funnymouth's page

how high is the roof of these buildings?

that's exactly what i would do in the previous round; move to the map. unfortunately i am still just out of spell range for most targets

move to 18L. standard cast acid splash targeting rat(L11), range=35'.
ranged touch: 1d20 + 7 ⇒ (19) + 7 = 26
damage: 1d3 + 1 ⇒ (3) + 1 = 4

not much, but next turn ill be able to give lummel some help

true, in that comparison i was actually relating the rogues action to a non-attack spell, then move & stealth.
for our purposes i believe that it is reasonable to use the "invisibility" definition of an attack - a spell that targets a foe. given that definition it seems reasonable that a caster could "snipe" with a dominate spell. the snipe stealth check is a move action, so the caster could cast an attack spell every turn and remain hidden (the stealth check satisfies the stealth requirement for subsequent sniping). if he was under the effects of "haste" the caster could even move after the stealth check (prompting another stealth check, but allowing movement). note that there are absolutely no conditions placed on the snipe attack, other then it being a ranged attack from a distance of 10 feet or more. the attack itself can be as noisy or visible as you'd like (e.g. sonic bolts & flaming arrows are fine, as is a sunburst). the same principle applies in modern warfare: hide, shoot a loud & bright gun, hide = sniping.

using sniping: 1d20+x(stealth)+20(invisibility)-20(snipe)=1d20+stealth vs perception -20 to pinpoint. effectively 1d20+(stealth)+20 vs. perception.
this is CONSIDERABLY better than DC20 no-stealth pinpoint.adding in a range modifier makes it even more effective. note that i do not include -20 because of noise, as the noisy spell is the standard action attack (which can be noisy). logic: a bow attack has the same stealth penalty as speaking (-20, counts as combat), and is clearly not included in a snipe stealth check.

makes sense to me. i hadnt considered somatic components, but it seems reasonable (rustling clothes and the like). so no "immobile" bonus then.
i disagree about the purpose of the sniping check, however. the idea is to do something that is obvious/loud while hidden (attacking however that may be), then immediately hide afterwords preventing detection. there is no stipulation about not making noise or performing observable actions while making the sniping attack. the stealth is used after the speaking. at that point the caster is not obviously detectable because he is no longer making noise. same idea would apply to casting a non-attack spell, then moving and using stealth while invisible. the casting is done and the stealth check is part of the movement. it works because most perception checks are reactive. all creatures would get a check when invisi-caster casts, then again when he uses stealth. an invisible caster can use stealth immediately after casting because he has complete concealment and becomes undetectable by sound the moment he finishes the spell.

"You can use concealment to make a Stealth check."

"...invisibility provides total concealment..."

"Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action."

seems pretty clear that you can use the concealment provided by greater invisibility to make a stealth check for free as part of a move action taken immediately after casting a spell. i see nothing that says you cant, or anything that says you must continue speaking after casting a spell, while you move (thus rendering you perceptible at that time).

well argued about "stealth". point conceded.
any spell without a verbal component could be cast while using stealth, i suppose, but that's about it.

don't know how i missed that -20 modifier, i even looked ;O. i suppose it would be smart to stand still given that penalty, making it a DC 40 check to pinpoint an invisible target casting a spell (though it seems counter intuitive that a caster standing in one place is harder to find than one moving).

still, the caster could use the rules for sniping to force an opposed check after a dominate attempt (if you consider it a ranged attack). the stealth roll would be 1d20+?(stealth)+40(invisibility standing still)-20 (sniping)-20 (casting)+20(to pinpoint, really a penalty to the perception roll)= 1d20+20+stealth. not bad, but youd be better off with the DC40 not trying to hide (lol). casting non-attack spells wouldn't even require that, though. he could simply cast, then move and activate stealth (no action) to force an opposed check. for the brief moment he was casting it would be DC 20 to pinpoint, but after movement it would become an opposed check (modifiers are arguable).

after rereading dispel magic i have become undecided about whether you can dispel invisibility, but i am still hopeful. why? because you can target a spell instead of a creature. detect magic would allow you to target the spell invisibility with dispel magic, without actually seeing the creature its cloaking. it would take three rounds though, and by then its probably already too late...

my point is, its not a flat DC. it is always an opposed roll to locate the creature. where is this -20 coming from? a BATTLE (as in armies of guys with swords killing each other) has only -10 to the DC....

