jimibones83's page

^If that's the case, it still leaves distraction too loosely defined. I don't think a GM should be able to tell a player he's distracted whenever he wants. But, you can't leave it up to the player either, cuz then they're never distracted. Perhaps, pertaining to distracted, the guideline should be as it is, vague, but instead call for a will save.

It seems like time would be irrelevant to me. Immediate danger uses the "without an intervening medium or agency" definition.

Immediate Danger- Any situation that, without action, has a 100% chance of physical harm.

Action's the intervening medium.

Id like to repost something Cevah already posted over a year ago thats seemingly gone ignored by take 10 nay sayers...

The purpose of Take 10 is to allow you to avoid the swinginess of the d20 roll in completing a task that should be easy for you. A practiced climber (5 ranks in Climb) should never, ever fall when climbing a practice rock-climbing wall at a gym (DC 15) as long as he doesn't rush and isn't distracted by combat, trying to juggle, and so on. Take 10 means he doesn't have to worry about the randomness of rolling 1, 2, 3, or 4.

The rule is there to prevent weirdness from the fact that you can roll 1 on tasks you shouldn't fail at under normal circumstances.

I'm not an athlete, but I can easily to a standing broad jump of 5-6 feet, over and over again without fail. It doesn't matter if I'm jumping over a piece of tape on the floor or a deep pit... I can make that jump. With a running start, it's even easier. If I were an adventurer, a 5-foot-diameter pit would be a trivial obstacle. Why waste game time making everyone roll to jump over the pit? Why not let them Take 10 and get on to something relevant to the adventure that's actually a threat, like a trap, monster, or shady NPC?

Let your players Take 10 unless they're in combat or they're distracted by something other than the task at hand. It's just there to make the game proceed faster so you don't have big damn heroes failing to accomplish inconsequential things.

So yes, you can take 10 while jumping a pit, or lava, or whatever. Is it dangerous? Yes. Is it immediately dangerous? No. Is it distracting? Yes. Then why can you still take 10? Because the distraction is part of the task at hand.

And we are still where we were when we asked for clarification the first time. No closer to getting a real answer no closer to at least reducing table variation.

Lol, for real

But at least we've made it clear that BNW doesn't like the rule. That's very important

jimibones83 wrote:

In that sense, the entire game is a GM option. That's also ridiculous.

No.

This is objectively not the same thing. Pretending that it is is conceding any pretense of a rational argument.

Quote:

It's a player option when not in immediate danger or distracted. You probably like them vaguely defined so you can disallow them as often as possible.

It's a perk.

Quote:

That's fine for you I guess, but there seem to be plenty of people here who would like the terms defined clearly.

Since we're casting aspersions on motives here, it's the ones that want to always take 10.

Quote:

It's not about tying anyone's hands, it's about consistency. Consistency is fair.

No. Its not.

"Fair" is getting the answer you want. If that answer was never that would be unfair, but consistent.

Quote:

Also, our quotes seem to conflict. I'm going to have to go with the one in the rule book

I've quoted the rules directly and the player design team's not an faq. If there's a conflict between that and the notes you're wrong, sorry.

Yes, it is the same thing. You pretending it's not is conceding any pretense of a rational argument

That doesn't make it any less of an option

Since it is an option, this one doesn't matter

Fair is in accordance with the rules or standards, so defining them clearly seems pretty obvious. It has nothing to do with the answer anyone wants. It has to do applying the answer equally, avoiding favoritism and bias

You quoted the rules directly? Where? I saw the not a FAQ, and your gross misinterpretation of taking 10 not being a player option, that's all. Since it is a player option, you were wrong. Since the not a FAQ does [/b]not[/b] override a rule, you're wrong again. So tell me, where was I wrong?

Never mind dude, I'm tired of arguing with you. Take the last word 100 times if you want. You're still wrong and I'm still done here

In that sense, the entire game is a GM option. That's also ridiculous. It's a player option when not in immediate danger or distracted. You probably like them vaguely defined so you can disallow them as often as possible. That's fine for you I guess, but there seem to be plenty of people here who would like the terms defined clearly.

It's not about tying anyone's hands, it's about consistency. Consistency is fair.

Also, our quotes seem to conflict. I'm going to have to go with the one in the rule book

I think Lashunta has only been hinted at but Kasatha is in for sure

@BigNorseWolf How does nothing there hint at player choice? It says you clear as day and refers to the reader as the player character.

When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10

Nothing there hints at GM choice, at all. Player option, clear as day

jimibones83 wrote:

I wouldn't say it's more distracting. It's certainly more dangerous. But danger alone doesn't prevent taking 10, because you can use it to jump a pit.

1) The FAQ trumps the developers tatement on that

2) Even then it wouldn't apply, You have the option to stand on the ledge and stare at the lava and roast marshmellows near it if you wish. You do not have an option to stand there and stare at the storm, if you don't get the ship in line you're gonna sink.

