disagree with you unless they are dishonest cheaters who want to gain advantage from being wrong?

Because I don't think you do, because you keep doing it.

Ease up there friend. That's a lot of emotion for someone with no apparent stake in the argument.

I have also done nothing of the sort. If you are going to accuse me of something kindly keep your own values out of it.

I have never used the words cheat or dishonest. Those are your words. "Cheese" is a general term applied to concepts or interpretations of the rules designed to elicit internal mechanic advantage over substance or intent. I have already stated that I believe the OP to want an honest answer.

I apologize if you feel me clarifying a phrase to another poster is somehow a personal insult. It was not even directed to you.

But I cannot help it if you are so thin skinned as to be offended by what are relatively innocuous comments. I shudder to think how you perceive the rest of the content of the internet. I will not stop contributing to this or any other topic however because of your massive overreaction.

I'm entitled to my opinion as you are yours. I have not asserted anything negative about you, save voicing a counter argument. Making it a personal attack on me won't change my position


graystone wrote:
Tarkeighas wrote:


If it seems too good to be true...it almost certainly is
I think what you're missing is that to the people you're debating with it doesn't seem to be "too good to be true".

I understand "good" is a matter of perspective. I also understand that when you want something to be so, it instantly seems "reasonable" that it could or should be.

What I'm talking about is what we perceive to be developer perspective.

Stacking hit bonuses from the same stat, even if one is partially limited (30 ft range is not a difficult condition to meet), is simply not something that is perpetuated in the rules.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong by anyone who can quote any feat or ability that allows Str bonuses to hit a second time in partially limited circumstances (equivalent of 30 ft range for example).

It is "too good to be true" because it is being interpreted to offer an advantage that historically has not been supported by the rules. It would go against the trends in rules interpretations to date. It would be a first, and with all "discoveries" of this nature I'd suggest it was likely unintentional rather than intentional.

Wanting it to be so does not make it so. An official ruling would make it so


@seebs

I don't claim to be a developer, but I suspect it has to do with MAD. Stacking disparate abilities requires you to have multiple abilities with high values to gain benefit. Assuming abiding by core rules there is an inherent limit to this.

If on the other hand you had abilities and stats that allowed same stat stacking you could just put all your resources into exploiting a single stat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Yeah I know man, why should high level options provide actual benefits?
Unless they're spells

Funny thing is I don't necessarily disagree with you.

This is the system that brought us OP casters vs hapless Martials. It brought Martials that are massively feat taxed and underpowered unless they run 2hd Str builds.

This system is not balanced. But it's the system we play.

It's full of high level options that are underpowered, highly situational or downright useless.

What in all your experience with this system or on these boards makes you think that the rules will allow you to stack the same stat bonus twice? Ask yourself, will they ever publish a feat that gives fighters the chance to get their Str bonus again on an attack under any circumstances? Of course they won't.

If two disparate abilities appear to stack the same stat twice you can bet they were not tested in that manner and not intended to do so. I submit they are both separately intended to offer alternatives to the normal manner in which hit bonuses are calculated, with the presumption they are modifying standard core rules mechanics rather than altering already altered mechanics.

Asking out of limited experience is one thing (OP for instance), but trying to find new ways around the dreaded "unwritten rules" is entirely another.

If it seems too good to be true...it almost certainly is


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

If you are going to read my post, make sure you read it properly. After all, this was the second sentence in the section you quoted:

Although a fair point, this would also require knowledge as to the character strength and system mastery of each player. Something which the GM should know about, sure, but it is not something we would know

I read your post, which is why I replied with a question rather than a statement. You seemed to be implying that while the GM should know, we (the forum poster's) couldn't possibly know what he did or didn't know. You weren't clear, and seemed to be trying to set up a loophole big enough for the OP to drive a truck through should he so desire. Not my fault if you are being unclear. Thank you for the clarification. I do understand you now.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

If character death, at any point, at any time, especially given the assumed precedent of their level (something which, according to you, I shouldn't even do, but there has to be one, otherwise we go to the first part of this quote), wasn't something that could happen, then quite frankly the Wizard wouldn't have even needed to buff or use the scroll, if the GM makes encounters that much of a pushover...

