|
Only thing missing (pun intended) from the new and improved mirror image is if you can cleave through them.
swing *pop* cleave *pop* cleave *pop* cleave *thunk* Found him!
I would say, no.
"...can make an attack against a foe that is adjacent to the first and within reach..."
I would interpret the bolded words to imply that the second target must be in an adjacent square. The wording of mirror image clearly states that all the images are in the caster's square.
Only thing missing (pun intended) from the new and improved mirror image is if you can cleave through them.
swing *pop* cleave *pop* cleave *pop* cleave *thunk* Found him!
I would say, no.
"...can make an attack against a foe that is adjacent to the first and within reach..."
I would interpret the bolded words to imply that the second target must be in an adjacent square. The wording of mirror image clearly states that all the images are in the caster's square.
I would say, no... to your logic.
Sorry, adjacent to does not mean 'in the next 5 foot square', it means 'adjacent to', as in, to the left or right of. Otherwise, Tiny or smaller creatures could never be cleaved (as multiple can occupy a 5 foot square). Your logic has 4 pixies in the same square being immune to cleave.
EDIT: Heh, Tholas beat me to the punch. But Tholas, I disagree. They are images 'next to you' in the square, each is a duplicate of you, that is the point, they are all valid targets (which is why it's hard to hit the original). If you hit target A, with cleave, you get to attack target b. In this case, target A is an image. I'd even rule that if you hit the sorcerer on the first try, you still get to cleave into an image, to reduce them by one for next time.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Only thing missing (pun intended) from the new and improved mirror image is if you can cleave through them.
swing *pop* cleave *pop* cleave *pop* cleave *thunk* Found him!
I would say, no.
"...can make an attack against a foe that is adjacent to the first and within reach..."
I would interpret the bolded words to imply that the second target must be in an adjacent square. The wording of mirror image clearly states that all the images are in the caster's square.
I understand. But it doesn't automatically mean 'adjacent square' since a wizard's familiar is adjacent to him, and often in the same square.
Besides, Cleave is two feats in, three for great cleave. I'd like that combo to be able to defeat one spell. *pop*
So my fears are now confirmed.
Spellcasters are awesome, get cool options and toys in Pathfinder.
Fighters get to swing a sword and basically suck.
Oh well, I had hopes that the promises of a 'fixed' 3.5 would be true...not just a pipe dream.
Good day Paizo, I wish you luck.
You'll need it if you're assuming that the vocal minority here on your own site are going to keep you afloat. Somehow I don't see those 10,000 downloads of the free playtest being repeated when you ask us to pay money for lukewarm 3.x with all the same problems as before.
Fear is a terrible thing and having it confirmed must be...
I don't think that you should be too unhappy 'bout the fighter, as you can do a lot of cool stuff with the Feats. I've a fighter in my gaming group, admittedly only lvl. 5, but so far it's far from boring...
Try it - it's fun (IMO)
GRU
Ultimately it's a GM decision but for the sake of rules lawyering. ;-)
Yup, I'm totally allowing cleave to bust open mirror image!
Only thing missing (pun intended) from the new and improved mirror image is if you can cleave through them.
swing *pop* cleave *pop* cleave *pop* cleave *thunk* Found him!
I would say, no.
"...can make an attack against a foe that is adjacent to the first and within reach..."
I would interpret the bolded words to imply that the second target must be in an adjacent square. The wording of mirror image clearly states that all the images are in the caster's square.
That's just silly.
Two adjacent things don't have to be in adjacent squares.
My left eyebrow is adjacent to my right eyebrow - but unless I very carefully straddle the exact imaginary line of the imaginary squares on the floor, my two eyebrows are almost never in adjacent 5' squares.
The wording of Cleave does not say the second target must be in a different square than the first target, so interpreting something that is not there is just silly.
As has already been said, two small creatures can occupy a 5' square, 4 tiny creatures, etc. - your interpretation would obviate any ability to cleave them.