1) What FAQ?

I gave my take on the difference between danger and immediate danger in the first post. By those standards, the storm would be considered danger, not immediate danger. But I didn't write the rules, so it would be helpful if Paizo would clarify the difference for us. Since you can take 10 to jump a pit, there is definitely a difference.

I wouldn't say it's more distracting. It's certainly more dangerous. But danger alone doesn't prevent taking 10, because you can use it to jump a pit. So we're back to the question of the difference between danger and immediate danger. Either way, his comment was still applicable.

But a GM should not be able to tell you when you're distracted. It's a lot like fear. What scares or distracts one person may not scare or distract the next. Aside from magic or special effects, he cant tell you you're afraid, so he shouldn't be able to tell you you're distracted. That's just my opinion though

wraithstrike wrote:

I can concentrate during a storm. Loud music doesn't bother me, and neither does the wind blowing against a window. I've changed batteries and tires when it was raining.

Unless your car was floating at the time it's not applicable here.

The point is that he could concentrate during a storm. Whats not applicable is the boat. Or are you saying the rigger cant take 10 on a bright and sunny day either?

@Wraithstrike I agree. A storm doesn't bother me either. If theres no tornado or large hail, I go right on about my business. However, the storm in this situation was suppose to be really bad

I agree. I pretty much said the same thing in the opening post. My point to BigNorseWolf is that the now part isnt what matters, it's the fact that doing nothing causes harm.

But if that is indeed the definition of immediate danger, does a storm count? The result of harm is kind of up to chance more than whether or not one acts in such a case, or both. But harm is certainly not definite.

jimibones83 wrote:

@BigNorseWolf You can take 10 while walking a tightrope over lava. The lava is also there now. Now doesn't matter at all.

If the dm says you can't, then you can't. Sorry. SKR's post died with the not an FAQ. You're walking a tightrope over lava. You're in immediate danger. Pray to the polyhedral gods!

That's funny, because I'm pretty sure I've read the developers themselves use it as an example of something you could indeed take 10 on. I'll post it after work if I can find it

@BigNorseWolf You can take 10 while walking a tightrope over lava. The lava is also there now. Now doesn't matter at all.

When not in immediate danger.

a storm is immediate danger

Since danger alone doesn't bar taking 10, the original question was the definition of immediate. Why would a storm be considered immediate danger instead of standard danger?

I've solved the problem without an answer though. Unfortunately, without a firm definition of immediate, it will come up again.

^I couldnt find anywhere in the AP that said you couldn't take 10. I tried. I searched the document for several key words, but didn't find anything. I wish I would have lol. Would have saved me a headache.

Still, I spoke with the author, who said it was indeed his intent that the storm prevent taking 10. I based my thoughts off the fact that the storm didn't force concentration checks on casters, so it must not have been that bad of a storm. I was wrong, it should have imposed both ways.

The fun in it for me was having the actual shapechange special quality. Further boosting your +10 to disguise as much as possible and being able to take countless humanoid forms at will made you pretty slippery. Good times

The 3.5 changeling was one of my favorite races. They were just so much fun for a player like me. Id love to see shapeshifting alien as a core race

^Weapons give a speed advantage because you can typically begin to strike from multiple starting positions and still do heavy damage, meaning you can begin to strike from wherever your previous strike ended. Its not quite the same with bare hands because you need their maximum potential to do worthwhile damage. But that is an advantage to weapons over bare hands, it doesn't bare on 1 vs 2.

I suppose if you're not trained to use weapons in both hands then it's probably just as fast to use 1 hand because you get overwhelmed by coordinating 2, but for someone trained in 2 weapon fighting, 2 is much faster.

jimibones83 wrote:

@IonutRO

That's the point. They cant do it naturally because they aren't as coordinated with their other limbs, but when they undergo special training to be coordinated with those limbs, the get extra attacks.

It's a good point about not needing to be humanoid though. A beholder monk would get the same amount of flurry attacks as an octopus monk of the same level.

Still, I can attack much faster with both hands than I can with just one, which probably means I'd be able to attack faster with four hands than I can with two.

No, it doesn't. In the time you could hit someone with four arms one after the other, you could hit him four times with just one.

That's not true at all. Striking with 1 arm means you have to pull back the same arm and preposition it with every strike. That takes time. Fractions of seconds, but that means the world in a fight. I mean, do you seriously believe a one armed man suffers no disadvantage in a fight? They do, a huge one, and that's why.

Why do you think boxing combos consist of swinging both arms? Fighters typically have one arm that's stronger than the other, so why not just use that one every time? Its because using both arms is faster.