...But I suppose according to you, like the customer of a company, the player is always right, and the company, the GM, is always wrong

Its difficult to take you seriously when you accuse me of not reading your post, and then either mistakenly or deliberately misquote me to make your point. I cant tell if you are actually trying to support your argument or are just trolling me. Lets assume you are serious, and feel free to quote where I've made those assertions.

The Player is not always right. The GM is not always wrong. In this case the Player, and his actual actions (or lack of) and preparation (or lack of) is irrelevant in many ways, and the DM is wrong only by virtue of failing to set a reasonable encounter given the power differential (NPC to Wizard) and in the sense of what is fun for everyone (Clearly the player did not agree the manner of death was justified).

While its been established that the OP had made mistakes in his build, I concede that he could have correctly made a build within the rules that legitimately would deal that much damage. I'm not arguing he couldn't. I'm arguing he shouldn't.

And in likening it to GM fiat death, I'm aware that it had game mechanics rather than instant death. My point is the result is the same whether you stat it or not. "Wizard walks in room, BBEG goes first, wizard dies". To the player its much of a muchness. If the GM wants to pretend it wasn't fiat by statting the encounter then all he's doing is deluding himself. It ain't fooling anyone.

"But its what a smart BBEG would do!" I hear from the future. Sure it is. But the GM controls how powerful the BBEG is. A BBEG that deals half that damage per strike can still be an effective, and potentially lethal, final encounter. A better GM would structure the encounter to leave a player some choices, actions and options and still challenge them.

One of two things happened here;
1) The GM UNKNOWINGLY made the BBEG too powerful, and with 'unlucky' (for the player) rolling killed the wizard outright. This is bad encounter design.
2) The GM KNOWINGLY made the BBEG too powerful, and with 'lucky' (read as 'intended') rolling killed the wizard outright. This is bad GMing

If you want to kill players, exert your authority and dominance or "teach newbs a lesson" - play videogames where you have the freedom to be an anonymous a-hat. If you want to engage friends or colleagues in a meaningful RPG experience this is not the way to do it.

TL:DR; GMs are not wrong all the time. IN THIS CASE the GM was wrong.


And to weigh into the "fudging" debate...

Hero points are one of the best things ever to be added to the game.

"Fudging" the dice detracts from player agency, as illustrated by several posters above.

Being at the mercy of horrible dice rolls or poor planning (player or GM) can often seriously suck the fun out of the game.

Hero points allow a player a measure of control of fickle fate without relying in the GM, but not so much as to remove risk entirely.


I didn't say "fishing for compliments" I said validation. There is a difference. If you feel I've misrepresented his statement then perhaps you shouldn't misrepresent mine.

It's not dissimilar to the "help me my build is too powerful and it's unbalancing the game" posts that appear periodically. Often these are just faux negative posts masking a desire to showcase their 'clever' power build.

The OP set the tone of the post. The tone was set with 'butthurt'. You don't use this if you are unsure of your actions. He clearly had an opinion of the situation, and that opinion was that the player, not himself, was incorrect in their reactions. Since they are in opposite positions, he by default implies his actions were correct, and posts his massive damage build and encounter setup for us all to admire.

Also, I did not say PERFECTLY align expectations. I said manage. Another misrepresentation of my post, and by your own words, one could say a dickish move by you.

He is the GM. He sets the tone and rules for the campaign. If it is high lethality pulp with characters dropping faster than a George Martin epic, and everyone is happy with it then it's the 'right' way to play by consensus. That will be the agreed upon tone of the campaign.

But if a player has a reaction strong enough to be described as 'butthurt' then clearly he thought the OPs actions were extremely surprising and presumably unfair. It's not about PERFECT alignment so much as at least ballpark management.

Players have no power at a table to manage anything other than their character actions within set limits. The GM controls the setting, environment, opposition, pace, challenge level etc etc. GMs have the responsibility to manage this for the group. It is the PRIMARY function of the GM.

Ultimately this is a matter between him and his player. He doesn't have to care for my opinion (as you clearly don't) but he did ask for it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To the OP

IMO - dickish move

Here's why;

It doesn't matter what anyone else says is the 'right' or 'wrong' way to play, or what level of lethality makes the game worthwhile.