****************************************************************
That said, Cleave is a silly and gamist feat to begin with.
I can hit Fred in the leg with my sword, then use Cleave to hit Bob in the leg as long as Bob is adjacent. But, for some reason, I cannot hit Fred in the leg then use Cleave to hit Fred in his other leg.
And how exactly do I Cleave with a mace. For a mace to do real damage, it must firmly impact the target. It doesn't pass through the target the way a blade might pass through. And if just the tip of the mace glances across the target's belly, allowing me to pass the mace on to Cleave a second target, the first target didn't really get hurt because there was no firm impact. And don't say it bounces - not even a rubber mace will bounce off the belly of one orc hard enough to hurt an adjacent orc.
Not that I object to using Cleave as written. Some game mechanics are cool enough, or useful enough, to overlook their silly gamist nature.
****************************************************************
And while I'm at it, Mirror Image is silly too.
Fred: I pop Mirror Image and now there are 8 of me in this square. Take that, you mean old bugbear!
Bugbear: I swing my greatsword horizontally, at about Fred's bellybutton level (too high for Fred to jump over, to low to duck under), passing through Fred and all 8 of his images - how many of them pop before my sword hits Fred?
DM: Nope, you can't do that, you have to pick just one image and swing at it and hope you picked Fred.
Bugbear: You mean I *must* overhand chop, even though it's tactically stupid? I cannot simply whip this huge 5' blade through that 5' square and guarantee a hit?
DM: Uh, the, um, uh, magic of the Mirror Image compels you to attack Fred with a vertical downward chop thta can only hit image (or Fred) but has no chance of hitting two images.
Bugbear: Fine, I roll a WILL save against that compulsion.
DM: Nope, no save. The spell is on Fred, not you, so there is no save.
Bugbear: But the compulsion is on ME!
DM: Uh, well, fine then. There is no compulsion, but now you've wasted so much of your round arguing, well, talking to yourself since I'm the DM and hence don't actually exist for you to talk to, that if you try to change from an overhand chop to a horizontal sweep, you won't get to attack this round at all - no time left.
Bugbear: I never started an overhand chop to behin with!
DM: You're out of time. Next!
For what it's worth, I allow anyone with Cleave to use itagainst the images.
If the first attack hits an image, roll a second attack (Cleave) which might hit the mage or might hit a second image (if it doesn't miss).
If the first attack hits the mage, roll a second attack, but it can only hit an image (if it doesn't miss).
What I don't allow is hitting the mage twice, since Cleave cannot normally do this. While it may be arguable that with all those images, the fighter might hit the mage twice, I don't want Mirror Image to become a possible death sentence for mages.
Besides, it's easily justified that the fighter picks two images before his attack, then attacks the one and cleaves the other.
And yes, this means that by the time a fighter has two iterative attacks, he could potentially hit 4 images (two of which might be the mage - one per iterative attack).
But I don't mind that a 6th level fighter can tear apart a 2nd level spell in just a few rounds, if he has nothing better to do (like defend himself against all the mage's friends).
Fighter6 vs. Mage6, one on one, no 2nd level spell should give the mage potentially 5 or 6 rounds of damage immunity (yeah, with luck, the fighter might get a fewhits in there, so that might not be 5 or 6 consecutive rounds, but by the time all the 5 or 6 images are gone, however many rounds that really takes, that was damage immunity in 5 or 6 of those rounds).
So if that fighter has Cleave (not all do, but most get it fairly early on), then he should be able to use it to limit the number of rounds that mage gets immunity from all damage.
Seems fair to me.
|
While I am a fan of most changes...I am very disappointed by the change to Dispel Magic. My group just went up against
Why is this spell still 3rd level then? With the ability to only dispel a *single* spell, I can't see it worth anything more than a 2nd level spell slot.
The one thing that has me confused, and maybe I'm just missing something, is how does she get DR? I don't see anything at first or second glance that would grant her that.
She pre-cast Stoneskin.
