Heck, somewhere earlier in this thread someone was advocating that flying while touching a rope that was touching the ground and I think most of us can agree that's nonsense.
That was me.
I think it's OK.
It's consistent and will always be interpreted the same way.
This type of thing is common in Wuxia (the Chinese fantasy martial arts genre) as they have to work out how to beat someone's technique. It's no less cheesy than achilles and the leader of the nazgul?
To me, the requirement that you need to touch ground means yeah, you can't stand on a wooden floor and use it.
Press F for monks wearing shoes, monks walking on grass, monks who have dirty feet, monks who are walking on dusty stone, monks who have wet feet, and your GM who has to keep making rulings every turn.
What is the difference between a monk on a boat, and a monk with wet feet on the land? Or worse, a monk on a boat vs a monk standing on ice covered land?
Both of them have a layer of water between them and the Earth, and that water is supporting their weight.
This is why the thread is weird.
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
Legendary. I get it. I’m sorry to be dismissive, but wandering into encounters and literally brow-beating opponents to death over and over as a commonplace method of overcoming challenges is not the stuff of legends. Not even the Irish sagas. Not on the daily. It’s...tabloid fodder.
Monsters having this power is the stuff of legends.
I am OK with the existence of this feat but I think it is not balanced correctly against spells.
I put 1 for wizard. Here is why.
There are too many graduations (What does 10 levels mean?) so I simplify it as "terrible, poor, OK, good, amazing". I felt it was worse than poor. It isn't utterly terrible but it certainly requires developer tuning.
The numeric values I could handle would be 1-5 which directly correspond to the 5 grades (terrible, poor, ok, good, amazing). Or I could use 2-4-6-8-10 or 1-3-5-7-9. My response therefore must be 1 or 2 and the GUI layout of this form made 1 easier.
Imagine the 30-50 feral hogs gun meme, but the hogs have a trebuchet.
If you want to get super detailed, weight and bulk are equally bad.
If I'm loading stuff like bedrolls, ration biscuits and a bit of water into a pack, it'll fill up long before I can't lift it. For this, bulk is a more useful measurement of what fits.
If I'm shoving in lots of metal, I'll lose the ability to lift the pack long before it's full. For this, weight is a more useful measurement.
Either system is bad. The only solution is to pick any, and stop caring, or track both weight and volume. This second idea is not what I signed up for. This isn't Mathfinder. Since I have to choose either weight or bulk, I'll pick bulk as it's easier to count. Numbers are hard, and I just want to smash monsters.
Yes, there is a connection. But if they can write by scratching on trees, they satify the requirement to pass down knowledge. That would still be a civilisation, even if we think it wasn't a very good one.
While it may be in the Core Rulebook, the switch to magical enhancement being necessary and mandatory to balance game play has not been messaged strongly or frequently enough considering how important it is - at least I didn't see or hear that anywhere.
What? Pathfinder has been like that since 1st edition some 10 years ago and the 3.5 D&D it came from was as well. Look in google for something called "the big six" which were standard magic items around which game balance was designed for D&D version 3.5 games.
The guidelines aren't that clear, but the core rule book does have "expected wealth" for characters at each level, which will give a guideline of what they should be carrying.
The new Gamemastery Guide (out now!) has an alternative balance system that removes the need for magic items, if you choose to go that way. You may enjoy it.
I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion, but it's kind of interesting how we're generally okay with Humans or Elves (and maybe orcs and hobgoblins) being both low and high level antagonists but things like Goblins and Kobolds are sort of mentally coded to be treated as trivial threats and make unsatisfying high level baddies.
2) 45 years of humans and elves as player character
3) Lack of a sane system to to advance monsters in the early rules.
James Jacobs wrote:
One of the trickiest things there is that kobolds skew low level and dragons skew high level. It makes it difficult, awkward, and sometimes impossible to do adventures where a worthy dragon is served by kobolds and not having one side of the play experience be lopsided.
What if the dragon is just kobold voltron?
Standard fantasy trope. You picked a weird hill to die on. Some positions just aren't defensible.
I tried to work out how to fireball a chair in the RAW and I failed.
Because that turns a spell like Sleep from a fairly weak spell into a TPK. Heck, even a critical success on a Grapple would be insta-death. Once you have rules for it, players will be dying left and right. Now that is not fun.
Sometimes it is fun, and we use dice for a reason. Not every TPK is a problem. Some groups are fine with them.
It's not insta-dead either. It's 3 actions and a fortitude save.
Fighters can't cast cantrips. Having that on a sword is OK.
The problem with these leader classes is that their mechanics can make them the default leader of the party unless they are very well designed.
I remember one which gave a formation bonus for being next to it and buffed the attack of any player who was hitting a specific target. Mechanically it was fine, but the whole group ended up following the warlord around and assisting on his target, which made a terrible play experience.
The 4E Warlord was a lot better designed. You only had to have the warlock in your line of sight and within a few squares to gain the bonus. However the problem still existed for it, though in a much less obscene way. Unfortunately it was part of a much larger problem that was 4E.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I think what armies are generally good for is conquering and holding territory, which is why high level characters bother building them. Your level 13+ characters aren't usually available to man an Outpost or walk a beat. And player characters are rarely the conquerers themselves.
