lakobie's page

74 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Its not a nerf its a misprint

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

I think if you want to be a giant Barbarian, and not invest in Dex, I'd recommend teaming up with a Champion to bring the divine retribution, or atleast make sure your healer is ready to help you out a lot.

Investing in dex doesnt do anything except relfex saves. Barbarians get medium armor all the way to Master and dex cap for medium is 1-2. Barbs generally have 2 less ac than fighter while raging, 3 less if Giant barb and thats only if the fighter is in heavy armor (its 1-2 in medium). Barbs also gain resitance to a few types of damage while raging, while fighters only get 1 resist based on the armor they wear

I highly doubt we'll see Paizo break their "Core Only" rule for iconics, so I'd put my money on the replacment iconic being a Goblin

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

I'm pretty confused by the skeleton pages.

It claims 'most skeletons have one of these abilities' (which seems rather extreme, to be honest). Yet none of them do. Should they just be assigned one for free without adjusting their level?

Skeleton Guards are 'Creature -1.' The rest are just Creature X. What does -1 mean in this context?

Why do skeletal giants have horns? Let alone agile horns with a bigger die type?

They are mindless [though the champion seems not to be, given the higher int score and languages, and lack of the mindless tag), but evil because they're about creation? What do skeletons create? Evilly create? Why is this evil at all?

The 'Creating Skeletons' side bar seems unfinished. Start with size, add strikes, speed or other shape related abilities and... that's it?
How are level, stats, skills, saves, AC and HP assigned? I'm assuming it would get the same laundry list of immunities and resistances, but that's extrapolation.

In Order:

-Yeah you just assign one of them. It allows GMs to make similar enemies with slightly varying abilities. You could choose to assign none of them, or even assign more than one (increasing the creatures level)

-It means they're 2 levels below a level 1 character for purpose of xp calculation for encounter building

-Its made from some large creature with a horn, or just has bone sticking out of its head. its a natural attack you could probably flavor it as a bone spike

-They arent about creation. They're made from Negative Energy which is a force of destruction. Using said force for reanimating things (creation) makes them vicious husks. This isnt new and has been the general theme of undead in pathfinder for years

-Its just guidelines, the proper monster creation rules are in the GMG. the Guidelines alone allow you to edit the base skeletons a bit

10 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Y'all can't roleplay in a setting that uses fantasy temperatures?

The F stands for Fantasy

In my experiance most groups tend to actually complete Adventure Paths, but said Adventure Paths generally never went to 20 in the past (like Starfinder where every AP ends at 13). IIRC the first AP of 2e is ment to go all the way to 20.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I dont know why people are morally opposed to buying backpacks. A party of 4 with 4 backpacks and nearly capped bulk has 16 bulk worth of storage space to work with, and again thats assuming every single party memeber is capped on regular carrying bulk. Also we dont know the final bulk numbers.

Curious as to what next weeks blog is gonna be even if its short. Im mostly waiting on seeing the equipment blogs (armor and weapons) hoping they give us some previews of anything thats been changed

1 person marked this as a favorite.

From what we've seen of PF2 monsters (from the bestiary previews) starting with 14 in str, for example, is viable. Prehaps not *optimal* but your character will function fine

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Id almost argue with rules being free online you *could* in theory run an AP with just the AP alone, using the online srd for refrence material

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I'm not sure why people get hung up on Champs being the "best" heavy armour users.

Because it’s not their theme, no more than saying Clerics were the masters of Medium armor or Rogues were the masters of Light Armor.

It was proficiencies they had access to, but it wasn’t what the class was built or themed around.

How many class feats does the Champion have for heavy armor, when those could be spent on actual Champion thematic feats? What about those of us who don’t want to use Heavy Armor?

Aside from my Vindictive Bastard none of my Paladins in 3rd and Pathfinder wore Heavy Armor.

Well Mark did say that classes with Heavy armor like Fighters and Champions wouldnt skimp on lighter armor proficencies.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:

@DMW - that's a reasonable counterpoint, although I do think that if done properly it would avoid being a 'feat tax' and would be more of a character choice, i.e. "do I as a Rogue spend valuable feats becoming better with my dagger or do I focus on doing Rogue stuff better."

