Ricle Peakes

Weslocke's page

505 posts. 12 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 505 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It is getting pretty close to April.

Everybody cross your fingers for the next few weeks.

Think positive (I know, I know) and try to visualize those books arriving at your door in a big volcano shaped box with a bow on it.

Folks, I have to go prep tomorrows The One Ring RPG scenario. (I am currently running The Darkening of the Mirkwood)

Again, any of you who feel that the effortless shield is too much feel free to tap that FAQ button.

Everyone have a good night and happy gaming!

Entryhazard wrote:

It's not like you end with an OP result either

You end up with TWF (Feat and stat taxes) on a lackluster secondary weapon that can be an ulterior money sink

With stellar defenses compared to a more offensively oriented two-weapon fighter.

So you are trading a portion of a die of damage for a massive bonus to AC.

It is better than normal TWF because your shield (including potential magical enhancement bonuses) can be supplying you with a +2-7 bonus to AC.

That is a big edge. A whole extra layer of cake, so-to-speak.

I cannot honestly speak to PFS play. I will never play at one of those tables. I am considered to be one of the best GM's in my city of 250,000 people. Players put their names on a list and literally wait years to play in my campaigns and I even have one friend who flies in over 300 miles 4 times per year just so he does not miss my Call of Cthulu games.
My regular players all say that I am the best GM that they have ever played with and they trust me to adjudicate the rules fairly even on spot notice with an unfamiliar option. And to me the effortless shield seems over-the-top.

Sort of. It is my belief that the use of a shield requires a so-called "hand-of-effort". One cannot simply "hold" a shield and expect to receive the shields AC bonus. (I have used a shield to defend myself from someone determined to strike me, it is, most definitely, NOT effortless.) It is my belief that the character must definitely spend effort anticipating enemy actions and moving the shield to intercept the incoming attacks. To steal a line from BBT, it makes "no logical sense" to believe that wielding a shield defensively requires no effort on the wielders part.

Can I quote a rule from the book that backs this up? No, I am not a rules lawyer. I am just a GM with more than 35 years of experience who can smell an exploit from a table away.

I further believe that this is supported by SKR's post on "intent" posited earlier in the thread. There are supposed to be trade-offs. Not cake+cake+cake.

Additionally, I believe that Aelyrinth is fundamentally correct in almost all of his assertions on this subject. His views on this seem to parallel my own understanding of this issue.

I apologize if this is not enough for you. My rules-fu is only of moderate strength and I do well just to keep the 50+ RPG game-systems in my head separate, much less memorize them all word-for-word.

So...anyone who feels that this effortless shield shenanigans is outside the RAI/RAW please feel free to tap that FAQ button.

Sorry, but I still do not agree.

Anyone else who does not agree or who thinks that this is potentially outside the RAI/RAW, please feel free to tap that FAQ button.

Thanks and happy gaming!

So where are the undoubtedly dozens of paizo published NPC builds supporting this "cut & dry" cornercase?

Do not tell me that in 8,000+ printed pages of material that paizo has not published one NPC that uses this.

Because if so that says a lot.

Intent has no bearing on an FAQ???

RAI has NO bearing on an FAQ???

Riiiiiiight. And I have some ocean front property in the Gobi for sale cheap.

Look, I have neither the patience nor the time to engage in debate about the difference between your opinion and mine.

Lets just agree to disagree.

Any who would like this clarified, please hit the FAQ button.

Entryhazard wrote:
Weslocke wrote:
I disagree. A clarification of intent is what is needed here.
Intent does not affect how the rules are written. The combo is allowed, cut and dry. They may have not wanted this result but they need to change the rules text (errata) instead of how to interpret the english language (FAQ)

Intent does matter.

Reliance on strict RAW is an inherently flawed approach.

According to strict reading of RAW a dead character can still move and fight.

Mekkis wrote:
Torbyne wrote:

Perhaps a better FAQ question for this instance would be:

"When using the TWF rules to gain additional attacks does that require a character to forgo their shield AC bonus regardless of what limbs are used in the TWF attacks?"

It doesnt clear up the whole issue but seems to be more in line with the original post.