Somehow I don't see those 10,000 downloads of the free playtest being repeated ...
Considering we're at over 50,000 unique downloads and still seeing new downloads every hour of every day, I think we'll do just fine.
Staff recharge sounds great, I'm just wondering if it'll make staffs a must.From my experience it won't make staffs a must, but it actually makes them useful. Before they were terribly expensive for a non rechargeable item.
Agreed. I'd like to see staffs become as valid and expected in a wizard's arsenal as wands, but IME that isn't the case now.
|
Somehow I don't see those 10,000 downloads of the free playtest being repeated ...Considering we're at over 50,000 unique downloads and still seeing new downloads every hour of every day, I think we'll do just fine.
I'd say, looking at Pete's history, that he wasn't going to buy regardless of what changes were made. That's just my opinion though.
While I am a fan of most changes...I am very disappointed by the change to Dispel Magic. My group just went up against ** spoiler omitted ** last night, and without Dispel Magic (one casting each by the wizard and cleric) to strip her of 4 or 5 of her buffs, the fight would have been impossible, and probably even more of a TPK.
Why is this spell still 3rd level then? With the ability to only dispel a *single* spell, I can't see it worth anything more than a 2nd level spell slot.
True about the level thing, then again just dropping peoples spell is a powerful ability.
Anyway, I'm going with the limited number of spells active optional rule in the beta, that makes dispelling more powerful, so for me it balances out, and helps further lessen time-wasting awkwardness.
I love how staves ended up.
I know there was talk at one point about limiting the number of "buffs" that can be on a target, but flipping through the beta, I don't see it. Am I just missing it?
Director of Games
|
Well, they kept Spellcraft (ugh) and didn't reinstate Concentration. Looks like I'll have to house rule the skill list right out of the gate. *sigh*
After all the people arguing against the Spellcraft replacement of Concentration, I am very disappointed to see that it stuck around. Not surprised, because Jason seemed to have a serious mad-on for it, but disappointed nonetheless. Wizards are now better at casting in melee than clerics, who are more likely to need to.
Might I recommend that you hold off judgement until we get to the Wizard playtest. Things are not as they appear.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
Director of Games
|
I love how staves ended up.
I know there was talk at one point about limiting the number of "buffs" that can be on a target, but flipping through the beta, I don't see it. Am I just missing it?
It was an optional rule in one of the Alphas and it was brought up a few times in the Beta playtest. It is not part of the final rules, but would make for a fine house rule, if you so desire. We learned that it was way too damaging to compatibility to make this change.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I love how staves ended up.
I know there was talk at one point about limiting the number of "buffs" that can be on a target, but flipping through the beta, I don't see it. Am I just missing it?
...We learned that it was way to damaging to compatibility to make this change.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well, in that case, you made the right call (imho). Thanks for the info.
I love how staves ended up.
I know there was talk at one point about limiting the number of "buffs" that can be on a target, but flipping through the beta, I don't see it. Am I just missing it?
It was an optional rule in one of the Alphas and it was brought up a few times in the Beta playtest. It is not part of the final rules, but would make for a fine house rule, if you so desire. We learned that it was way to damaging to compatibility to make this change.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Darn, I understand that though. I may houserule it, I'll see, we don't typically play high enough level for it to be a major issue.
Looking good, looking familiar to 3.5 players, with all those Beta flavors massaged and tweaked for pure gameplay improvement. I can say that Seoni's explanation felt a little more useful than Valeros'.
Good job!
You know what?
I owe Paizo an apology for my uncalled for hostility. I shouldn't have posted in the way I did.
I am dissapointed that Pathfinder isn't going to be the game I hoped it would, but so long as it provides fun for it's fans, then it's done the job.
TTFN.
You know what?
I owe Paizo an apology for my uncalled for hostility. I shouldn't have posted in the way I did.
I am dissapointed that Pathfinder isn't going to be the game I hoped it would, but so long as it provides fun for it's fans, then it's done the job.
TTFN.
