![]() ![]()
![]() RedRobe wrote:
1d10 fire damage touch attack that ignores 20 hardness and isn't halved against objects. Sounds right to me. It's a laser, so you it passes through transparent objects and doesn't add strength to damage, but if you're already rewriting it to be a sword you could just change that as well. ![]()
![]() The abilities all seemed to be on the right track, but then I got to the specializations. Warlock seems like it was made with the Shadow in mind. Stealthy spell casting with shadowdancer-like abilities. But none of it seems to be usable enough. To many spells fighting over the incredibly limited slots available, and living shadow is limited to once a day. On top of it I'm stuck with a spell book. I'm happy the folks at Paizo seem to be fans of Batman's daddy, but a bit disappointed too. ![]()
![]() Village they spend the night in turns out to be full of cannibals. They get awoken in the middle of the night while they sleep. The squishy spell casters will probably go down first letting the rest of the party know it's go time. Martial classes will probably last longer, but being caught without their gear on will make them much easier to deal with. Make sure they are sleeping on the second floor and their windows lead out onto an alley they can be trapped in. ![]()
![]() The phalanx soldier archetype actually does the job pretty well. The armies most people think of when they think shield and spear are either greek or roman or one of the other nations that used hoplites. Greek hoplites basically all fought the same, in a phalanx. People like to think the Spartan were special, but they were hoplites just like Athens and the rest. The difference was that they had more practice being in a phalanx. The Romans just took what the Greeks did and used better materials. ![]()
![]() VegasHoneyBadger wrote: We could base our number attacks off of dex and that would make sense, but would require more work to calculate. Everything is easier if we just give a bonus based on dex and envision multiple attacks. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it untrue. The fact is you do not need much strength to kill someone, and someone who is agile is able to land a blow in just the right place much easier then someone who is strong and clumsy. You are talking about multiple things there. Yes, you can land a blow in just the right place. That is called a critical hit in pathfinder. Making it easier to get crits is uaully the tactic dex based fighters take anyways. It's why most of the weapons that you would bother finessing have a good crit range and you can take improved crit. Improved crit represents your character putting in the effort to get good at hitting in just the right place. VegasHoneyBadger wrote: If I get a knife in your back, I can twist it. You don't have that kind of control over a great axe. With a knife I can aim for more vital areas easier as it is light and small. Swinging a big axe you don't aim for small targets, you are just trying to hit the bastard. I think the problem lies with lack of imagination on your part. I don't seem to be the one with a lack of imagination here. Assuming that a knife is better than an axe because you can twist it means you haven't consider the rouge snuck up and hit them in the neck with the axe. You do that right and the axe is just going to take off their head. Either way the person is dead, but the axe definately did more damage. VegasHoneyBadger wrote: No, I am not talking about death attacks. I am talking about hitting windpipes, and groins. Using a clumsy great axe makes that much much harder to do. Again, those are called a critical hit. You obviously are talking about death attack since you used the example of twisting a knife in someones back and that's about the most on the nose example of a death attack as possible. VegasHoneyBadger wrote: I am guessing you don't watch much martial arts. Find an 80 year old that has studied and ask him whether or not he need strength to hurt you Now you are talking about spending a lifetime of training to master the art of disabling people with minimal to no weapons. That's called a monk in this game. It's a totally different idea than sneaking up on someone and sticking a knife in their back. I think you may need to watch a few more martial arts movies yourself, as most of the heros from that tend to be ripped. They aren't built like body builders, but no one who actually fights as their living is. Go google "Bruce Leee Shirtless," or "Jackie Chan shirtless." Those are not the bodies of a low strength characters. ![]()
![]() Dex as damage isn't core because it doesn't make sense. Adding dex to damage does not represent the "thousand cuts" approach to combat. That would be more like basing your number of attacks off dex. Theres no reason a dagger should be better at sneak attack than a great axe. A great axe should maybe be harder to sneak up on someone with, but if you can sneak up on someone with a great axe, it'll be more damaging than a dagger. If you want to simulate that feel of the rouge cutting someones throat silently from behind, then house ruling coup de graces to be easier on a sneak attack is probably what you are looking for. Also, death attack is already what you are looking for. You need str to hurt people and put them in the real world. Being very dexterous doesn't do it unless you are using weapons designed to take advantage of our anatomy and easily puncture into the squishy bits. That's why rapiers have a high crit range. ![]()
![]() My favorite summoning moment was when an important NPC's ship was attacked. The other players flew into a frenzy trying how to best get to the ship from the beach we were on. In the middle of their calculating how many people they could fly or teleport or whatnot over to the ship, I summoned an orca. The rest of the party stood around dumbfounded as it tore the monster a sphincter. Summoning is one of those things that can immediately change the balance of a fight by taking the advantage away from the bad guy. Bad guy is in the water? have some sharks. Bad guy is in the air? I got a whole slew of answers to that. And it's a lot quicker that buffing the entire party to deal with the situation. ![]()
![]() Lord Phrofet wrote:
So yes, because the question was narrowly phrased we are suppose to ignore the broadness of the answer. ![]()