At this point it's moving away from "FAQ" and into "errata". To be honest, the whole "Hands of Effort unwritten rule" should be revisited.

I disagree. A clarification of intent is what is needed here.

*Looks up from his pile of copper pieces*

*Checks his watch*

*Goes frantically back to pinching and counting copper pieces*

I would agree, Torbyne, that is a much better phrasing for an FAQ.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Just because you can do a thing it does not necessarily follow that you should do that thing.

I am not arguing the RAW. Aelryinth has convinced me and his stated understanding is precisely the same as my own. If he cannot convince you then I cannot.

I am arguing the RAI.

The intent here is pretty clear.

And it is being ignored in favor of exploiting the RAW.

So...this whole thing looks and smells like an exploit to me.


I agree with Aelryinth.

This whole thing looks like an exploit to me.

I have run solo sessions like this before. I have even solo'd parts of some AP's (Iron Gods 1-4 & Reign Of Winter 1-3).

I believe Turin the Mad does this as well.

And just on a side note a neurosis or three does not hurt these endeavors. Kind of like icing on a cake, really.

My players actually use a lot of these feats.

All these comparisons of teamwork feats to other feats fail to take into account the fact that, at its base, the game is already slanted heavily in the players favor.

As far as the changing PC "concepts" goes, since when does a "concept" take all your feats?

My players establish their concepts at first level.

About 3rd -7th they look to see if any teamwork feats fit between their concepts.

Example: "I have been making good use of this shield I found", said the Cleric PC to the Paladin in my last carrion crown campaign. "Maybe we should practice using our shields in concert in hallways and tight spots.", she added.
"Good idea", replied the paladin. And they promptly purchased the Shield Wall feat.

How, precisely, does that disrupt a "concept"?

They did not know the exact AC in advance.

In a prior encounter with her (when she took Briar from them) they did discover that she was quite difficult to hit, though.

Your example is pure theorycraft. One sentence of actual play experience trumps two pages of theorycraft.

People say stunning fist is "useless" too, but my airwalking vanilla monk 9th stunning fisted a young adult dragon out of the air with a held action and killed it in the fall.

Actual play is what really matters.

Not sterile numbers on a whiteboard.

Yes, they did, although I must admit that particular feat was taken at high level (about 16th if I remember correctly) in preparation for a fight with a certain Nymph Sorceress 6th/ Mystic Theurge 10th from an AP with an AC of 51.

Teamwork feats that my players have used:

Back to Back
Coordinated Defense
Coordinate Maneuvers
Coordinated Shot
Duck & Cover
Enfilading Fire
Escape Route (They LOVE this one!)
Swap Places
Lookout (Which they often take at 1st Level)
Paired Opportunist
Precise Strike
Shake It Off
Shield Wall (They LOVE this one too!)
Stealth Synergy

So...all you who do not like teamwork feats can certainly say that in your opinion teamwork feats are not worth it.

In mine and my players opinions they are.

So lets just agree to disagree.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When my players play classes that do not get teamwork feats for free, they still take them.

They use them often and consider them quite valuable.

They often choose their PC concepts at the beginning of the game and at about third to sixth level look and see if any of the teamwork feats fit in between some of their concepts. If they find one they like then they take it.

My players make use of the teamwork feats regularly.

They consider them extremely valuable.

Do they?

I cannot get them to work.

Neither can several others.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Carborundum, the reason that it is someones fault is because that someone piddled away his once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

For those of you who are not aware, the contact links at the Fire Mountain Games Homepage have been disabled.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Mr. McBride dropped the ball on filling the niche market for "evil AP's" that he created.

Paizo picked that ball up.

This is nobody's fault but Mr. McBride.

He should have known this was coming eventually. I did.

Instead he piddled away his 15 minutes until Paizo took his niche market from him.

Folks if this worked like you are saying it does (and it does not work), then a Kasatha would be able to use three longbows to multi-weapon fight in a single round and would have no need of their special racial archetype.

Which is patently ridiculous.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I cannot believe that this is even being argued about, much less that it has gone on for 200+ posts.