In my view, having that as an option makes the game better (but I do realise this is subjective).

I dont think anyones suggested it yet, but the concept your looking for works if you actually start as Fighter and then multiclass into Rogue. You'll end up with a Fighters proficencies, but youll also get bonus skills and access to Rogue feats. Its pretty easy with how stat gen works to start 14str/18dex even as a fighter and you can focus on either Free Hand dueling or Two Weapon Fighting styles for more Rogueish flavor

Casper5632 wrote:

The main reason as it stands now is that being in melee puts you at extreme disadvantages in areas that involve a lot of cover. He has been running into situations where he takes a few free hits because he cant take any cover when trying to make melee attacks.

Energy shields are nice, but they arent available at nearly the strengths that would be required to just ignore cover.

I am considering giving him the 2 AC shield but I dont want to do that and then have him smash through encounters because he acts like he has partial cover 100% of the time.

The third party shields wouldent be too useful since they take a hand to equip and you need to burn your action to even benefit from the AC boost for total defense.

1. Starfinder math has you taking hits freaquently regardless of cover or not. After every 1 to 2 fights he should be taking a 10min rest and spending resolve to restore stamina.

2. He should be positioning in melee to get cover from enemy ranged attacks using the enemies hes engaged in melee with

3. Regarding your first post, powered armor makes a terrible frontline tank, it has less survivability than Heavy Armor

Im curious as to his build as well as his party members?

Cyrad wrote:
Butch A. wrote:
I actually don't want that errata. I think it fits the setting better that most people, fighting other people in futuristic armor, should be using WEAPONS, and not their fists.

There's plenty of good reasons why an unarmed combatant isn't out of place in a science fantasy setting.

Butch A. wrote:
Now, if they wish to produce a class, or even an archetype, which is some 'space monk' that fights dudes in power armor with his pinky finger, I would think that was AWESOME. But I don't personally want it to be available to every class with this one feat. I also wouldn't object to some Greater Unarmed Strike feat that did it.

Requiring another feat is completely unreasonable. In this game, any character can be good with a weapon using just two feats. You're suggesting a character needs two feats just to not have huge penalties in a weapon.

Even with Improved Unarmed Strike, unarmed strikes are still way behind the damage curve compared to comparable advanced melee weapons.

IUS is comparable to most Basic Melee weapons which is totally reasonable as its a weapon that requires 0 credits and doesnt need your hands free. Its a Basic weapon which means ALL classes so far get Specilization and proficency with it without spending feats.

Another feat isnt a bad idea. Greater Unarmed Strike which removes archaic and increases specilization damage by .5xlevel. This keeps Vesk Unarmed slightly up on everyone else but provides benifit to all races

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sliska Zafir wrote:

Reposition also has the same issue. Move them and you get to hit with an AoO.

My level 10 solarion with 22+ str and improved combat maneuver picks up that goblin and repositions it flying-airplane-style around and around next to all my advanced melee weapon-wielding friends, who each get to whack it for free...

Makes Solarian's Stellar Rush ludicrous. (Move, then charge, then bull rush, then explode for fire damage, then make an opportunity attack.) There isn't a better solo damage option available (if damage is your thing...)

[Crack!] That's the sound of bull rush and reposition breaking the game, and going OP.

This one had better get cleared up quick. Everyone please click FAQ on the first post in this thread...

Its FAR from gamebreaking as you are spending a feat, targeting KAC+4 to use the bull rush, AND using your only reaction for the round to pull off the whole manuver.

At higher levels pcs will also be able to roll to assist with more consitancy, hell classes with the Mercenary Theme only need to have 1 rank in all trained skills as they auto pass all aid another checks at level 12

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:

This is pretty annoying as it's impossible to have an unarmed combat character unless you're vesk.

I hoped unarmed combat would leave the shadow of Pathfinder, but it's actually gotten worse. Why would you ever take Improved Unarmed Strike? Not only does it fail to do what you absolutely need the feat to do (let your unarmed strikes deal lethal damage), but also you're infinitely better off taking Advanced Melee Weapon Proficiency feat and buying a pulse gauntlet. It's one of the weakest feats in the game.

It allows you to use melee attacks while your hands are full saving action economy since you dont need to put your gun away or change grips.