![]() So the argument that they don't contradict stems from the very broad answer to the second FAQ being in response to a narrowly defined question. Despite the answer being broadly worded to apply to anytime you wield a two-hander in one hand, it would not apply to a lance. Due to the question specifically asking about feats and abilities. ![]()
![]() Kazaan wrote:
So you are saying that the FAQ that specifically addresses feats and abilities over rules the FAQ that say, "If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand..." because the latter is a broad statement? ![]()
![]() Gauss wrote:
That argument seem to be overly reliant on the same kind of confusing language that got us here in the first place. You seem to be saying if I asked, "are vegetables, like celery, eatable." Than a "yes" answer might not mean celery is eatable. ![]()
![]() fretgod99 wrote:
The first FAQ should apply any two-handed weapon used in one hand since the question is a blanket question covered all situation. Lances while mounted, phalanx fighter using a spear, etc... ![]()
![]() Gauss wrote:
Since the lance is the example used in the question, that would mean the answer does specifically apply to it. Especially since the answer is just, "yes." ![]()
![]() There seems to be a lot of getting hung up on what the word "wield" means/implies in this situation, and how it is used. The first FAQ does not use the word wield and instead uses the more broad term of "use." The first FAQ is specifically addressing a lance though. From the Pathfinder SRD: "Lance: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand." The second FAQ does not address the situation of a weapon being "wielded like a one handed weapon" at all. It instead says, "If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on." Both the lance description and the second FAQ use the same wording to talk about how the weapon is being used. Which means the second FAQ applies to the lance. The first FAQ addresses the lance specifically. Which means it also applies to the lance. Both FAQ give a different answer on how to treat power attack if you are using a lance in one hand. ![]()
![]() James Risner wrote:
I was just restating what you had said and stating the issue at hand. The root question is a simple one, "if I use a weapon in one had that normally requires two hands, do I treat it as a one or two handed weapon." The first FAQ clearly says you do. the second FAQ clearly says you don't. The idea of the rules saying you "wield it like (blank)" isn't adress at all in either FAQ. The only "wield" comes up is in the second FAQ which say, "If you're wielding it in one hand..." Which if we are going to be nit picking is different than saying you are wielding it like a one handed weapon. ![]()
![]() Kazaan wrote: ...Even if you were mounted and wielding a Lance, the Lance still counts as a 2-h weapon so you cannot Spell Combat with a Lance just because you wield it "in one hand" because it still isn't a 1-h weapon. But you can Spell Combat with a 2-h weapon that specifies you wield it "as a one-handed weapon" or any variant thereof. This seem to be a big problem right there. The second FAQ says that "wielding" that lance in one hand means you treat it just like a one handed weapon. The first FAQ says that if you are "using" the lance in one hand you still treat is as a two handed weapon. I think the word "using" would include "wielding" it. Thus the conflict in ruling. ![]()
![]() SlimGauge wrote:
Thanks for the linkafication! ![]()
![]() So i just noticed that the FAQ disagrees with itself on if a two handed weapon gets the bonus damage from power attack if you are using it in one hand. This says you do:
This says you don't:
Thoughts? ![]()
![]() Terquem wrote:
Important people outside our lives not getting it is a classic trouble of gamers everywhere. Its sad that as "gamer" culture becomes more main stream the people with pen and paper are still dealing with the old sstereotypes. ![]()
![]() Some great advice coming in. Somewhere I may have made the wrong impression. I'm not the GM. Getting mad wasn't a great idea. It was born out of frustration. The player has been building a habit of throwing fit when they can't have their way, and I lost my temper. Whats bothering me the most isn't the play who walked away. I can understand frustration and life issues creeping into the game. I had a pretty stressful time from a while back that saw me letting stress into game sessions. What bothers me is the double standard from the other players. They accepted the player's action and were rightly stunned by. The problem is that I know from that stressful time I went through, that the same would not have been accepted of myself. Its made me question my place in the group. Perhaps I don't fit right, perhaps I'm a huge jerk, either way I'm not sure I want to continue. ![]()
![]() Has anyone in your group ever made you question why you play the game? One of the players in our group had been having character troubles for a few session. In our last session, after a trying moment of RP, they walked away from the table. We ask the player to come back and they responded that their character wasn't there anymore. We were all stunned and ask what they meant. All the player would say was that their character wasn't there in the morning when the other characters woke up. Eventualy I got mad and yelled at the player until they came back and told us there was a note in the room they shared with another character. The player gave us 5 seconds of what the note said and walked off again. The player had just completely abandoned the other players, the game, the narative, and hadn't wanted to even give the rest of the table something to work with. They weren't happy with the character they had made, so they abandoned us after months of weekly gaming sessions. What really bothered me though, was the remaining players. They acted like we must have done something wrong. They were angry with me for forcing the player to give us closure. No one was mad but me for having been left in the lurch, but I realized they would have been if I had done it. I was the bad guy for being mad about being abandoned, and I still would have been the bad guy if I had done the abandoning. It's a moment that has made me question why I even bother playing. |