regardless, i would ALWAYS treat locating an invisible creature as an *opposed* check situation (perception vs. stealth) as is described by the perception skill (NOT a flat DC).
remember, if you make it very easy to find invisible creatures it hurts the PCs more than NPCs; characters are far more likely to be invisible than bad guys. a "DC 20" check is child's play for most solo monsters.

dispel magic can be used to dispel invisibility via the second usage of the targeted spell. spellcraft to ID the spell (+ circumstance bonus?) then locate the square/squares he his in, then pop the spell (targeting the spell NOT the creature).
the stealth skill/dex will apply to an invisible creature, and does so automatically.
your DM was correct to apply the situational modifier for spell casting noise, however it has been implemented incorrectly and is waaaaay to big of a modifier (-20 would work if he were an invisible alarm clock set on max, -2 is for favorable conditions e.g. a creature speaking a spell); it is always an opposed check: stealth vs. perception, every time. also keep in mind that if he has moved since casting the spell (cast then move) the sound of the spell being cast would be no help at all. if he stands still, his modifier is actually +40 to stealth for being invisible (ouch).
even if you do locate him, keep in mind that he still has complete cover and does not grant LOS. basically your characters are in a bind without a way to see/ detect invisible creatures. mundane splash effects help a lot (flour, water, alchemists fire) by granting circumstance bonus'. combine those with area attacks and have your ranged attackers ready actions for when they hear him cast a spell, making it easier to locate him.

your DM seems very forgiving. invisibility is HARD to beat without magic and a "dc" of 0 is ridiculously low (same DC to hear a conversation), especially since it is not being done as an opposed roll (which is what the skill perception calls for).

There are a number of ways to track things, such as having players post essential information at the top of each in-game post ( e.g initiative roll, hp, AC) . For small areas and tight quarters I've seen DMs use text pictures.

personally I prefer posting a map jpeg. Each player can mark it up in paint (noting movement, area effects etc) and re-post or somply describe actions, then the dm fixes up the master pic. The best/ easiest way to implement this is to put everything in to map tools, then take pics of the screen to post. Using that method the dm can keep track of everything right there, and once the dungeon is built it's actually very fast. Player posts get slowed down a bit, but can be very tactically detailed.
There are a few web apps that can imbed and allow players to move tokens on simple maps. I can dig up some options if you'd like.
Im more than happy to help with player tactical maps, if you'd like.

Fixed pearl entry, and shuffled a skill point in to perform (comedy). All set!

" yesss yip! Yip! Ziz is ready! Yip! where is bricks n Elsa n mr serious lummy n alvisss at? I gotssss a funny joke for the bad men"

Ok, all set! Final version of ziz is done. It was painful (he now wears a burlap sack) but I fit in managed all 3 pearls. As part of the revision I changed ot the create pit spell for hideous laughter. Not as good, IMHO, but hideous laughter is associated with copper dragons and fits his jokester attitude.
Ready to play!

i believe he means a posting alias. under "my account" you can create an alias for your character and put the stats in the profile for easy reference.

notice i just posted as funnymouth, but previously i posted as my character, Ziz.

very cool! gives me some neat options to think about. ill have to steal that idea for games i run.

Style trumps mechanics every time ;)

In general, spider climb is quite handy for kobolds. For feats, you might want to consider create wondrous items. Depending on how far you want to take it you could double your 1st level spells/day with Pearls of power... I love those things with sorcerers.

yeah, i think i will drop deepsight for create wondrous items. the extra sight range wont provide much of an advantage in most situations and isnt all that necessary fluff wise. plus i like the idea of him being able to craft magical traps (not that it will ever come up, but it fits a kobold sorc nicely). ill probably tweak the spell list a bit. spider climb is one of my favorite spells (underrated in my opinion), but this guy cant do much while spider climbing since he needs his hands. still...i may switch up my 2nd level spells entirely. would you be open to me spending money on spell research to change the energy type of a spell to fit my bloodline? e.g. flaming sphere to acidic sphere? just a thought.

for whoever is interested, zizzafalithax. i went for style over build mechanics but id still enjoy feedback, especially on spell choices & feats (i've never made a PF sorc before).