Also non leathal and leathal arent calculated seperatly in Starfinder like they were in pathfinder. They both deal damage and the non leathal vs leathal only comes into play for the final knockout/killing blow.

The REAL issue with Improved Unarmed is it doesnt remove the archaic property which is alright if you never fight people wearing armor (monster hunter style games) or are tavern brawling.

Behind a wall is Total Cover not Total Concealment.

But yeah RAW this works even on a full attack to ignore total concealment and is a p neat combo

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Three key points missed

1. Str is required to use heavy weapons. You need 12-14 str to use them

2. Str is the superior option for combat manuvers as the weapons with bonus properties only use Str

3. 13 str is needed for Heavy Armor proficency is you want to have solid AC at higher levels (heavy armor begins to outclass light armor in raw ac around level 6ish)

If you are going bombard you should really swap your dex and str as bombard is a ranged fighting style. If you wanna be melee go Blitz if you want balance go hit and run or Armored Storm, if you want range go bombard or sharpshooter.

The only reason your saves are so low is the low dex. Bombards have the highest save dc in the game on explosive weapons.

A human Operative who maxes int can at level 20 have 20 ranks in all skills. Its not optimal but it sure is silly

Id look again because its right there in every entry along side HP. Soldier is 7+con stamina per level, Technomancer is 5 +con per level ect

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In addition to mystic cure, health pots (i think it was serums of healing?) Only cure Hp as well.

In first contact there are two monsters that have abilities that trigger ONLY on HP damage not SP damage

Judging from this it looks like while they have only a couple things that interact with it, the reasons for it are there. Plus it allows them to add more abilites that interact with hp or sp specifically in the future

The save is based on dex not strength. They already posted an FAQ about this

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A level 1 soldier can succeed against a goblin with no bonuses on a 15.

With Improved Combat Maneuver they succeed on an 11. In addition, other penalties to ac and bonuses to attack improve your chance with Manuvers. Lets take a higher cr foe.

Against a CR4 monster with 18AC, a level 5 soldier succeeds on a 16. With improved they succeed on a 12. With +2 from flanking and the foe being flatfooted they succeed on an 8. Im failing to see the issue here.

IonutRO wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:
IonutRO wrote:

Small and medium creatures use the same weapon size.

You are correct; it is armor that has to be resized.

That still does not prove doshko volume. One cubic foot is more generous than some think, and certain doshkos could very well fit in that range.

Doshko are not foldable. You cant stick a 4 ft long pole in a 1 ft cube without breaking the pole and folding it.

The tactical doshoko I believe is shown in a picture folded

Yeah multiweapon fighting is starfinders "two weapon fighting" otherwise theres no benefit to holding two weapons other than not having to draw them if you need to swap

Ithnaar wrote:

Soldier Theme, level 6 ability is "Grunt"

"Treat your Strength as 1 higher when determining your bulk limit."

Seeing as bulk limit is determined by half your Strength (and you always round down), there is a 50/50 chance this ability has no effect.

Wondering if it is a holdover from Pathfinder, where every point of strength increased your carrying capacity.

Perhaps that 1 should be a 2.

Nope its specifically a benifit for people in power armor (the strongest of which sets your str to 29) with side benefits to players with low odd numbered str

Battery Charge managment is a non issue. Many enemies are going to be carrying spare battery packs (as well as the battery packs in any energy rifle or weapons as they come with one), theres an armor mod that restores charges to batteries by walking, and casters can recharge batteries for spells.

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
IonutRO wrote:
Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:
lakobie wrote:
The the book has an error as RAW you can stack them

You parsed that wrong, they meant

lakobie wrote:
"Then the book has an error, as (by) RAW you can stack them."

The book is the RAW though...

(or did they and you mean the book has an error in that it currently allows by RAW to do this?)

Yeah sorry for lack of puncuation. As it is written in the book you can only have 1 mk1 1 mk2 and 1 mk3. Each one gives an untyped bonus to a stat. However untyped bonuses stack and there is no clause that states your mk1 mk2 and mk3 can't be the same stat. Thus as per rules as written you can get a +12 to one stat (+6 +4 +2), while the entry feels as though RAI you cant do this (and the devs have previously stated you cannot) the entry still needs to be written more clearly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The the book has an error as RAW you can stack them

Solarions have a potentially higher save dc than casters so saying it isnt strong isnt really true.