Not to speak for Paizo, but this post shows much more maturity. Kudos to you for coming back and saying this.
We all have different preferences, so obviously no game is going to satisfy everybody. I hope you find a game that fits your preferences! :)
I love how staves ended up.
I know there was talk at one point about limiting the number of "buffs" that can be on a target, but flipping through the beta, I don't see it. Am I just missing it?
It was an optional rule in one of the Alphas and it was brought up a few times in the Beta playtest. It is not part of the final rules, but would make for a fine house rule, if you so desire. We learned that it was way too damaging to compatibility to make this change.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I am glad that rule didn't make it. I really don't like arbitrary limits of that nature and the compatibility issue is there too.
You know what?
I owe Paizo an apology for my uncalled for hostility. I shouldn't have posted in the way I did.
I am dissapointed that Pathfinder isn't going to be the game I hoped it would, but so long as it provides fun for it's fans, then it's done the job.
TTFN.
Well said. I think Paizo has been pretty clear all along that if only (a) radical changes or (b) no changes at all will make you happy with the game, then Pathfinder may not be the game for you. And that's fine, of course.
I love how staves ended up.
I know there was talk at one point about limiting the number of "buffs" that can be on a target, but flipping through the beta, I don't see it. Am I just missing it?
It was an optional rule in one of the Alphas and it was brought up a few times in the Beta playtest. It is not part of the final rules, but would make for a fine house rule, if you so desire. We learned that it was way too damaging to compatibility to make this change.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
You've come up with plenty of great houserules that haven't made the cut for the RPG (like this rule, racial hit points, new domains, etc.).
Do you have plans to produce a "house rules" supplement to the RPG, like Book of Experimental Might? If Paizo isn't planning to do so, I imagine this is probably something that someone would jump on with the Pathfinder RPG game license.
|
Well said. I think Paizo has been pretty clear all along that if only (a) radical changes or (b) no changes at all will make you happy with the game, then Pathfinder may not be the game for you. And that's fine, of course.You know what?
I owe Paizo an apology for my uncalled for hostility. I shouldn't have posted in the way I did.
I am dissapointed that Pathfinder isn't going to be the game I hoped it would, but so long as it provides fun for it's fans, then it's done the job.
TTFN.
Also, let's remember that we haven't seen all the changes, just some statblocks... Perhaps there are some changes to how things (casting, attacks) work on a fundamental level. Maybe. Let's wait and see.
I like what I see so far and most of the items that caused me a little confusion were cleared up by previous posters, so thanks to all of ya'll. However, Seoni's ray attack bonus seems off. If it is still adjusted for Dex, shouldn't it be +7 (base +5, Dex +2) and not +6?
|
|
You know what?
I owe Paizo an apology for my uncalled for hostility. I shouldn't have posted in the way I did.
I am dissapointed that Pathfinder isn't going to be the game I hoped it would, but so long as it provides fun for it's fans, then it's done the job.
TTFN.
I also apologize for any hostility on my part. You have every right to express your opinion and I should not have made light of it.
I also apologize for any hostility on my part. You have every right to express your opinion and I should not have made light of it.
Nah, I was an arse and you called me on it.
No worries. As to Pathfinder? Whether I love or loathe the actual game, there's still Golarion and the Chronicles for me to steal stuff from. :)
I like what I see so far and most of the items that caused me a little confusion were cleared up by previous posters, so thanks to all of ya'll. However, Seoni's ray attack bonus seems off. If it is still adjusted for Dex, shouldn't it be +7 (base +5, Dex +2) and not +6?
I see it as +7 in her stat block, which seems right to me (and to you, evidently).
Not sure where you're seeing it as a 6. Did they get it wrong at first, and then fix it between the time you looked and the time I looked?
Edit:
I just found this up the thread a ways, about an hour and 40 minutes old at the time I am posting now.