@funnymouth: I like Ziz! I'm not particularly worried about party balance for a one-off game. I'm fine with the PRD rules for kobold characters as posted here. We'll go with whichever players catch my eye and let the chips fall where they may. I can always scale the adventure a bit if party choices are too sub-optimal.

excellent! i enjoy Ziz as he is. ill get cracking on the build ASAP, as well as think through a backup char in the event of death.

im interested! love the build options and house rules.

zizzafalithax, kobold dracinic sorcerer (copper)

Luctus tips his hat and says his goodbyes. Good luck.

sold your soul, you say? how....interesting. Perhaps there is more to discuss here than drink and dark clouds. If it's sorrow you're feeling now over something lost, don't. There are other souls to be had. The rub is in what you acquired in exchange.

The bar maid returns with luctus' food: a pint of ale and a very moldy pice of cheese. he notes the manner in which the locals are eating and drinking, then devours the foul cheese in two bites, and drains the glass in three great gulps.
marvelous local fare. he smiles wide again and a bit of ale drIbbles down his chin.
my coinpurse is nearly empty, and I suspect it will remain so. 'tis better to empty it with company. A glass of this beverage and cheese to all here who will take it, and a cup of tea for present company! he rattles the last few coins from his pouch with vigor and a great bellowing laugh booms from his lungs.

class clarification: luctus will/would be a witch gravewalker.

the door to the tavern swings wide and a tall lanky man dressed in fine clothes stoops to enter, his bizarrely tall top hat still scraping the rim of the door. he postures momentarily, resting his cane and surveying the crowd.
a deep silky voice reverberates from his chest "timmons, stay with the bags"
he presumptuously strolls to the table occupied by iiwo, rufus an kiley, tipping the brim of his hat to each patron. Luctus gestures to the open chair, then sits, tugging gloves from his long fingers.
" wine, and cheese. with legs and stink, respectively." he says to the puzzled bar wench. a slow grin spreads across his face, revealing too much tooth for comfort.

ack! it seems ive nearly missed the boat! i was so interested in the idea that i got lost in character creation and forgot the post. still, ill throw my top hat in to the ring. cant hurt.

if he has a specific ability that alters/prevents damage, then that will work. i have not seen anything like that paired with contingency throughout the course of this discussion, however, nor have i seen any evidence that teleport cant prevent damage from a hit that has already been dealt.

also, i dont find them particularly compelling as precedent because they are specific (class) rules, and thus exceptions to the rule.

the trigger could be "when i am attacked" what's wrong with that? no lawyering necessary.

Wait... So your argument that if you get hit in the face with a lance or pillow you can teleport away and somehow not be hit in the face ( despite the fact that being hit was the trigger for the TP) is less realistic than my determination that if a lance hits you in the face it will hurt? Um.....I'm confused..... And what is the rest of the post about? Bullets? Pillows? I dont get it.
What I do get is that if you are hit in combat you take damage as part of that hit. If you do not get hit, because you are not there to be hit, then there is no damage to take.

So the contingency could be if you are touched by the endpoint of a lance, before it penetrates your armour?

in game terms that is the same thing as being attacked, but before you are hit. in effect, you TP away on contingency and are never hit. hit= damage happens=skewered. the attack role determines the outcome of the attack, not the process.

the issue is that neither contingency or teleport prevent damage in any way, and being hit/taking damage is tied to the success of the attack roll, and nothing else. so...the attack roll is successful, you TP away, then take the damage and die wherever you are. it doesn't matter if you are far away from the attacker to PF, and nothing is *preventing* that damage (distance is irrelevant). in order for this approach to work, you have to be out of range of the attack *before* the attack roll is made, thus making it impossible for the attack roll to even occur. perhaps there is a spell that prevents damage that would work, but TP doesn't. you can also have something trigger when you are "hit," but damage is assigned at the same time, so you still do not escape your fate.

the simple contingency "when i am attacked" works perfectly well. triggers after the attack action is taken, but before the roll, and -zip- off you go. AFIK there are no rules for mosquitos, so you dont have to worry about odd triggers unless the town fool is keen on throwing tomatoes at the local uber caster.

1. I don't want to wait until a fraction of the damage is being dealt. There is no such thing as fractional damage in D&D.
I wait until he rolls his result and THEN BEFORE ANYTHING IS DEALT.