Honestly the more I look at and get a feel for potential builds the more I feel Solarion really isnt that far behind other classes. Its a little weaker but far from needs a rework like Envoy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah the issue with Envoy is that Skill unlocks are very weak mechanically and at best situational. Like they arent even amazingly strong in social situations nevermind not being very useful in combat

I strongly feel that building BBEGs using the character creation rules will be highly effective as PCs are generally tougher than similarly leveled monsters thanks to the new monster rules. Since its probably a boss fight you can even slap some higher level gear on there both for loot and to make the boss hit harder.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Voss wrote:
Well, the former is very metagame (what is a 'more accurate sword?')

It's also already canon for the universe... We already know magic Can do that in the setting.

and the latter can be done without recalculating bonuses.
Not without it losing aspects of what it should grant. If a spell is meant to increase your strength, but it instead increases your damage with melee weapons for example as an abstraction. That means it isn't doing things increasing your strength should do, like allow you to carry heavier things for example. And if the spell does enhance everything that strength covers.... then it's no simpler than increasing the strength stat in the first place.

Are you.... suggesting that FLUFF be a determining factor in game balance because that is... TERRIBLE game design advice.

They changed the game balance and that includes what spells exist and how they work. The Starfinder system is similar but ulitmatly they are seperate d20 systems thus theres no need for things to work the same way, in fact striving to make improvments to the game and the flow of combat is a GOOD THING (being succesful at it is a seperate achievment but we wont know till CRB is out). Just because Starfinder takes place in the same universe as pathfinder Flavorwise should have ZERO impact on how things work mechanically

PC built rivals would act as great boss enemies. It might take a little tweaking of what gear and level to put them at but a Soldier a few levels higher than the party with a couple low level minions sounds like a fun encounter

Mashallah wrote:
lakobie wrote:
And of course in the end you dont even have to use the gap. Its a tool, and its up to you to use or not
The setting seems to be written entirely around it as a base assumption. To remove it from the setting, I'd have to rewrite half of it, at which point using a different setting is simpler.

I didnt say remove the gap I said not use it. The gap itself could be entirerly irrelevant to most games as little more than "that thing that happened". Aroden disappearing is important to pathfinders setting but is largely irrelevant to most campaigns people run.

Also you seem to have this weird idea that The Gap and Pathdfinder and Starfinder being the same universe are so interconnected that removing one removes the other. You can absolutly have Starfinder and Pathfinder be the same setting without The Gap existing and you can have Starfinder be its own setting with The Gap still existing as part of the setting.

In the end it feels like you have arbitrarily decided that The Gap was a last minuite slap on fix to connect PF and SF without stepping on toes instead of an interesting and thought out set piece for future stories and adventure paths to take place in and GMs to write their own tales about.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mashallah wrote:
Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

I'm down with the new continuity. It's basically just a nice blank slate for GM's to fill in space (hehehe) where they please and how they think the world might have changed from between Pathfinder and The Gap and the results of Starfinder.

** spoiler omitted **

It means previous writers don't have to stress out about what happens in the future, or stuff in the past influencing Starfinder too much, short of a planet wide extinction event, which is something most AP's only hint though don't really deliver on. And that's good enough to me, because that same stress isn't on any GM to have their lore or information match up with stuff in Pathfinder or consider how exactly the starsystem has changed in the spanning time. Again, it's a nice blank slate and one that I think the system needed for it's stories to work alongside Pathfinder's, while maintain some similar content or expanding upon information already present in Pathfinder that wouldn't have been touched on in Pathfinder (like some of the other planets in the Core star system).

I do wish the elves had a bigger presence given that they were the first colonisers of various planets, and would have loved to see what their opinions on galactic expansion would be like. I suppose it's down to what Forlorn are like in the new world.

Also, since there are half-orcs, and definitely goblins, that can only mean that there are orcs as well.

And that means....


(I hope there are hobgoblins and gnolls as well! space gnolls!)

Why even have this kind of pseudo-continuity instead of just saying "this is a completely independent and separate setting" without having to resort to very weird plot devices?