You can play the game any way you want, so long as the expectations of that game are the same on both sides of the screen. The fact that your player reacted poorly indicates that his expectations don't match yours. As GM you are the only person at the table with the power to manage this.

Trivialising his reaction and then posting on forums seeking validation is also a dickish move.

Hope this answers your question


Digital Mystic wrote:

Your fighter is a min/maxer. He is also a bit of a rule abuser (trip builds are a bit cheap)

That's a bit harsh. The trip rules were written early and trip builds are as intended. Why is the fighter player a rules abuser for taking an option provided to him? It's not like he sought out a combination of feats/abilities that were never intended to be used together, he's simply followed the trip tree.

Apparently gunslingers are broken at the rules level but trip builds are the player's fault?

'Blame the player' is just bad advice.

Any group can be challenged by the right combination of opponents, environment and tactics. Published adventures are by their very nature generic, and cannot account for party composition. It falls to the GM to recognize strengths and weaknesses in a group and adjust accordingly.

Trip/crit builds can offer more attacks (through AoO) and higher 'spike' damage output, but we aren't talking about a broken rage-lance-pounce build here, nor is he a trip/crit/smite paladin (I'd categorize the first as rules abuse, and the second as cheese).

Anything that reduces the effectiveness of his strengths periodically will reduce the notion of an overpowered build. Throw in a single Ochre Jelly if he's dominating the group. Instant reality check. Can't be tripped, can't be crit, no damage from slashing or piercing weapons (and creates more opponents = more attacks against). Jelly works well for the gunslinger too.

There are all sorts of ways to equalize a game for everyone's enjoyment. Dont punish a player for having a combat effective character by making them ineffective, but do challenge them by not serving up every fight on a plate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Not because it's not an important social issue, but because l find it staggering that people think they can convince others to change their value set (any value set) on a forum board.

Homosexuality in Golarion

1) Golarion is a fictional world that you visit with your friends, presumably people with similar values. You decide the importance and prevalence of sexuality or any other aspect of the campaign you wish.

2) Don't expect validation of any of your values (sexual or otherwise) in a generic fantasy product produced by other people. If it's so damned important to you, produce your own material, publish and market.

3) be thankful that we have a game we love and a company that promotes and produces quality material that grows the industry. Paizo should be lauded for everything they have done for the industry as a whole, rather than critically focussing on one area you believe is not being represented to your satisfaction.

Tark


I can't believe I never noticed that Aura of Justice existed! Mind you I don't think my table has seen a paladin since 2nd edition days.

Might have to give one a spin next opportunity


It's an interesting concept. I quite like it in theory. For the most part I think it's statted well but I think there are some issues;

Paladin v weapon conflict - you might want to reconsider this mechanic. At a glance I think the paladin and the weapon would be at odd almost all the time. This could result in severely hampering the character periodically. While the paladin may win most of these conflicts, law of averages suggests that he'll lose fairly often too. Maybe a more passive penalty to represent the internal conflict?

Shadows of justice - I think you underestimate just how powerful this ability is. Paladin smite is one of the most OP abilities in the game. Granting it to all allies for 1 min will absolutely trivialise almost any CR appropriate encounter.

Your 20th level capstone is again a massive power jump. I'd look to some of the other classes to find a more balanced approach. Having said that, not too many campaigns reach level 20 play.


Nice pickup on the feat.

Shame it's Gnome only. Seriously, who plays gnomes?


I imagine the wording is to stop abuse of such things like the skill ranks by 'trading' the belt amongst characters until a skill check is successful.


FAQed

It's never come up in my game. I really don't see the benefit of mirror strike.

Why waste an attack roll to get an attack roll next turn that splits evenly amongst 2 opponents? Sure you get +2 to hit (and confirm) IF they flank you. In order to gain that you either gave to start between them (possibly provoking AoO, or casting defensively) or cast and hope next round you can move to a desired position (likely provoking AoO or requiring acrobatic movement).

Just take a single attack this round and a single attack next round, splitting them if you like. You have approximately the same chance of hitting (slightly less) but will average twice as much damage.

The additional +2 to hit is highly circumstantial at best.

Maybe mirror strike was intended to use as you suggest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Quoted For Truth

Ie "I strongly agree with this statement as being accurate, truthful and appealing to my sensibilities"

Often used erroneously to agree with something whether it is true or not.