2. Wait what?
EVERYTHING that happens is a potential condition for contingency.

Or show me a part of contingency or any other relevant rule section that supports your Rules as Wanted interpretation of "conditions that may trigger a contingency"

my misunderstanding - i thought you were arguing that there was fractional damage (which i was arguing against, poorly, because someone had previously made that claim) and that the contingency would come in to effect before damage was dealt, assuming the trigger was "i take damage," both of which are wrong.

If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

the roll beat AC, so you take the damage no matter where you are, RAW. also note that "hit" and "deal damage" occur simultaneously, so you cannot trigger between the two.

"If any melee attack is INITIATED against me...."

this works fine, though.

Thats wrong. Read some abilities/spells again. You will note that several will allow you to change the outcome AFTER the result is known. As long as the result hasn't taken place (you wrote it down) you can still change the outcome.

but you still cant say "after 3 of the 5 damage is dealt." its before or after the damage.

Contingency says you can tie it to conditions and it happens BEFORE the result of those. And taking damage is a valid condition for the spell.

really? i dont see that....at all. the spell gets cast based on a trigger, in order to trigger, the conditions must be met. if they dont, the trigger never happens. if you say "after i take 1 damage" it will trigger ONLY if you take EXACTLY 1 damage (lol). if the trigger is "when i take damage" then you take damage, then the spell goes off. simple.

Can you point to anything contradicting that rule? And I mean something more than the usual Rules as Wanted I encounter in here ;)

i dont see that rule, can you show me that rule?

Given that AM strikes hard, strikes fast, and doesn't leave casty survivors, other castys shouldn't be aware of him until they're skewered on his lance. Of course, this goes against the golden rules of forum wizards: that they automatically know every last detail about any potential fight they might get into, and that they have instant access to every wizard spell ever published. :P

With a wizard of that levels int pushing 30 (easy), is that really unreasonable? That's orders of magnitude more intelligent than super human intelligence. More brains than the gods themselves. I once read an article on how to play a super genius BBEG (who was far less intelligent that a wiz 20 with gear would be), and it boiled down to " assume he knows what is going to happen in advance." I think that's fair.

Speaking of PC knowledge, AMB fans seem to have forgotten that since the proposed barbarian is raging 24/7 he is incapable of making even the most basic intel check to determine who might even BE a caster, much less make complex tactical/ cost benefit decisions. He is effectively an animal with rage on the brain.

damage occurs simultaneously and in discrete chunks in PF. it would trigger after the first attack resolves, but you'd take all the damage from that first attack.

funnymouth wrote:

contingency: apparently comment about contingency must have been overlooked. simply make the condition for activation a word ("oh poop!" as suggested earlier, has a nice ring to it), then say that word as a free action(speaking is a free action that can be done at any time) to activate, whenever. since the barb isnt stealthy, its no problem at all to activate contingency whenever you'd like, even on his turn.

No. While you can speak as a free action when it is not your turn, the rules don't say that you can interrupt an action to do this. The rules for readying actions clearly state that you interrupt another character, the rules for immediate actions and speaking do not.

ah! very true. hmmmm.

if that doesnt work, you could definitely make it "when i cast feather fall," which IS an immediate action that allows you to interrupt.

contingency: apparently comment about contingency must have been overlooked. simply make the condition for activation a word ("oh poop!" as suggested earlier, has a nice ring to it), then say that word as a free action(speaking is a free action that can be done at any time) to activate, whenever. since the barb isnt stealthy, its no problem at all to activate contingency whenever you'd like, even on his turn.

stopping a full round action: consider a charge on the ground - at any point the charging character can, at the very least, drop prone as a free action to stop the charge. seems like a realistic way to stop charging. unfortunately dropping prone while flying is not possible (no ground). im inclined to believe that because it it a full round action which has specific movement rules, that voluntarily violating those rules is not possible. unless a condition which prevents completion of that action occurs,(e.g dropping prone, a free action which is in itself not explicitly movement; or terrain appearing/being revealed), then the action resolves as stated. a full round action is INDIVISIBLE, you can not do half of a full round action, then take a standard action. this is clear when you note that the only exception - choosing between a full attack and a standard attack - is specifically outlined. the moment a player says "i charge" the full round action following the necessary moment rules is guaranteed, barring intervention. i dont believe a charge can be declared retroactively, either; a move satisfying a charges requirements + an attack does not become a charge since it was taken as a move + standard. a full round charge action must be taken at the onset of the turn for it to be a charge, and the action is indivisible and can thus not be altered once initiated.

consider an attacker performing a coup de grace vs a readied action to sunder the attackers weapon. coup de gras starts, sunderer destroys the weapon. the full round action cannot be completed, but the attacker cannot choose to do anything else, such as move.