I mean the gap isnt needed to keep starfinder and pathfinder seperate you can just say starfinder takes place waaaaay further in the future to do that

Maybe the devs are a fan of the series Big O in which everyone lost their memory of events about 40 years ago which leads to a ton of interesting intrigue as people try to reclaim their lost memories

The Gap is in the end a tool players and devs can use to create interesting stories around. Do the players discover lost information somewhere in the drift? Do they run across someone who was alive during the gap whos desperatly trying to recover their memories? Do you find information that connects an individual to a powerful and wealthy legacy from pregap sociecty that (due to the gap) they were unaware of?

And of course in the end you dont even have to use the gap. Its a tool, and its up to you to use or not

Mashallah wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
Mashallah wrote:

Honestly, the 4e FR transition felt like less of an offender. The spellplague at least attempted to explain why things changed the way they changed, while being necessary to explain the mechanical departures.

Here, they just took the laziest writing trope in the world (amnesia) and applied it on a galactic scale, while breaking a lot of what made the setting good in the first place without any explanation other than "noone remembers what happened". Voila.

Probably the reason it doesn't bother me so much about the way they twisted and change Golarion... is that we still have Golarion. Starfinder and Pathfinder are both still here and may or may not have anything to do with one another... and if you don't like Starfinder, than you can keep going with the pathfinder you DO know and love.

That's the biggest difference with this and 4E. WOTC gutted the Realms and canceled everything to do with the tradional realms and even shot their novel line 100 years in the future and left everything else out in the cold.

Had 4E Realms been released like their Arcane Age Nethril/Cormanthyr settings as alternate timelines to play in while the 'real' timeline progressed naturally... I don't think there would have been the kickback that it got. Instead they flushed everything and started over from scratch. That at least is one thing that I think Paizo did right here. A new setting that isn't carved in stone as 'Golarion's one and only future'

Except the only justification they ever provided for the Gap is that Starfinder is the canon future of Pathfinder and they didn't want to provide canon answers to some questions as part of that.

Regardless, it doesn't even matter.
What matters is that Starfinder feels horribly unimaginative, lazy, and poorly thought-out while gutting all of the interesting setting elements.

Im incredibly curious, what about pathfinders setting is so riviting and interesting compared to starfinders, specifically speaking only from the original core rule book.

Personally the Gap and Drift are both incredibly interesting story elements to me. The Gap is interesting due to the fact that the gods refuse to talk about means either theyre bound to silence or they themselves do not know. What could possibly wipe out all knowledge like that. Hell the gap could have been the result of a reality wide backlash, an unintended consequence of whatever happened to Golarion.

The Drift is interesting for several reasons, was it made by Triune or discovered by Triune? Does the drift hold some future purpose or is it more like the malestorm? How do the gods feel about the drift? We know the new god of magic views technology as something for casua... er something inferior to magic due to magics complexity (or percived complexity), must be pretty frustrating that the drift (which is magical in nature) is only accesable through technology!

The only thing that annoys me about that point buy is stat cap is 28 (+9 mod) and not 30 (+10 mod which is a much nicer number)

Aratrok wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

They are one or two rp cost for the ones listed. The only two point cost is to double the duration of a one point cost, but there is plenty of design space for other creatures to have higher costs.

I will say that the necrovite has multiple spells known in addition to its resolve powered teleport that are user per day. It has 3 fifth level spells per day, 4 fourth level spells per day and at will third level spells per day.

Monster casters do not need to follow pcs rules.

It's a huge positive for the setting if they do, though. It's a little stupid if a 13th level PC mystic can cast remove disease 5 times per day, but a 13th level NPC can arbitrarily cast it an infinite number of times.

I mean monster/npc creation simplification is based on the idea that the pcs are going to only be interacting with them in a combat setting for a short period of time (as in theyll be dead soon) so if you really need to have an npc or monster stick around your totally free to put player limitations on them (like limiting spells per day or dividing hp in half to seperate hp and sp or even just building an npc like a pc)

Zaister wrote:
IonutRO wrote:
Species with only 2 HP still get the same Stamina as other members of the same class, though.
So far we haven't seen any indication that monster have stamina points at all.

