Search Posts
Really this is 3 items in 1. The gloves stand on their own with just the message ability. The gloves stand on their own with the silence ability. The gloves stand on their own with the +5 disable divice bonus (plus its the most off theme benefit) I would prefer it to drop the disable device bonus and then either limit the message ability or up the price. With that said the superstar aspect, in my mind, is the silence ability and this would be just as good if that were the only ability it had.
It would be better if using the item changed one of your domains for the day. With the effective character level of the new domain being equal to the number of channels used, maxed by class level of course.
Generally speaking when things are correctly priced and otherwise equal, it's the more affordable one that wins out.
My 2 cents. The wording is ambiguous, especially since because of flurry of blows, many try to group sunder, disarm and trip into a bucket together. But the intent is that generally, sunder is a standard action. However, it is specifically described as "an attack action in place of a melee attack" because if they stated that it was a standard action then it would become unclear that the attack is melee weapon dependent. In otherwords, you get to apply weapon enhancements, feats, etc. Unlike overrun & bullrush which as standard actions are weapon neutral. The flurry of blows description is an exception to the generic rule that sunder is an attack action melee attack (using up a standard action).
That's fine, except he would have not done so for 1 hour/level when the duration expired, providing nobody attacked him in the meantime. So in that light, the NPC did react in a way that the NPC should not have reacted. In otherwords what Adamantine Dragon is trying to get at. Of course considering that nobody read the spell you may have both missed that as a creature being threatened or attacked by the player or his allies he would have gotten a +5 bonus to his will save. So at the end of the day it could have all still gone down as it was played, so don't feel too bad about it. Just make whatever ruling will best put this behind you. Muscles doing subdule damage for the "killing blow" seems a quick and easy fix but do what you feel is right for your game. Maybe you need the free raise dead to bind the characters to a church's service for the next adventure. That's ok too.
Interesting to whom? I think the fact that one pursues an action that is self sacrificing and/or more dangerous than all the alternatives due to it being what is good and just is pretty darn interesting. The moral dilemmas it creates are awesome for role playing.
Your mistake, you are basically saying, it's ok for you to change how the spell is used because you don't know it, but it's not ok for the player to do so. It should always be the opposite. Always defer to the player's interpretation if you don't know yourself. If you think it's wrong, ask them to look it up (you do get the GM perk of saying show me) or otherwise rule in a way that leaves the player with a clear understanding of what their action means. (If the answer is they don't know that's ok but they should be allowed to understand before acting).
Every group has to decide for themselves how to deal with errors. Generally you want to rule in favor of the players. Again the solution should have been, the player looks up the spells exact wording for you and you interpret it and rule what's best for the game, defer to the player when in doubt.
I hope now that plenty have pointed out the spell was miss interpreted that you realize the irony that the player didn't know you didn't know the rule either.
As GM you should always doubt any action that leaves a player disenchanted. As roguerouge said, next session let him wake from being knocked out. Use the fact that muscles was subject to the charm effect to say that with his divided loyalty he pulled his punch at the last minute, making the visible horrific attack less damaging than it seemed.
Unless the wyrms rolled their grab with a -20 penalty, I interpret it as Treshiell would not get hit, beause the wyrm would be subject to the -2 attack roll while grappled penalty to it's rake. In other words, grapple sux. Thaal hisses angrily as Treshiell lies crumpled, though the little serpent doesn't have long to worry as Jon lays on hands. The healing energy knits her wounds closed, though she remains unconscious. Jon would certainly try to save Treshiell hoping someone else will drop the wyrm. Sadly, Lay on hands gives 1d6 for every 2 levels (not every odd level, like channel) so the second dice doesn't kick in until 4th. Not that I'm not open to house ruling otherwise. :) In the meantime since your roll "fell off the table" :) ... Have fun.
Do inititive differently. Instead of going in order. Everyone who beats the monster gets to go in round 1, then the monster, Then start round 2, with everyone going round robin, monsters going last. -- Delaying an action = skipping a round -- Readying an action is allowed but does not there after change inititive order due to the round robin style. -- Ask players to have a default action. If you decide they are taking to long, they must skip their turn or take their default action against the nearest logical target.
It's an Irish Elf, I love it!
genetically engineer a virus to kill 90 percent of the population. let civilization collapse. mop up. collect the unobtanium you came for Ironically this would be the way to stike back, if needed. But I highly doubt an alien race would travel so far just to kill whoever they run into. More likely is that we'll do something stupid...
Many of the posters that would argue against you can do the same. The difference is we want the game to be just as accessable to new players and thus very possibly weak players, which means being able to get them into a character they will love, before they know all the rules. Which typically boils down to just what's in the core rulebook. The monk is difficult to do that with because it is overly complicated.