EDIT: i do believe, however, that you can stop at any time so long as you have satisfied the requirements of the charge. thus, if you have moved 10' or more towards the target, you can stop at any time after that point because you have effectively completed a charge. you MUST move that initial 10 feet, however.

Aelryinth wrote:

Also, luring with an illusion also grants a will save, and Batty-Bat's blindsense will tell him there's nothing there when he gets close enough.

==Aelryinth

You only get the save if you interact with it - not observe it. he has to attack it.

It's a major image so it fools blindsense too. its a moot point anyhow - arcane sight will detect it long before that. the wiz, however, has god level int and knows that barb will charge from very far away (farther than '120), since that is how his tactic has been repeatedly described to be effective. this ensures that he is within striking range no matter where AMB attempts to go after that point.

actually, scratch that. unless he uses a standard action arcane sight wont work, and even then he cant be sure - he will have to attack it to discover it isn't real.

EDIT: found the errata on TR; my bad. still works though. cast it quick and it shuts him down for a turn, then cast a spell to put on the hurt. repeat. still not bad....

DeathSpot wrote:

I can certainly understand the fanboy attitude toward AM, because it's a pretty cool build. But if we're going to pit him against a wizard in anything other than a 'GM fiat says AM wins' scenario, you've got to start applying the rules evenly. An the majority of the AM proponents in this thread aren't doing that.

Now you're just grasping at straws, man.

no, he's spot on. a buffed AMB on the hunt (with a powerful cohort) vs an unprepared caster standing alone in an open field who is completely oblivious to an impending attack is ideal for the barbarian, and a worst case scenario for a caster. its even more silly when you realize that a wizard of that level would be more intelligent than most GODS, but still dumb enough to chillax in an open field in the D&D universe without a care in the world. you might as well replace "caster" with "small child" because that is how he is being portrayed.

Also, luring with an illusion also grants a will save, and Batty-Bat's blindsense will tell him there's nothing there when he gets close enough.

==Aelryinth

You only get the save if you interact with it - not observe it. he has to attack it.

Ride by-attack, he's suddenly 400 ft in the other direction, still out of your TR range

Why does that matter? wiz is on the same mount (or better) and has a better starting position, making him more than capable of overtaking the barb wherever he might go.

and now aware that some mind-blanked invisible casty is on him. Pick a random target square, charge it, see if you find an enemy, and murder under charge rules. If no enemies within blindsense/god perception range, keep going and end on the other side. Sweep until bored or murder has occurred.

can't catch a guy who moves just as fast as you. Even if AMB was faster wiz has a 3d space of undefined size to hide in (open field) - never happen. Also, you can't charge something without LOS, so randomly charging doesn't work. Even if you saw him you would have to change direction = no charge. Plus, who knows, maybe it's the same trap again ;). If you do get close, he just says " oh poop" and triggers a contingency spell to save his ass. Rinse and repeat. How long can the barb rage before he has to spend time to sunder something? Not forever.

TR only lasts 1 round should he make his save (which is likely), and BATTY BAT would still be more than capable of moving.

really? I'm new to PF, but I don't see that the effect ends one turn after a successful save anywhere in the spell description - the save doesn't end the effect, and he must do it every turn for the duration, as far as I can tell. Further, the wiz batty bat is just as fast so no amount of running will work. Interesting, though, that a 4th level spell would have him on the run.....

ah, of course, how about ....