In this case used correctly IMO


Thread revive for those about to embark.

This was an issue that came up at my table too. All my players jumped at the chance for an "evil campaign", but all have very different ideas about what evil means. I had one player tell me "I can't play a rogue because at some point I'd just HAVE TO steal from the other players". Alarm bells start ringing.

"Evil" campaigns only function when there is glue to hold the characters together rather than pursue their own agendas. Way of the wicked does this very well because it's based on a narrow theme.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a GM setting some 'ground rules' for a campaign, any campaign. It you are playing fantasy you don't allow sci-fi concepts. This is no different.

My ground rules;
Alignments must be lawful evil
Characters must be able to see the "big picture" beyond their own desires
Characters must be willing to work in a team and sign the contract
No PvP
No "demonic" influence or summoning

I worked with the players to craft character concepts that worked with the setting. I vetoed several concepts from a single player who struggles with the nuances of evil beyond homicidal maniac.

Granted, players should be given creative control of characters, but within the scope of the adventure path. No good alignments, no lightsabres and no villains that go around randomly committing "evil" because they 'just can'.

Players should respect that the AP is offering them a chance at a type of story that is rare, if not unique. A few restrictions to make it functional is not a terrible burden to bear.

Any player not willing to work within these bounds is being as selfish and difficult as if they expect a spacecraft in a standard fantasy setting.

My 2 copper


Best into I've ever run (according to my players) was where they were strangers trapped in a ramshackle wilderness inn by a horrendous storm lasting days. The inn was filled with colorful characters that allowed some role play and character investment. On the 6th night the inn collapsed into a sinkhole that opened up into a series of caves, tree roots, animal dens and burial tombs with natural obstacles to overcome.

The challenge became trying to get as many NPCs out alive as possible, with the players (not characters) aware that every NPC would offer a campaign hook or boon if they survived.

The players loved it, and became really invested in the campaign NPCs, who went their separate ways to turn up at various stages later.


Matter-eater lad

As he could technically eat any other hero (or anything else) he is by default the greatest hero.

Discuss


There aren't too many 'broken' builds at level 1

My advice would be barbarian with a 2hd sword and power attack. Carry a composite bow for when you can't get into melee.

With the stats suite provided above (I don't get the 4d4 method, and 1d20+2 might net a big score but will likely end in tears) I'd throw 16 to Str, 14 Con.

So, human barbarian 1, take the human racial Dual Talent (adv race guide) for +2 to two stats, replacing skill points and extra feat.

Str18 (22 while raging)
Con 16 (20 while raging)

Rage for 5 rounds per day

Basic power attack
Hit: +4 (+7 raging)
Damage: 2d6+9 (+12 raging)

If you can stand less rage rounds and less HP drop dual talented and take Cleave (feat). With this you can hit two adjacent opponents per round.

At 1st level nothing in your CR range will live through a raging power attack, and BBEGs will fall like mooks.

This build will hold up for a few levels. If you are going to take the campaign to high levels I recommend a wizard. Weak at low levels they are truly broken at high levels. No special build - they just are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

About 10 years ago I had my epiphany moment about assumptions of player values (and by extension character behaviors).

I was running a high powered heroes game (think avengers) but semi gritty 'reality' (ie heroes are not 'celebrities', distrusted by governments, military etc).

They encountered a plot where a villain infiltrated a top secret military research facility to steal a biological weapon. The villain was actually an escaped project from the base. The idea of the set up was that the PCs would sneak onto the base, confront the villain, engage in a 3 way battle with him and military forces, discover his origin and find useful tech to combat him in the future. They would escape prosecution for this infiltration because of the incriminating evidence that the military had created the villain, and then slowly develop a tense but co-operative relationship with them, thus legitimizing their 'hero' activities. All very convoluted.

After much set up the PC's learn of the infiltration of the military base and seek to thwart the plot. They climb in their high tech space ship vehicle and set out.