New party discovers journals of old party. No need to do everything again. PCs only get knocked out and not killed. Monsters run away easier when the party is near death.
I definitely wouldn't lock a player into their choices. They'd have the option to do their own thing every time they level up and deviate from the pre-determined path at any point. However, it seems like fully fleshed out thematic builds would be awesome for those players that didn't *want* to have to think about their skill/feat/spell choices when they level. I'm actually pretty surprised that I can't find a compendium of such progressions anywhere. :/Perhaps I'm too curmudgeonly: if a player 'doesn't want to have to think about their skill/feat/spell choices when they level' I'm pretty sure I don't want to think about playing with them. Thoughtful, creative imagination being, well, rather central to the idea of RPGs... Everyone's style is different. There's merit in not wanting to think about build options so that you can focus more on role play and actually playing the game.
I definitely wouldn't lock a player into their choices. They'd have the option to do their own thing every time they level up and deviate from the pre-determined path at any point. However, it seems like fully fleshed out thematic builds would be awesome for those players that didn't *want* to have to think about their skill/feat/spell choices when they level. I'm actually pretty surprised that I can't find a compendium of such progressions anywhere. :/ Because too many will complain that the compendium builds aren't the best ever...
I'm not sure if I'd support skill packages, but the playtest has gotten me to re think skills. So I've been thinking of coming up with a new skill system to replace Pathfinder. Basically they would be mostly the same but there would be a minimum roll based on if its a class skill, if you have skill focus, and/or a racial adjustment. Or maybe your ranks are considered your minimum roll instead of being added to the roll. I've only just started kicking the tires. But haven't some sort of minimum roll would solve my biggeset problem with skills while preserving the d20-ness.
In regards to the first question... Only if the attack that he used to disarmed the opponent was an unarmed strike, or otherwise done without using a weapon, can he immediately "pick up" the weapon. If his CMB roll was high enough to disarm the opponent and throw the weapon 10 feet you can discribe it in any way you wish. Including to say it feel straight down and was kicked. However, if the weapon fell straight down and then the character wants to kick it, then it enters the grey arm of DM choice. But there is no official way to address that action. http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#disarm Consider... ...using the bull rush rules giving the weapon a 9 CMD (base 10, -5 dex, +4 cover from the previous owner) or higher if the terrain warrants it. ...using sleight of hand or acrobatics verse the characters CMD. With overage equal to the distance it was moved away. ...using a simple attack roll In regards to the sword and board. Others could give you better advice than I. It's not my favorite style so I'm not as well versed.
The interesting question is what will happen next. fast forward a few years and do you think we'll see Piazo buy the D&D licences and release PF2 as the next D&D?As much as this idea keeps coming up on message boards, I don't see it as realistic. Hasbro can still make a lot of money off of the D&D license without having a tabletop RPG in print. Even if they wanted to sell it, I'd bet that their asking price would be more than Paizo would find profitable. I concur. It would be great for the game, so people like to bring it up. But it's a pipe dream. Any price would be way to low for WOTC and way too high for Paizo.
I'm not sure if I'll write up an entire monk build (both because of time and that I think the changes should be narrow in scope) but my 2 cents in the meantime. It seems like the builds add a whole lot of stuff that together ends up as overkill. Most of the stuff makes excellent material for archtypes, but goes too far in terms of fixing the monk. Consider that the more you add the more likely that something will break. So I would challenge, instead of building the "best" monks, narrow the scope to 1-3 additional rules (or monk specific rule tweeks) that would fix the monk without breaking them.
Unlike attacks, you normally don't fail on a 1 if your total would still succeed.
