Monkhound wrote:
So you don't stand by your previous statement. Gotcha. So while "Assassinations are still generally counter to the Pathfinder Society's tenets" being an assassin via the assassin archetype "has no edicts/ anathema counter to the edicts and goals of the Pathfinder Society." Yep, those two quotes don't run counter to each other at all. No siree.
John Woodford wrote: I can't say how much he personally contributed to that he at least didn't get in the way. He didn't get in the way is about the funniest thing I've read. He was a strong Editor-In-Chief. Read what people have said. If he didn't get in the way Phoenix/Jean Grey wouldn't have died at the end of the Dark Phoenix Saga. He told Claremont and Byrne she had to die because she blew up a planet of people. There had to be repercussions for that. You don't just get your powers taken away and leave the team. He made strong decisions all the time and got in the way all the time.
Mathmuse wrote:
No I was arguing that your easy-peesy solution of picking up the rogue and moving and raising the shield was not so easy-peesy as you presented it. But yes sometimes it is better to leave a down comrade down and let the the dying rules play out for a round allowing you to be proactive against the enemy before its turn comes back around
I understand that he was carrying. I was giving the dragging rules first. Or did you just skip over the rest? Did the fighter have a weapon in hand prior to going into the cave? Without this ever occurring before how would he know to take off his back back. The enemy can still stride to him before his next turn and he wouldn't have had the chance to raise his shield. So the enemy would have thew same chance of critting on the fighter that he had on the rogue
Mathmuse wrote: Could you give me a reference to these carrying rules? My players have carried other players, conscious rather than unconscious, and I have applied the Riding Sapient Creatures rules instead. Here are dragging: Source Player Core pg. 269 In some situations, you might drag an object or creaturerather than carry it. If you’re dragging something, treat its Bulk as half. Typically, you can drag one thing at a time, you must use both hands to do so, and you drag slowly— roughly 50 feet per minute. Use the total Bulk of what you’re dragging, for instance, if you’re dragging a sack filled with treasure, total the Bulk of everything inside. Carrying a creature really gets into the weeds cause you would have the Bulk of the creature + the Bulk of its items + your bulk to contend with
Source Player Core pg. 269 2.0
Carrying heavy or unwieldy itemss is touched on here in Bulk Bulk
Whether like dragging if it needs 2 hands is not expressed here or in carrying held items. Carrying Items
I would say that yes it takes 2 hands, but that is me and it corresponds to the dragging rule which makes for easy extrapolation. In your example the fighter either carrying or dragging would have needed to either drop their weapon (for free) or stow their weapon at the cost of an action. Then either pick up the Rogue or place hands on the Rogue (an action) The either drag or carry at the negatives that I assume would happen. Thus leaving them in range of Stides from the enemy and unable to raise a shield without dropping the rogue. My .02 cents
Mathmuse wrote: The rogue got to his feet, weapon still in hand, and Hid in the concealment of the blizzard. The party became better prepared to face the corpselight if it chased after tham. So how did the rogue still hold their weapon when: Source Player Core pg. 446 2.0
I'm not even going to talk about how when you are carrying or dragging someone you can only move 50 feet per minute making it effectively 5 feet per turn and whether that constitutes all 3 of the fighter's actions. Or with the movement enforced how could the fighter raise his shield while moving the rogue. It's easy to come up with your easier tactics if you are playing in the vacuum of the rules. But hey, you do you.You're Mathmuse not Rulesmuse
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Wow! Talk about Gatekeeping and badwrongfuning. And an obvious case of my opinion of the hobby is the only opinion of the hobby. I'm glad I've only been playing since 1988 and not since the 70's so I don't think that way. I hate reading textbooks of rules. If I'm not having fun at the beginning I don't want to stick with it. Break out a new system give me d6 Star Wars or a d10 World of Darkness. I'm not a dabbler but if the creation system asks to invest in character through creation, like background in PF2, don't have the math at the level of creation be the most likely to take you out of the game. If my level 1 PF2 character dies I don't want to make a new one all of it becomes wasted time. Frustrated, wasted time. Still not a dabbler.
Easl wrote:
Looks at your crystal ball. Looks at D&D 4th. Looks at your crystal ball. Looks at D&D 4th.*Shrugs*
Kringress wrote: everyone, I get that old characters are not going to be effected. My problem is this, I have people that will bring new characters built to the 2.0 rules and not the 2.1 or re-master rules. They do NOT look at NETHYS for character build rules. They do not care what NETHYS says. How do I get this understood? PEOPLE DO NOT LOOK AT NETHYS! I guess I'm not a person, or belonging to the subset people.
Star Wars and The Hidden Fortress, another Akira Kurosawa movie So like same/same
Expectations sounds too forceful. "I expect you to follow my words verbatim." "I expect you to eat your disgusting vegetables." "The expectation is that I the obvious elder gamer expect you to follow what I say." This may not by your intent, but the word choice in the title can be read as talking down to the reader.
AceofMoxen wrote:
Um...sigh...no. The quote is PF1 starts with a 25 years out of date operating system. No it doesn't. Since PF1 starts in 2009 from a 2000 launch date of the beginning of the system it cannot start with a 25 year out of date operating system 9 years later. sigh. If the language were cleaned up and amended to PF1 runs on a 25 year (rounded up for simplicity) out of date operating system then sure. le sigh
Freehold DM wrote:
It is not. It's still not. Won't be until 2025.
|