I've been in dozens of fights man. I know professional fighters, people who own mma gyms, etc. 2 arms are faster than 1. Perhaps its different with weapons in your hands, I have no experience with that. I doubt it though

I just read the rules again. I guess you're right, distractions don't necessarily force a concentration check. Violent whether does though. So in the original al case, there still should have been a concentration check for the same reason the rigger couldn't take 10, but not necessarily in other cases I guess.

jimibones83 wrote:

Vaguely defined rules are a load of troll dung.

Is it at least fair to say that anything that prevents taking 10 also forces a concentration check on casters?

No, because being in combat prevents take 10, but does not in and of itself force concentration checks to cast spells.

If it's not due to combat, but instead due to distraction. Wouldn't that same cause also force a concentration check?

Vaguely defined rules are a load of troll dung.

Is it at least fair to say that anything that prevents taking 10 also forces a concentration check on casters?

Did we ever get clarification on what exactly constitutes as immediate danger?

@IonutRO

That's the point. They cant do it naturally because they aren't as coordinated with their other limbs, but when they undergo special training to be coordinated with those limbs, the get extra attacks.

It's a good point about not needing to be humanoid though. A beholder monk would get the same amount of flurry attacks as an octopus monk of the same level.

Still, I can attack much faster with both hands than I can with just one, which probably means I'd be able to attack faster with four hands than I can with two.

CorvusMask wrote:

Woohoo, kasatha! My favourite race that nobody allows you to play as :D

I'd allow you, though I have my own rules on it: No multiweapon fighting for the same reason that humans don't get 4 off-hand Unarmed Strikes for having a head, two fists, and two feet.

They do, its called flurry of blows. It just takes special training because coordination isn't practiced with other limbs as much as it is with your arms and hands. So needless to say, if those other limbs WERE arms and hands, it would come just as naturally.

Also, I thought the Lombax idea was pretty awesome.

@Kaisoku Thats pretty awesome man. Like to see you finish it for us lol

@Cyrad My math wasn't off, I just used the wrong pricing system.

You're the one hinging and handwaving. You're hinging on the fact that I priced an item wrong so that you can handwave everything else I say.

You can't use an article you wrote as evidence in a claim you're making yourself.

@Amanuensis

Thanks man, I'll check that out right now:)

@Cyrad The logic follows just fine. Pretending it doesn't just makes you look biased man.

You may be right about my pricing, but its not as valuable as mass infernal healing would be either, because you have to remain within range. Still, I think your appraisal was closer than mine.

But I disagree that you can't put a price on everything. You definitely can. An accurate one at that.

I'd agree with you that it would change the game a little though. I just dont think that's a bad thing. Lots of things change the game. Gunslingers changed the game and they're awesome. But, its not overpowered, which is really all I was arguing.

@Cyrad I didn't say ignore, I said dont care.

I didn't realize the ring regrew limbs though, so I thank you for pointing that out. 8k gp is way more reasonable for what I was thinking. And it pretty much proves that the aura is not op. Here's how...

Evasion is a class feature for a 2nd level rogue. A ring of evasion costs 25k gp. The aura could be attained through a magic item for less than 1/3 that price, there for, it can not be over powered. In fact, according to gold value, it might even be under powered.

Theres a difference though, the ring only grants it to the wearer, and it doesn't scale with level. Let's address those differences separately.

The ring only grants it to the wearer- So the aura has a gold piece value equal to the ring times the number of people in an average party, 4. So thats 32k gp, a little more than what evasion has been valued at, but not a big enough difference to make it op. Especially when you factor in that each member has to be within range of the aura to receive its benefits.

The aura scales with level- Unlike magic items, lots of class features scale with level. This is not out of the ordinary.

So thank you. I was confident before, but now I feel I've actually been able to prove my point.

@Cyrad I understood you the first time you made the point. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. You don't care about my reasoning, I don't care about yours. Get over it. Saying the same thing multiple times isn't adding anything to the conversation.

@Christoper I think I'm just going to make the ring of regeneration like 5,000gp. Problem solved. I'm still interested in making this idea into a paladin archetype though

@Cyrad And as I've already explained man, no it doesn't. When my group has a healer, HP is the last thing we run out of. We dont rest to get HP, we rest to get other resources. There is no difference in that and having trickle healing.

Perhaps our experiences are just too different to agree.

I agree Viking. I'd never pay 90k for that ring. Totaling the cost of wands for my entire group, for an entire campaign, we never even come close to that.

@Cyrad Even with infinite healing between fights, managing a battle poorly is still costly. You would still be short on spells, smites, etc because of it.

@Christopher Dudley

You are exactly right, I just dont think approaching each fight with full HP will break the game.

Scenario A) Your out of resources. You rest for the evening. In the morning, you find the bad guy and clean house.