The rules clearly state that using a long or short bow requires two hands.
A bow requires two hands to load.
A bow requires two hands to aim.
A bow requires two hands to loose an arrow.

Do not look now, but that bow wielder just used two hands to attack.

The intent is quite clear.

Any who wish may go back to pretending otherwise now.

Tels wrote:
Weslocke wrote:

Mostly because I have never bumped a post before in my life and I desired the experience enough to do so.

Did I break some rule?

Probably. Somewhere. Also, I think 3 kittens died because of it.

As long as my grievous infraction of board protocol did not destroy the entire internet then I am sure it will eventually be forgotten. :)

Sorry about those kittens though. I have seven cats myself. If you will let their owners know to contact me I can hook them up. Free even.

Just out of curiosity, what is an acceptable amount of time of inactivity before bumping a thread?

Mostly because I have never bumped a post before in my life and I desired the experience enough to do so.

Did I break some rule?

The save DC of the bomb is INT based, is it not?

The number of bombs usable per day is INT based, is it not?

The bombs additional damage (the plus after the dice) is determined by the INT score of the thrower, is it not?

Bombs are, quite obviously, a class ability that uses concentration.

The rage class ability precludes the use of "any ability that requires patience and concentration".

Edit: Ninja'd by Cavall

Doesn't the use of the rage ability preclude the ability to safely mix/assemble the bomb?

After all that is obviously a task based on INT.


Odd, this is the very first time that I have ever seen BBT post this emphatically in order to try and talk people out of clicking an FAQ button.

Just an observation.

Carry on.

kevin_video wrote:
To those of you who were wondering about my health, unfortunately, today I got diagnosed with spinal degeneration.

Damn, Kevin. I am truly sorry to hear that.

You are such a positive guy, it is hard to even imagine.
Know that we are all hoping that your condition improves in any way possible.

Nice work with all those links, Kevin.

By the way, how is your shoulder & arm healing?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, but IMHO Combat Expertise is extremely useful in its current form.

It is useful for Sword and Board as well as two-handed warrior types.

I am not the only one with this opinion either. Ashiel recently went over its usefulness in depth in another thread.

I am prepping for my weekly Carrion Crown game at the moment though and do not have time to chase down that post.

Please be aware that this is a non-issue at many tables.

We are aware of your opinion on this topic, BBG.

You inform us of it at every opportunity.

You frequently open threads that, intentionally or not, create opportunities to inform us again.

Which is why you end up in these discussions so often.

You can post that you hate "unwritten rules" as much as you like.

Just be aware that others opinions are just as valid and they are free to post them as often as they like as well. And they will.

Banesfinger wrote:
Has anyone taken a shot at converting these adventures to D&D 5e/Next yet?

Not that I have heard of.

I keep a pretty close watch out for any ToN related posts on numerous boards.

I just recieved a copy of the hardback last week. (Happy GM's Day to me...)

Endzeitgeist was not kidding.

This AP will be talked about for decades...and for good reason.

Congratulations to everyone involved.

Sorry to hear about the fall. I sincerely hope that you recover quickly and completely.

Congrats on your newest writing credit, Kevin and best of luck with your current project.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:
Is there any idea when this will be back in print? It is allowing backorders instead of just saying it's out of stock, so I assume that means there's actually a plan of some sort since the system is still willing to take money?

AAW still has a few copies left for sale on their site.

I just want my autographed print copies of the six adventures, the bonus adventure, WotW 7 and the poster map.

That is not too much to ask is it?

That he fulfill his kickstarter obligations and nothing more?

I mean, after all, I fulfilled my kickstarter obligations to him.

KenderKin wrote:
I am looking forward to seeing the full package come to fruition.

Me too. I just hope it does not take another 700 days per two books released.

I wish all of you who are having problems with rogues the best of luck sorting that out in your games.

This is a non-issue both at the table where I play and at the table where I GM.

Rogues perform, play and prosper at both these tables just fine.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What attack?

All I did was more evenly distribute the love being shared here.

In a small fraction of the time it took to list just over a dozen types of problem DM's I managed to list almost twice as many classifications of troublesome players. And I did it without even bothering to try and create an exhaustive list.

1 to 50 of 505 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>