That's pretty useful, but doesn't that then undermine having either stat at all? No, they still matter for all other purposes. STR for damage and carrying capacity and skills. Dex for AC, Reflex, Init, Skills. They just aren't required to be a viable character anymore. ATT fix - Not needed. Monks should hit less but strike more often.Huh? If they hit less, they strike less often, not more. It was a rushed post, my wording could have been better. I was using the term strike to mean making an attack roll (thus not necessarily hitting). The point is you get more attacks so it's ok if you don't hit as often as a fighter. MAD & DMG fix - Monks add 1/2 (maybe 1/3) their level to all damage with monk weapons. This bonus damage is not multipled on a critical hit. Monk base damage for unarmed strike is always 1d6, it not longer increases.That's pretty much what I suggested in my monk design above, save that uses weapon training and automatic enhancement to do so. That improves the hitting without needing to chop and change between 3/4 and full BAB, provides the enhancement they need and keeps the damage at a reasonable average. My idea is just to use it for DMG not ATT, but in theory it would be used with the first point. So if the first point isn't adapted something similar, like your idea should. Expand KI usage - As a spell-like ability, monks use ki equal to 2x the level of a spell cast. A monk selects a single cleric domain as their known spell list but does not receive any other benefit from the selected domain. Ki would start at level 1. Ki strike (magic) still waits to level 4. Monk is not a spell caster for qualifying for other abilities/feats. But if the monk worships a diety they must select their domain accordingly.Making monks casters is not the solution. It irks me that ninjas have better KI abilities than monks. So that was my first draft to address that. Other - Monks can spend a feat to add weapons to their monk/flurry list. Such weapons, even if 2H or dual weapons apply the monks full STR bonus to all damage. Never 1/2 or 1 and 1/2. If a monk worships a diety, he can use their favored weapon as a monk weapon.I agree with this, monks need to be able to add weapons and flurry with them. :) Two weapon fighting fix - Monks don't have two weapon fighting, but can't take it either. MonksYou mean, the way most people seem to have been playing the current monk, only now doing it officially. Exactly
Fixit! MAD fix - Monks can use their WIS bonus in place of their STR or DEX bonus on all attack rolls with monk weapons. This doese not change how CMB and CMD are currently calculated. Only normal weapon attacks. ATT fix - Not needed. Monks should hit less but strike more often. MAD & DMG fix - Monks add 1/2 (maybe 1/3) their level to all damage with monk weapons. This bonus damage is not multipled on a critical hit. Monk base damage for unarmed strike is always 1d6, it not longer increases. Expand KI usage - As a spell-like ability, monks use ki equal to 2x the level of a spell cast. A monk selects a single cleric domain as their known spell list but does not receive any other benefit from the selected domain. Ki would start at level 1. Ki strike (magic) still waits to level 4. Monk is not a spell caster for qualifying for other abilities/feats. But if the monk worships a diety they must select their domain accordingly. Other - Monks can spend a feat to add weapons to their monk/flurry list. Such weapons, even if 2H or dual weapons apply the monks full STR bonus to all damage. Never 1/2 or 1 and 1/2. If a monk worships a diety, he can use their favored weapon as a monk weapon. Two weapon fighting fix - Monks don't have two weapon fighting, but can't take it either. Monks can attack with any weapon or melee attack manuever for any of these attacks.
Roll 4d6 Assign according to points until you run out of points...
For all the manuveurs you can take improved (+2) and greater (+4). So for disarm you should take: Have a Int 13, take Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, and Greater Disarm. Plus take Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, and weapon training in the weapon you will be disarming with. At level 1, assuming a 16 str. You have a +7 to disarm.
And that doesn't include the fact that with magic items and weapons it will be effectively much higher. Also disarm NPC shouldn't ruin a PC's fun. Anyone that relies on a weapon should have quick draw and a back up weapon, or some other defense against being disarmed. There is no harm in reminding people to remain properly prepared. As a player I hate it when PC's can skip out on necessary protections because of unwritten rules about what is and isn't off limits for a DM. With that said. You of course don't want to pick on a player for not doing so over and over. But a single NPC that happens to focus on disarming and is actually good at is, shouldn't be seen as ruining a players fun. With that said. I do shy from sunder. But only because destroying and repairing magic items feels tedious to me.
I don't play half-orcs, they are too monsterous for my taste. Also pure fighters bore me.
In my head that looks way too awesome to only be worth 9 damage. The trials of being low level...
I just notice that for some reason the forum messed up and posted my unedited version. Here's the real submission. I've been looking for a Kingmaker game for some time now and have been itching to play a cleric. Since you said crunch is not important I will skip it for now but as a basic concept Sabrina will be a passive PC and while she'll be a cleric of Erastil, she will not start with knowledge (religion). Instead she will have a more primal, almost druidic connection with Erastil, which will manifest as knowledge of nature and a survival trait. She has no avatar yet and more detail will come into play after initial feedback and crunch development but here are the basics just to get my hat in the ring. Sabrina, Erastil's Ward:
Sabrina is a 15 year old human girl with long wild black hair, brown eyes, sun tanned skin and a facial structure that makes it obvious her family was from Southern Brevoy. She is dressed in elk hide and carrying a longbow and short spear.
