jadraki's page

21 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


These guides are amazing. thanks to all those who did hard work.

I know this is extremely unlikely and a big ask. But is there any chance of not using Red and Green as color codes?


Thanks all. Great thoughts. Yeah, I like the Aegis a lot. I'm between that build and the tiefling fighter (or Barb). Waiting on some background story to coalesce to help decide.

My understanding is that this is the Pathfinder adaptation of the 3.5 adaptation of the 2e Dark Sun.


Melkiador wrote:
Does the party have a dedicated healer, because that can make a difference.

Good q. Yeah, we have 1.5 healers in the group.


Any thoughts on an interesting tanky PC for a Dark Sun campaign?

I am joining a group late, they're at 3rd level. I will be the 7th party member but with absences the average is 5. Only one other semi-tank and the rest are psionicish.

I am just getting into the setting and realize there are restrictions on class and race. But I have not yet absorbed the flavor. Any inspiration would be great. Thanks!


Barbarian?

Especially after a long adventuring day.

I always thought an interesting house rule would be
1) If Barb HP < 25% of total (or 50, whatever)
2) then Barb can rage with double bonuses
3) costing twice the rage rounds.


My spectator vote according to plain english:

Skill Mastery does not imply that UMD is suddenly Take 10able.

Poor Rogues...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FanaticRat wrote:
I blame confirmation bias, personally.

I totally knew you would say that.


Based on WBL...Bill Gates


The FAQ makes sense to me for one ability of one class affecting an ability of another class. And in particular, sorceror/wizard spells are the same and are arcane.

But having something that makes divine "spells" and arcane "spells" interchangeable seems weird. Shouldn't source and type matter?

(Aside: Certainly it ruins the flavor)

Imagine if divine spells were called "deity mainfestations" instead of "spells" and they were "called" instead of "cast". The application of "Lose any [calling]" to "spells" would seem beyond absurd.

OTOH, psionics is framed in entirely different language yet the default is to treat powers like arcane. Still that doesn't lead to mixing, per se.


DM_Blake wrote:

Hmmmm, seems Horselord should be the ultimate expert on this subject, no?

It's splitting hairs, but Scavion is right: you are actually not moving here; you are being moved. There is a difference. The AoO says:

"Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes"

It doesn't say:

"Being moved out of a threatened square usually provokes"

Ergo, only the horse provokes.

Splitting hairs (horse hairs?), but that's as close as I can find to anything RAW. And as Horselord sayd, there are other precedents for being moved such as Bull Rush and Grapple by creatures with reach and they don't provoke when the victim is "being moved".

Based on the hair-splitting and precedent-setting, I'd say that should be enough.

But I thought that if you get pushed back by a bull rush that you provoked an AoO? That would be as passive as traveling mounted. I may be misremembering.


Brotato wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

Yeah, I'm going to have to go with Giant Octopus being better for several reasons:

3) It has a land speed and you do not lose the ability to breath air by polymorphing into one (though you do get to breath under water because you have a swim speed)

Am I missing something here? Giant Octopus is (aquatic) and does not have the amphibious special quality, so I'm at a loss as to how you don't lose your ability to breathe air while in this form. Also, swim speed doesn't determine if you can breathe underwater, the (aquatic) or (water) subtype does. There are literally multitudes of Bestiary examples that have swim speeds but cannot breathe water.

For example, see the "Helpful Notes" box for polymorph. Gaining swim speed allows for water breathing. But it does not take away regular breathing.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/polymorph


mplindustries wrote:
A player of mine has the trap spotter talent.....

Just saying, I like your setup/kobold defense. Both the cultural-martial guerrilla tactics of the kobolds and RPing aspect of making PCs realize they need to be deliberate and pay attention (e.g., "hurry up, it's just another shower curtain!").

Nothing to add on what others have said about rules. But for unsolicited advice: whatever types of rolls you decide on, try to desensitize the Ps to them so that their metagame instincts aren't aroused.


CWheezy wrote:
I don't think cloistered clerics can aid to increase ac or to hit, unless those are skill/ability checks?

aargh!

/crosses fingers for errata


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Okay.

Confronted him last night....

Cool. That sounds pretty satisfying.


blackbloodtroll wrote:


Next game is the 13th, so I will promptly post my results after the fact.

Any updates (you may of course still be playing)?


In case one more experience is valuable to the discussion...

As GM, I play like AD does, giving the benefit of the doubt for smoother play. I often also describe them being sneaky, detecting, etc. as I relay what they are experiencing.

I have a good poker face so they don't always know if their rolls were successful: e.g., "As you pad quietly up to the door and listen with held breath you hear only the ambient dripping from the cave walls around you." There are enough false negatives (and sometimes false positives) that it stays interesting and they keep the mood of being engaged in the mundane.

However, as a player (for either of the two GMs I play with), I like to roll my own dice constantly to stay engaged. Always perceiving, always sneaking. Over various segments, e.g., once per room, hallway, doorway, or 30 to 90 feet, mumbling the role playing part of it. It's fun because the GM sees the outcomes of the dice and it provides for opportunities to have unexpected failures that would have never happened otherwise.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Jiggy, here is what I have found with the folks I game with. Keep in mind that I mostly game with people who have engineering, programming or science degrees (mostly physics, chemical or electrical engineering, programming and system architecture types. One is a system tester).