Scenario B) Your out of resources, but your buddies aura has healed you back to full. You decide to find the bad guy before nightfall. Its a little tougher to take him out with the rest of your resources spent, but you manage the task

It just doesn't seem to really matter. It certainly would if there were some sort of time limit though, but that's pretty rare.

I do care about the design of the game though, I just don't believe healing a hit point every round disrupts anything at all. So you get to fight the bad guy today instead of tomorrow, so what. Not that big of a deal.

I'll drop a ring of regeneration into the game for each of my 4th level players this Friday. They dont have a healer anyway. I'll be sure to come back in a few months and report how it went

@DM_Blake The idea that its op is laughable. It doesn't allow them to nuke a balor at 10th level, or take the challenge out of the game in any way. Your argument is ridiculous.

What does it matter if the group fights the bad guy today or tomorrow? It does not.

Its a constant trickle of healing. Its limited by the tiny amount per round and the lack of bulk healing to use during a fight. It allows a group to continue all day by resting for a few minutes between fights, but they'd need to be careful about how much they bite off at once. I dont see it being a dramatic impact, but I respect your right to have a different opinion.

Its not effectively removing the condition at all lol. Any round the afflicted fails his save, he still suffers the affliction. He has to make the save every round to ignore the affliction for that round. You probably wouldn't pass that save every round of a fight, let alone indefinitely.

I liked the paladin idea a lot, but it wasn't all I liked. Criticism on the restoration effects was also useful.

@DM_Blake

Lol, I'm sorry man, yur review made me snicker a little. Splitting 20 points of healing per round between five 16th level characters is absolutely nothing but a means to heal between fights. I mean, people are getting smacked for 50 points of damage a round at that level, 5 points of healing doesn't really tip the scales much. Like I said, all that is is a means of healing between fights. Its different, not overpowered, and certainly not broken.

As for the removal of conditions, you seem to have ignored the fact that it doesn't remove them, it only surpresses them for the round, and only if they pass another save and remain in the aura. This feature is probably better than the healing, but I still not op.

The restoration effects though, maybe they need some work, I dunno. I mean, you can cast it quicker, but its not equal to a restoration. It only heals 1 damage, not 1d4, so that seems like a fair exchange. But I didn't factor in the 1 week waiting period between negative levels. How about this?

I just dont get the idea that its more boring than a fighter. I run out of things to spend fighter bonus feats on anyway. In mean, you've got a feat every other level either way. Still, agree to disagree I suppose. For the third time though, this isn't the part I'm worried about.

The idea that its healing ability is insanely game-breakingly overpowered though is just silly.

One thing you said though that I really liked was to make something to give to the paladin. This is the shining idea of this thread to me, so I thank you for that. I'm going to sit down and make an archetype:)

@DM_Blake

I've only read your first post so far, so I'll address that one only for now.

I didn't realize it, but it seems you are right. The devs did take that out specifically. However, I'm not too worried about it in my personal games, as you mentioned the possibility of at the end of your comment. I don't mind giving it a shot anyway, and seeing what happens.

Thanks for the input guys:) The idea of absorbing ailments and inflicting them on enemies is pretty cool. A pool is great too. I just came up with this as a starting point in about an hour. I'm going to spemd a bit of time reworking and use some of these ideas. I also like the idea of making it a template quite a bit. It may not be as approachable as such for other people, but its just for my personal group, and that may actually work even better for us.

@Cyrad

Its broken if your playing with a healer in the group that can heal large amounts in the heat of battle, but is it when its the only means of healing?

As for the language "Any mental condition", I may have misworded. My intent was to mimic greater restoration, but now that I'm looking, there are some other conditions that need added anyway. I'll have to update that.

I'll state again, the class only needs to be more fun to play than a dedicated healer. My players don't like sitting back and healing every round. They'd rather swing at something. This class would allow them to do that.

I have. I like psionics a lot too. Unfortunately my players are a bunch of haters

I dunno if I'd say that. Dedicated healer is pretty dull, which is what its meant to replace.

So the questions are...

Does it seem balanced? If not, what needs added/subtracted?
Would it be more fun than a dedicated healer?

I think the answer to the second question is a definite yes, being that you get to act freely every round instead of heal, and have the martial abilities to actually do something. Its the question of balance I'm more concerned about.

In my opinion, fighters are kind of weak, so the class features don't necessarily need to be qual to the fighters to be balanced. Still, that's not to say its not a bit too powerful. Do you think it would be more well rounded if HD, Skills, Proficiencies, BAB, and Saves mimicked the Cleric? Would you tweak something else instead?

The cure effect of the aura doesn't do much compared to mass cure spells at comparative levels, but is far more useful between fights. Kind of the same for the restoration effects. I was worried about monsters that killed through negative energy attacks though, so I added the deathward ability.

The ability to suppress conditions is pretty awesome though. But, they ha e to remain in the aura, and they're never actually cured, and they must make the save every round.