As far as she knows, she has lived within the Stolen Lands all of her life or at least as far back as she can remember. Where she came from and how she came to be here is past her memory but she does resemble the people of Southern Brevoy. Since she's been here Erastil himself has been her guide and taught Sabrina how to survive and thrive in the wild, but asking her about it would result in confusion as Sabrina knows him by a simpler understanding. She thinks of Erastil simply as “Father”. Of course, she does conceptualizes him as, and associate him with, stags. So anyone with a basic familiarity with Erastil would eventually come around to see that Sabrina's "father" and Erastil are in fact one in the same. Despite the fulfilling life Sabrina has experienced growing up in the wild, she has recently developed a longing for something more. And so while when she was younger she would run in fear from civilization, she is developing a curiosity about it due to a growing desire to meet others like her.
Her leadership role would take one of two paths. Either as a Councilor or High Priestess depending on how she grows with the campaign. Civilizing the land isn't much of a priority or interest to her, however, she will be developing an interest to be part of a community. So being a part of creating one that is in familiar territory would be extremely fulfilling for her. Same end, different motive.
I haven't run or been in one but I've wanted to. I did pull stuff from stolen lands for use in a custom campaign back in Oct. It basically amounted to Olag's Outpost and bandits raids on it. As for the story and deeper into the AP, I haven't looked at them in enough detail to remember anything. Certainly nothing story related. Other than Olag's, what I stole was limited to stat blocks and such.
I've been looking for a Kingmaker game for sometime now and have been itching to play a cleric so here goes. Since you said crunch is not important I will skip it for now but as a basic concept Sabrina will be a passive PC and while she'll be a cleric, she will not start with any knowledge of religion. Sabrina, Erastil's Ward:
Sabrina, is a 15 year old human girl She has lived within Greenbelt all of her life or at least as far back as she can remember. Where she came from and how she came to be here is past her memory but she has been here for Erastil himself has guided and taught Sabrina how to survive and thrive in the wild.
If anyone knowledgable about such things was to watch Sabrina in the wild long enough it would be clear that Sabrina has a strong link to Erastil. But asking her about it would result in confussion as Sabrina knows him by a simplier understanding. Thinking of Erastil simply as father. Although anyone with a basic familiarity with Erastil can see the connection as she does conceptionalize him as and associate him with stags. Despite the fulfilling life Sabrina has experienced growing up in the wild, she has recently developed a longing for something more. And so while when she was younger she would run in fear from civilization, she is developing a growing curiousity about it.
Her leadership role would take one of two paths. Either as a Councilor or High Priestess.
100% no laptop, tablets or cell phones if they are holding up the game. That might also include asking others to stop even if their use isn't holding up the game. It doesn't matter is his is 90 and played his whole life. If he has never been introduced to another style then give him time to adjust to it. It does sound like the divorce is coming out in play. I've seen the same exact thim happen to two other experienced players in my time. They need a rage outlet and it's natural and even good for them to use a combat heavy Pathfinder to do it. As a group you can try running two alterning campaigns. One combat focused and one rp focused. Let him know that the rp focused one will not have a lot of combat so if he doesn't think that will be fun he is free to skip out on it and just play in the combat game. As a DM, one trick you can try is to have some missions where there is extra reward for capturing as oppose to killing an opponent. This way you can teach him to see value in alternatives to killing everything that moves. It might subconsciously help him in real life too.
I have to second TriOmegaZero. If you take your character and cower in a corner, you just made that encounter more memorable for me. Just because your roll playing says you saved vs that dragon's fear aura (and so I'm not subject to the game effects of being feared) doesn't mean that your role playing can't say my character is looking a dragon in the eyes and that's scary so he is going to act accordingly. Now if you are showing up for your weekly game just to sit and cower in a corner the whole tiem, I'd become more worried about if you are having fun than if you are getting an unfair share of loot. I can't imagine anyone investing the time it takes to play just to cower in a corner every encounter (even social ones) so if that person is out there surely they could only stand the game for so long before getting bored, making it a mute point. Also if you fail a save round 1 and run away in fear. You contributed. Anyone saying you didn't should be bared from the game for life.
May have to DMPC for me tomorrow and Thursday. I'll be traveling and do not know if I will have access or not yet.
I have two... the first was more a situation than a one liner. The DM gave a young player a "Pick of Mundaneness" and player lite up thinking he got some cool magic item. Needless to say, he wasn't laughing with the rest of us when he realized what mundaneness meant. Yes the DM was a jerk... but it was funny. The second was with my current group. The player, an oracle, was asked how he knew his god was the right god or something to that effect. In response he simply said, "Because she's white."
What everyone who else said, but as a DM I would be up for considering it as an alternative prereq. My concerns would be that you are going to be underpowered because you will effectively not gain any of the spell casting benefits as rogue's are not a spell casting class.