They approach the base openly, radioing to proclaim they are heroes and need to enter to stop a villain. They are refused entry and told to turn back or they will be fired upon as they have entered a restricted area. Incredulous at the response they stubbornly refuse to leave the area until they are given clearance to enter. Military fighters are scrambled and sent to 'buzz' the PCs ship in a show of force. One PC with the ability to fly exits to interact with the fighters, but after botched skill checks ends up colliding with a jet and bringing it down. They are then chased off by a significant military presence. The self righteous PCs then leave the base to the 'fate it deserves' and take no further actions to mitigate the villains evil plan. Weeks later New York is struck by a biological weapon and tens of thousands die....

At the time I was floored by the stupidity and arrogance of the players. I was annoyed because they 'ruined' a carefully crafted plot because of their unrealistic expectations of the setting and NPCs. It was only later I realized the fault was mine.

I assumed the players reached the same conclusions I would have from the information presented and would make the 'right' choices. After all, the cues were all there and very clear.

My failure was that I assumed what motivated me would motivate them, and they would make choices based in my values and sensibilities.

The most important aspect of GMing is to offer your players a story and options that engage them, not you. Never assume they will select a single way to obtain an objective, or that they will reach that conclusion if you blunt their other choices.

In retrospect I saw that the players had a very different view of what being a hero meant in the setting than I did.

The best plots are those that are open to being driven by player actions, not those that channel characters into limited choices.

To return to the OPs original issue, I feel that the players are not invested in rectifying the negative consequences of their wishes. Well you can learn from that, and in the future present the players with choices that will make them want to engage with the plot.


Thanks Drakkiel

I did notice the wording on it and spring attack. Under standard conditions I think it would be clear.

I guess what I'm asking is does Reach effectively add a new condition to resolving the Charge/Ride By Attack or not?

Is this a case of specific (Ride By Attack) trumping general (reach)? Or is reach the specific because it's not 'standard' for creatures. Chicken or egg?

Is there an official ruling I could reference? Alternatively I'd settle for majority community view.

Cheers


It's true about the anarchy issue. Someone just burst into my office with a shotgun and a torch demanding paizo fix the wording on thunder and fang before the government is overthrown....

I can only assume you were being ironic.

I read your post. I agree with much of it, and it would be nice if the description for thunder and fang neatly said "this only works when wielding an earth breaker in your main hand and a Klar in your off hand", or some other very specific wording.

In truth though I feel that this would not be enough for some people. I feel there would be a raft of "I know you said this but I disagree cause other rules or interpretations say..." posts. In a game system as complex as pathfinder there will ALWAYS be inconsistencies if you want to nit pick.

As I see it the trick is to settle on intent of a rule rather than poke holes because it isn't perfectly air tight.


If you want an RP reason to depower your character legitimately switch to 1hd weapon and shield claiming to want to provide more protection for your comrades.

The one hander reduces the effectiveness of your Str and Power attack without making them useless and you get the trade off of a higher AC.

It will allow the rest of the Martials to shine for a bit and you can always switch it up later if you need the big hits.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will argue incessantly over the tiniest inconsistencies or perceived loopholes to eek out the Nth degree of advantage or the next 'look how paizo had screwed up and I'm so clever for picking it up' situation.

It's going to end up requiring pathfinder to produce giant walls of text in every description to cover every eventuality or the paizo staff are simply going to ignore rules questions because every time they make a ruling 50 people scramble to point out how 'wrong' they are because of this, that blah blah blah.

I often wonder if the paizo staff don't just shake their heads at the absurd extremes that some of these discussions get to. I expect real rules questions are going unanswered, hidden under the deluge of junk submitted by nit pickers and keyboard warriors.

Thunder and Fang was clearly intended to offer the use of an Earth breaker and a Klar together in an interesting and flavouful way. And nothing more or less than that.

Just because a description doesn't cover every eventuality or every loophole this is not an invitation to reinterpret the intent. Sadly I think that is lost on many.

No description will EVER be perfect. In my mind RAI should always trump RAW lawyering.


Hi all,

While I'm sure this has likely been covered before my search-fu did not uncover it so I'm hoping the community can help me out.

An issue came up at yesterday's session. A paladin on a mount Charged a T-Rex. She has a lance with reach (10'). The problem is the T-Rex has a reach of 20'.

Actions in Combat table in PHB states that the act of charging does not provoke AoO, but has the caveat that this does not stop AoO from moving out of a threatened square.