Monsters are not built with the same mechanics as player characters. A goblin player character has a racial hp of 2 but still gets stamina, but a goblin monster doesnt get stamina and runs off different rules.

CKent83 wrote:
Ashanderai wrote:
his exocortex game him some sort of targeting focus/bonus to hit type of ability, too.
So Master Chief was a multi classed Mechanic/Soldier?

Master Chief was a Gestalt solider/mechanic

Its entierly possible that im wrong but judging off the 4 pregen sheets that weve seen it looks like resolve is 3+con mod + 1 every 4 levels

Envoy has 3 with 0 con mod
Soldier lvl 1 has 4 with +1 con mod
Soldier lvl 5 has 6 with +2 con mod
Mystic is written over but im it looks like 4 with +1 con mod

On a vaugely related note if the lvl 1 and lvl 5 soldier use the same point buy, its likely that the way character stats scale has been altered as well. Soldier lvl 5 has +2 str +2 dex +2 con and +2 int vs its lvl 1 pregen

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Maybe . . . but I don't like tying the quest for justice to religion.

So bounty hunter then...

Not really -- for instance, assuming that the Bounty Hunter bonus stays on Strength, that doesn't reflect most lawyers and civil rights activists; and while lawyers and especially civil rights activists certainly have priests among their numbers, some of their numbers (especially lawyers) are most definitely not priests, and a decent subset of these do not have any philosophy of faith equivalent to religion.

Priest, Bounty Hunter, Scholar, Spacefarer and even Xenoseeker work for the character you suggested but since your not being specific and there are so many ways to inturpert "justice seeker" (are you judge dred? Batman? Phoniex Wright?) Its hard to pin down

I fail to see how the fact that weapon focus grapple and weapon focus unarmed are separate have any relevancy to the question.

When you make a combat maneuver you add any bonuses to you regular attack roll to the check and your CMB is used in place of your BAB. Unless grapple has its own special rules in comparison to other combat maneuvers for this specific scenario Weapon Focus (Unarmed) applies to grapples so long as you are not using a weapon (like a whip) for the grapple.

Is it a typo? Because yeah I was just looking at it and its really pointless.

Remnar wrote:
redward wrote:

I believe the Blessings got some minor tweaks, Sacred Weapon is still rounds, but they did remove Charisma from the class entirely.

Hmm, doesn't sound promising. That's too bad, I really liked the Warpriest's idea(sounded like my ideal class) but swift buffs aren't probably enough to make me want to stick with a martial 3/4 BAB class. Probably just stick with battle oracles at that point.

Now the Skald still interests me.

Wait it doesnt get full bab while wielding its sacred weapon anymore? Does the class at least get proficency with its diety's chosen weapon

Detect Magic wrote:
Subtle threats are intimidating, too, but a hulking madman is no less intimidating as a consequence. Leatherface, from Texas Chainsaw Massacre, probably had a low Charisma score, but when he's whirling a chainsaw around and cutting your friends apart, he's pretty damned intimidating.

Intimidate is based off level as well. A level 20 barbarian with max intimidate ranks and a charisma of 8 can still easily intimidate a lvl 1 commoner. This is ignoring feats class abilities and racial bonuses as well.

Also its debatable that those guys have low charisma. Force of personality can mean a lot more than a charming fellow (see most undead)

Detect Magic wrote:

Horses are largely domesticated, so that's a bad example. Bears are not. Bears can kill you, and most people are going to s$#% bricks if they encounter a bear.

People access threats as they arise. There are a lot of factors that go into these determinations, but the most important one is this: is my life in danger?

If a guy with an axe (Mongo) knocks your door down (sunder/Strength check), you're likely going to be intimidated, especially if he's huge and doesn't seem to have even broken a sweat (high Strength score) and has expressed his intent to harm you (an Intimidate check).

See this a difference of rollplay vs roleplay. If you succede the check to break the door but roll low on intimidate its more like you haphazardly walk in and give a kind of meek "yarrg". Thats rollplay where your the result of your actions are based purely on numbers.

For roleplay if you did the same thing the dm could rule that the person is simply shaken due to mongos dynamic entry regardless of roll number (especially if mongo didnt put points in intimidate)

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>