Better if it was made into a ghost ship. Get on, accomplish a task and get off before the ship flies far enough away (that it leaves the material plane). In fact, it's so cool; I'm tempted to rework that scenario into the ending of the curse of the riven sky module I’m running. It's better than Verakas’s Floating Barge, an airship, used in Golarion.
I'd 86 the tailsmane and replace it with an NPC casting or some other consumable. I'm not concerned about the sphere of annihilation, although natural events like an earthquake or volcano have there merits. So does giving the party a chance to be in the presense of such power. Not all groups play the 1-20 range all the way through so giving lowbies a chance to encounter the sphere is a boon in my book and would make me choose to run this adventure over another goblin slaughter. It would be better to slow down the sinking. There are some very interesting things that can happen in such a situation that the PCs should have a chance to explore. For example, it takes time for people to load on to the boats and there will be fighting about who gets to be first (making it take even more time). Getting to a boat and having the party bard or diplomat spend time making people orderly and or lifting their spirits so that they don't turn into a mob (or otherwise get in the way of other obsticles the PCs need to overcome) can take time, but your encounter is so time sensitive that there is no chance to explore that posibility. You could also have the rate of sinking speed up at the very end to allow for both effects. As a designer don't micro manage the NPC's. As a DM I'll just ignore it. As a designer, help me out by coming up with ideas of things that the NPC's might do, leaving me to decide what they actually do based on how the party reacts to the encounter. I'm not so concerned about the lead in/out, in my book that's more a part of the senario task and not the encounter task. I regularly pull encounters from one senario and put them in others. Don't listen to those that would ask you to ruin my ability to do that with yours by making the senario ties ins too strong. ;)
DMPC Dargon if needed to move the story. I'll be too busy to get back in for a few days.
Congrats
Unfortunately I submitted a lackluster item in round 1 before I realized what the RPG Superstar was all about. I might still post an orgainization in the comments just for fun. I'll wait to see if by chance I made it in the top 32 first though.
General advocacy for Dwarfs. They should qualify for their +4 dwarven stability bonus in these situations. I know that's not actually in the rules. I just bring it up because we always house ruled it that way (balance when dwarves are on solid ground) as it makes situational and flavor since.
The hold off on crafting until the game starts argument so that everything is equal is flawed for several reasons. 1) Everyone has an equal chance to create any build they want. Thus every player already has that same starting options. 2) Every class has different starting gold. Unless you are going to change it to being the same you shouldn't change what it can be used for, as the spending of gold effects each class differently. 3) It bogs down play. 4) It makes players wait to use their starting abilities. Of course having story expections are perfectly ok. If you are starting the PCs out as run away slaves then starting with personalized equipment that would take them time to make hardly seems reasonable. But if you're a nice DM and put there equipment in a chest for them to find, then all the previous still holds true. That said when I started a campaign that way I made the players pick up scraps. They were gladiators and so they got some say in that they started with (their go to gladitoral equipment), but the story called for the limitation and they seems to enjoy it. Also a wizard having and using scrolls is a class feature and shouldn't be considered the same as starting with a "magic item". If anything, consider that any proper wizard has at least one 0 or 1st level scroll. Otherwise it's like a fighter starting without a weapon. Sure, there is nothing wrong with it, but a rule saying that they could would be seen as silly. Why is it that the same is not true for wizards starting without scrolls? End random ranting.
You realize this means he needs 500 dollars from each of his players at the three year cap to break even. Thats a hefty goal. I am beginning to understand why Dancey is no longer with CCP. That's $13.88 per player per month, and easy number that people pay already, so the math appears to work out perfectly to me.
Ah with that and a re-read I get what they are doing. I suppose I would be on board with saying that cantrips aren't considered spells unless they are raised to level 1 or higher via metamagic. And with that let me keep on task and transition into a good and somewhat related question to James. There has been a lot of discussion lately in regards to Pathfinder being due for an update (or point update). Being that it started with the D&D 5E rumors I wouldn’t be surprise if Paizo has little to nothing in the pot yet. But it has generated some discussion on how certain classes or rules could benefit from some tweaking. Now I know you can't reveal if this would or is happening but hypothetically I if did, would you lean towards keeping Golarian the same or would you try creating some world changing event like gamers usually got from Forgotten Realms with any rule set revision? AND Would you lean towards it being a point upgrade and keeping a strong compatibility with existing rulebooks or a full version upgrade that largely rewrites the rules?
I'd like for it to be a core mechaninc that the monk can start using at level 1. Also I think that the scaling takes care of itself because the monks movements and attacks already scale. But with that said its worth testing both methods and your 5' step clarification is a good addition. |