Further, the Ride By Attack feat states that "you and your mount do not provoke AoO from the opponent that you attack".

After much discussion it was ruled that the Ride By feat was referencing not provoking an AoO from leaving after the attack rather than on the approach because without reach in the equation it would be the condition that normally provokes (or leaving the threatened area after 'riding by'.

Because of the reach it was ruled that the T-Rex would get an AoO on approach of the charge as she left the 20' square into the 15' square. She would also provoke again at 15' to 10' (there would be no 2nd AoO because T-Rex does not have combat reflexes, but we were establishing conditions). It was then ruled that she could leave the threatened area (multiple squares) under the 'protection' offered by the Ride By Attack feat.

All agreed in theory feeling that there was adequate hedging both ways if we had indeed misinterpreted the rules. The paladin was grappled off her mount in the first AoO, and subsequently swallowed next round, much to the amusement of all after a 30 min conversation about the rules.

The question is this- how does the Charge action and the Ride By feat work when the target has more reach that the standard 5'?

Cheers


I think we're headed for a serious derailment here, but I feel I've got what I need from the question.

There are a lot of familiar names in here and if no one is able to find RAW against it with the communal level of system mastery in this thread I am fairly confident that it can be done legally.

For what it's worth, the question was academic, at least at this point. A player in my group is angling for AA PrC and his fighter archer has a flaming bow at present. It got the group talking about the nature of opposing elements delivered from the same source, and if there was a difference based on permanency vs temporary effects.

I appreciate all the responses.


I actually recall an NPC in the 3.5 AP shackled city that had a flaming frost sword.

But that was of course 3.5....


Are their any specific rules beyond basic logic that disallow opposing elements on weapons? If so would they vary by circumstance when;

Permanent enchantments - ie a sword with both the flaming and frost abilities.

Permanent vs semi permanent - an arrow with the flaming property fired from a bow with the frost property.

Permanent vs spell - ie sword with the frost ability temporarily imbued with the flaming ability from a spell.

Permanent vs class ability - ie a flaming arrow imbued with frost from the arcane archer PrC ability.

Thanks


Mystic Lemur wrote:
Tarkeighas wrote:
5ft step is a move action.
Cite please. My CRB lists 5-foot step as a free action that can be taken once per round if you make no other movement. You can certainly stand up (a move action), take a 5ft. step, and attack (a standard action) all in the same turn. This isn't 4th edition.

Yeah the board ate a much bigger post and in my frustration my summary follow up post didn't come out as intended. I didn't even notice until you pointed it out.

Originally I wrote that 5ft step was a free action if you don't take a move action. Charge is a special full round action that includes a minimum move component and can't be made in conjunction with the 5ft step.

Apologies for the confusion.


Any other 'creative' actions we can help dispel? :)


As BBT says. Charge is a full round action. 5ft step is a move action. Not to mention that you need to move at least 10 feet to charge.

One or the other


I believe what Nefreet is saying is that if he had iterative attacks from having a BAB of greater than +6 (ie +6/+1 or more) and he began with the BS in one hand and the lance in the other he could do what is suggested by dropping the BS as a free action and Regripping the lance as a free action, but he could not gain the additional attack provided by "two-weapon" fighting as per the combat rules.

Personally I wouldn't allow it if I was GM. If he wants to swing his BS one handed then by all means, but I feel that this player is trying to use inventive ways to circumvent rules as intended for extra power. I of course don't know your player so this is just a general observation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but why are you asking the PF community to help nerf you?

If I were a cynic I would suggest you are sneakily trying to seek external validation for your "detrimentally impressive" build.

Are you in control of your PC or not?

If you actually feel that your sorcerer is contributing to balance issues and you'd like to stop it then my advice is - go ahead and stop it.

Is there a gun to your head forcing you to make all these metamagic enhanced fireballs? If not then just stop.

It really isn't a big deal if you don't want it to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bard is great support

Plus let's face it. If you are going to have a cohort you might as well have one that can literally sing your praises and talk you up in each town you go to!


I'll reiterate what most posters have said;

It's legitimate so long as it's logical for the circumstances. Otherwise it's clearly targeting the player.

Of course logic varies from person to person.

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>