Eschew Materials was left out of her feat list as a mistake. In addition, the CMD and ray attack bonus were off by 1. These have been corrected.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
Yes because being able to now move at full speed, charging is now worth it, various maneuvers in combat, able to avoid being grappled (CMD 34) able to finally catch Seonic (her CMD is only 20) and keep her from casting, (assuming casting while grappled is something like opponent's CMB + spell level, Dim Dooring away is going to be a 60/40 shot) is so limited *rolls eyes*
that is why we approve Seoni's built as an iconic... we are thinking they created her for a peril campaign :D
You know what?
I owe Paizo an apology for my uncalled for hostility. I shouldn't have posted in the way I did.
I am dissapointed that Pathfinder isn't going to be the game I hoped it would, but so long as it provides fun for it's fans, then it's done the job.
TTFN.
Thanks Pete :) You're a good guy.
As for foe Mirror Image and Cleave, I would rule no. The image is a magical effect, not a foe. Especially since it's an illusion spell and not a conjuration spell. Mirror Image is not a foe, just a magical illusion of the foe.
Otherwise you might as well rule hitting a wizard you could then cleave his rod (or ioun stone). The rod (or stone) being anothoer foe. Or hitting the fighter you could then cleave and hit his animated shield.
..but that's just my opinion.
DM: Uh, well, fine then. There is no compulsion, but now you've wasted so much of your round arguing, well, talking to yourself since I'm the DM and hence don't actually exist for you to talk to, that if you try to change from an overhand chop to a horizontal sweep, you won't get to attack this round at all - no time left.
Bugbear: I never started an overhand chop to behin with!
DM: You're out of time. Next!
Now this is just silly. Arguing with your monsters and penalizing them is just asking for the heroes to win, and that's just wrong. -.-
You'll need it if you're assuming that the vocal minority here on your own site are going to keep you afloat.
Well, I'm going to do my part to help them get over the terrible loss of your custom.
Therefore mirror image is just a stupid spell, it cannot give someone more than 50% miss-chance. Since its better to close your eyes and swing than to keep them open and aim.
Except, you know, rogues might be around just waiting for you to do that.
A 50% miss chance is Displacement, a 3rd level spell. Since mirror image is 2nd level, I'm fine with foes penalizing themselves into a higher level spell.
While I am a fan of most changes...I am very disappointed by the change to Dispel Magic. My group just went up against ** spoiler omitted ** last night, and without Dispel Magic (one casting each by the wizard and cleric) to strip her of 4 or 5 of her buffs, the fight would have been impossible, and probably even more of a TPK.
Yeah, that fight really is the yardstick for all playtests ;-P
Why is this spell still 3rd level then? With the ability to only dispel a *single* spell, I can't see it worth anything more than a 2nd level spell slot.
You do get to choose the spell. I think that is worth something.
Somehow I don't see those 10,000 downloads of the free playtest being repeated ...Considering we're at over 50,000 unique downloads and still seeing new downloads every hour of every day, I think we'll do just fine.
I know it's hard, and you're in denial, but we're all there for you guys. Together, we'll get through those hard times.
Now, help me help you - give us more previews. I know it might not sound like it would help you right now, but trust me, I'm looking at the big picture.
Or anything, whatever - just preview the bard already! ;-)
As for foe Mirror Image and Cleave, I would rule no. The image is a magical effect, not a foe.
Sure look slike a foe from here. I'm no magophobe. I'll kill everything regardless of its status. Excuse me while I take a huge swing at the quintuplet sorceresses.
In fact, this works even better for cleave - less resistance as you go through mirror images.
You know what?
I owe Paizo an apology for my uncalled for hostility. I shouldn't have posted in the way I did.
I am dissapointed that Pathfinder isn't going to be the game I hoped it would, but so long as it provides fun for it's fans, then it's done the job.
TTFN.
Sure makes me regret replying before I read the whole thread.
Anyway, fighters will be fighters. They fight. In my opinion, PF so far has done a great job of letting them do that.
But they won't get any spells. Not even spells that are thinly disguised as something else.