If I tell them that they have to tell me that they are detecting magic, sneaking, trap-checking, etc. here is how the game goes:

GM: "You peer down the dark, brooding hallway and believe that you can just make out the brass reinforcements of a sturdy door."
Party Sneaky Skill Monkey (aka PSSM): "OK, I tell the party to be quiet and listen carefully for any sound. Then I scan around to see if anyone has snuck up behind us. Next I'll start silently moving forward, carefully examining the floor in front of me for traps, while also looking for any indication of secret doors in the walls."
Party tank: "Or ceiling!"
PSSM: "... or ceiling."
GM: "OK, you approach the dark and imposing door. As you get near you see some writing on the door, it appears to be written in something like red ink."
PSSM: "OK, I tell the party to be quiet and listen carefully for any sound. Then I scan around to see if anyone has snuck up behind us. Next I'll start silently moving forward, carefully examining the floor in front of me for traps, while also looking for any indication of secret doors in the walls. I'll do this up to the door and then I'll stop."
GM: "OK, you are at the door."
PSSM: "OK, I tell the party to be quiet and listen carefully for any sound. Then I scan around to see if anyone has snuck up behind us. Next I'll start silently examining the door in front of me for traps, while also checking to see if it is locked, but only if I can do so without setting off any traps."
GM: "You don't detect any traps on the door. It seems to be unlocked."
PSSM: "OK, I tell the party to be quiet and listen carefully for any sound. Then I scan around to see if anyone has snuck up behind us. Next I'll start silently working the door knob and lock,...

Wow. Rarely do I "LOL" in real life, much less feel compelled to type "LOL". But man, this dialogue sketch cracked me up on so many levels. Not least of which, we must share the same group of friends.

Also, the Cheetos player vs the in-game character from above was transcendent and epic.


Tels wrote:
Owly wrote:
I see nothing in the spell description that indicates the pit is square. Therefore, all pits are round.

Actually, it says 10 ft by 10 ft hole. It does not, however, say a 10 ft diameter circle, a 5 ft radius pit or anything to that effect. To the best of my knowledge, every time something has a circular area, it's called out in the effect by giving it's size a X Diameter or X radius.

Since it lacks the diameter or radius language, it must be a square.

I think he was being sarcastic to point out previously evident logic fallacies.


ngc7293 wrote:
Xexyz wrote:


That's the thing, it's not RAI that you're allowed to use Power Attack with Whirlwind Attack, it's RAW. AS WRITTEN that sentence means "bonus attacks or extra attacks" by grammatical structure. The way the sentence is structured, the words 'bonus' and 'extra' are both adjectives describing the noun 'attacks'.

I think I have to take this with a grain of salt until an official from Pathfinder comes in and says "Yes, Xexyz, you are right" or "No Xexyz you are wrong." Or words to that affect.

I appreciate the info, but I was hoping for more than "the book's grammar is wrong" :)

Thanks

:)

But seriously, these are game rules, not science or theology; there's not "true truth" waiting to be revealed by the devs. Rules are constructed for 1) balanced but probablistic gameplay, 2) verisimilitude to improve the experience, 3) create opportunities for strategy, 4) and maybe to be interesting mechanics or even mechanics to inspire flavor on their own. I am sure there are more to be added to this list...

The rules are a starting place.

If your group or you agree to allow power attack with whirlwind, then try it experimentally. If it is terribly broken or imbalancing then decide whether that is ruining the game. If not, then enjoy it. If it is ruining the game for someone or everyone, then ditch it.

And ditching it is its own roleplaying opportunity: "Pedro the Giant San Franciscan Monk discovered that he could throw incredible sidearm curve balls that no batter could hit. But he also knew that the unnatural technique was wearing and tearing his elbow. He couldn't sustain the sweet move and switched back to his bread and butter pitches."


laarddrym wrote:

None of the enemies in any of these scenarios have ranged attacks? Of any form?

The first thing I would say is to play out every encounter, to its entirety, even if the monsters don't have ranged attacks.

Here's why:

A) the monsters aren't stupid, and will scatter or try to find cover until the players engage in melee. Most animals in real life will try to get away if you throw rocks at them, why wouldn't exposed monsters and NPCs flee from arrows?? If the players don't change their tactics, then they have no way to defeat hiding or scattered enemies that avoid playing the ranged combat game, and therefore you would have no reason to give them XP.

B) The players may get bored and decide to change tactics. If the PCs don't do a ton of damage at range, it will likely take them a while to whittle down the NPC's. Keep in mind that unless the PC has perfect manuevarability (which Fly and Overland Flight do not grant), or the Hover Feat (no PC is likely to have that), the PC has to make a fly check to hover. If they fail to hover, they fall (as per the fly skill rules). And UNLESS they hover, they cannot take full attack actions b/c they have to move.

If your players are going to "abuse" their flying abilities, don't just give them XP. They need to play out their encounters, earn their XP, and at the same time you should be playing your NPCs as they would actually react.

A major reason many of us GM is because we enjoy doing it. If you are at a point when you aren't enjoying it due to 1 specific thing the players are doing, you can either change how you run your encounters (see above), or talk to your players.

Good luck, and hopefully this will resolve itself in your next 1 or 2 sessions.

"A) the monsters aren't stupid"

+1 and amen.

sometimes they are but we err way too much on the side of seeing them as passive, static, red-shirt obstacles.


"If you give a sentry one stealth check per round of stealthing you basically ensure that the PC will eventually lose. Given enough rolls the player will roll bad and the NPC will roll good."

Agreed.

Although, 1) I like the dramatic effect of the second stealth check right before the character is "home free" at the door; and

2) Context is everything. Is there a reason the guards might be extra vigilant? Or is this 'ho-hum' security guard duty? If there had been a recent attack or theft in the area, I might give the guard one more chance as he scans the area again, and signal to the PCs that these guards are pretty serious. (Maybe even have the PCs roll a perception check to see if they notice the anxious darting eyes of an alert guard.)