Why governments aren't like that? Some of them are: cheliax has a high level sorcereress with a divine patron, and she can clap her hands to drop pit fiends on troublemakers. What about the ones that don't?
How do they keep order?
That is how the game system works. But if it worked like that in the lore, it would be a superhero setting not a fantasy one.
Hiring someone for FAQ/Errata probably isn't going to save as much work.
Most of the work is talking to the designers to determine their intent, and making sure that any changes you make do not affect the ability of a character to do what the designer wanted it to do. This needs the designer to be involved.
In this case, they could make a quick ruling for this one spell: enemies only/all. But that would have a knock-on effect with other spells, and other spells currently under development, that have similar wording. Was the occult caster also meant to be somewhat isolated? Bards are good urban solo infiltrators, and in combat might be flankers or back-rows, and occult sorcerors are childen of cthulhu raised by hag covens. They smell like fish and don't understand how personal space and tentacles interact.
I was just going to do this but you beat me to it.
I think most people here don't understand why this is such a great post.
20^9 is 512,000,000,000.
Each person alive on earth could make about 60 rolls of 9d20 and between all of the rolls, that combination will statistically arise just one time.
To prevent hoarding which disrupts the treasure balance between hoarders and non-hoarders and creates arguments over who should use their bomb. The items are only for that adventure and vanish afterwards ensuring a more balanced game.
Shield My Castle from Magic Shenanigans
Casting time 24 hours. 1 caster and 1,000 gp per level per 100 feet of perimeter. Duration 1 year.
Puts up a magic shield of the given level around the perimeter. Spells passing in either direction must roll to penetrate the barrier using the 10.5 table for DC by level. A dispel effect targeted at the barrier that penetrates its resistance reduces the barrier by 1 level.
During the ritual you can create a number of tokens that allow the bearer to cast though the barrier unhindered. These tokens last one year and can be permanent or consumable at your option.
Disclaimer 1: Completely untested rules.
Disclaimer 2: Magically augmented beings like liches may experence "minor discomfort" on encountering the barrier.
She was very female in 1E. In 2E gods and magic (the interior art, not the cover) the lines of her face have changed. I also believe it is intentional.
This does set up the potential situation where someone survives the final blade, which is gonna be really badass when it happens.
Unless the blade bounces off, it's likely that they resist the final effect and somehow regenerate or get raised. Alternative is the blade works and something else comes back in the body but pretends to be the old creature?
Saros Palanthios wrote:
Military units above a certain size should have some kind of vision and counterspell item the same way that police in a large city will. It's not possible for them to do their job otherwise. It probably isn't as good as your own wizard, but it should stop a few abuses.
The book could be wrong due to editing errors.
The developer could be wrong due to dev brain (remembering a playtest version of the rule) or he could be adjusting the game on the fly to tell a story.
The situation is unclear. I would accept either, but the RAW is that natties crit.
From their range, they would need to roll an 19 or a 20 to hit the soldiers. A 20 would knock that hit up into a crit and trigger the deadly trait. Not good! Of course, all of that becomes moot if the soldiers have shields and raise them, taking their AC up to 20. That means that the archers can only HIT the soldiers on a 20
Natties always crit on an attack roll. They're different from task checks.
CRB pg. 278 wrote:
When you make an attack and roll a natural 20 (the number on the die is 20), or if the result of your attack exceeds the target’s AC by 10, you achieve a critical success (also known as a critical hit).
As a specific rule for attacks, this over-rules the generic task check system.
1. It happened at Crecy and again at Agincourt. When used by the English using their tactics and training, the longbow really did do this. You can reduce the range a little if makes you happier, or you're assuming mainland European archers (They do not suck. Their army just did not do this so they were not trained for it).
2. In pathfinder you would still crit enough to hurt things. A GM might house-rule an additional flat DC check for extreme range fire vs point targets. Against a block of troops, things are different as that's an area target.
3. Battlefield mass combat is not "niche" to the fantasy setting of Pathfinder. It's fine that there is a gap in the game, because it is a game about small groups, but someone should be able to explain to me what wizards do nations go to war.
4. Agree, but we need to know how high volley fire arcs. The wall is only 30 feet high. I can tell you the answer for a machinegun, but not an English longbow.
I can’t see what you are getting at? If arrows are falling randomly onto a squad, the squad will still lose effectiveness. If the wizard runs ahead, the wizard will be targeted.
Range INCREMENT of 100 feet.
Iomedaen revisionist history and propaganda.
20 archers firing once are statistically going to roll one 20 and then you take 2d8 + 1d10.
You would not be level 1 for that due to CR, if we are assuming a “balanced” encounter.
So here you are in the Pathfinder re-enactment of Agincourt, under longbow volley fire from 200 meters (600 feet). Someone turns to you and says “you are a mighty wizard, can’t you just blow those archers up?”
At this range they are basically firing aoe mode aiming at the block of infantry and not individual targets. However, they were still effective.
What are your options?