Mage's Disjunction vs ring of ST, then swift terrible remorse? getting the range to work out shouldn't be too tough, lure him in with an illusion (persistent image) of a caster while still being undetectable with invisibility + mind blank. by the time he's close enough to interact with it and determine that its an illusion, it'll be too late.

man, i suck at this type of thing.

the entire premise is ridiculous. a 20th level caster standing in an open field with no buffs? not likely. really its the perfect environment for the barb, and the worst possible situation for the caster. i hate to say it again, but really? a fully buffed barbarian, mounted, actively hunting high level casters, vs an oblivious, 20th level, super intelligent, wizard standing in a field, completely unprepared, is a "duel?" no, its an implausible scenario. the bear will kill the shark every time, just so long as the shark is in a field, and isn't allowed to bite.

the only fair thing top do is to assume they are hunting each other, and thus equipped/buffed for the job. that changes the match-up considerably. the counter argument is that its impractical for the caster in other situations. i, however, believe a repertoire that allowed the caster to take down AMB would be pretty damn effective against most things.

beyond the fact that the wizard is being restricted from doing anything a wizard would do (if you were a super-powerful-plane-traveling wizard would you be standing around like a dip in a field, or flying around undetectable with loads of minions? hmmmmmm. i think id pick the second one), and is assumed to be an idiot unaware of an impending attack despite god like intelligence that would in all likelihood allow him to predict the exact moment and method of attack, there are other MAJOR double standards in effect here.
every time anyone suggests that the caster could have the same bat, the retort is "what are the chances?" damn good id say. if its the best companion in the multiverse, why wouldn't every 20th level character have one as a slave? in fact, it could easily be argued that a highly mobile, super perceptive mount is just as ideal for a ranged caster as a mele character.
assuming the wiz is allowed to buff, i still haven't seen an explanation as to how the barbarian is able to detect/perceive/identify the caster at a range of greater than 120ft. i read the thread looking for that explanation, and i never came across one. the counter argument has been "why would he already be undetectable?" well, why WOULDNT he/she? if i could turn invisible whenever i wanted, in conjunction with simulacrums & illusions and stuff, i certainly would, and i dont live in a super dangerous fantasy would where others certainly have that power, and far scarier ones to boot. besides, as a super brain, he would KNOW it was coming.

on a more rules related issue, im still not convinced that a mounted char can make more than a single attack after moving more than 5 feet. a full attack action, sure, that consists of a single mele attack. ive seen vague hand-waving about what is "more specific", but in my opinion that is not relevant, as the rules do not conflict in any way. sure, he may use pounce RAW and make a full attack action, but that full attack action will consist of a single attack because of a situational restriction.
re: contingency. cant you have it activate when you say "oh, poop!" (a free action) and use the chars ability to perceive the barb swooping in?

now, to my am-barbie vs anti-barbie-casty:
im no min maxer (quite the opposite, really),so im not very good at this type of "build-off", but has anyone considered using a range pumped "Terrible Remorse" on the the barb or mount? the target will make the save, and be able to "take NO actions" for 20 rounds while the caster hammers him with the arsenal. a flying follower (casters "batty bat") can shoot a spell first to take down reflection etc. cant sunder it with no actions.....

Good to know I'm not crazy. I'm no greenhorn an I was pretty certain, but outnumbered by "more experienced players."
I know the guy running the module should have ruled, but hew was new to dming and was stressed out already. Normally I'm not a rules lawyer, but this was a game changing folly, and I finally gave b/c i was disrupting the game. I'll let it go, and hopefully find a group that wants to play by the rules. I hope that they do figure out their mistake though, as running everywhere could really break the game.

Hi everyone, I'm new to pathfinder, after having played 3.5 for years. I've played a few games at cons before,which I really enjoyed, but a recent rules dispute has tainted my growing enthusiasm. We were nearing the end of a PFS module when it started. We used some unorthodox tactics and made some mistakes, so the fm decided one of the two bbegs would run, thus threatening two of the players faction quests. To catch up the players wanted to run down a twisting hallway using the run action. I said that you can only run in a straight line, and they said I was wrong. I insisted, they insisted. I asked them to look it up, both of them did and maintained that they were right, after reading it, claiming "it's not 3.5". The fm did not make a ruling. Defeated, I conceded, and the players ran across and all over the map, around corners at 120ft per turn to attempt to overtake the fleeing baddy and claim the faction objective. I refused to run around obstacles and instead opted for double moves. After the game I had forgotten my canteen, and had to return to the table to get it. Several players were lingering and I overheard them putting me down for confusing the game with 3.5. When I got home I looked it up in the red doc, and it said I was RIGHT! Am I crazy, or was everyone at the table blowing smoke up my butt? If you can sprint and make 90+ degree turns Wille-nillie, that seems like an unrealistic mechanics flaw.