Does anyone know how Pathfinder handles wielding large size weapons without the monkey grip feat? From reading Amiri, it sounds like she can only use her oversized (ie-large) weapon when shes raging. That would imply a minimum strength to wield? I don't have all the various books, so I wasn't sure if it was covered in one that I am missing...
Here's a general explanation that goes off of the concept of "hands."*
It requires a medium creature 1 hand to hold a light or normal melee weapon, 2 hand to hold a two-handed weapon.
When you make a weapon smaller, it reduces the amount of hands needed. 2 to 1, 1 to 1. Minimum of 1. :P
When you make a weapon larger, it increases the amount of hands needed, essentially. 1 to 2, 2 to 3. So, a medium creature can't use a large greatsword. It's too big.*
A small sized creature could use a longsword two-handed, but it'd be oversized for him, giving him a -2 penalty. He'd be much better using a small greatsword than two-handing a medium longsword, or dual-wielding a pair of small sized weapons. He also cannot use a medium greatsword-- he's too small. He doesn't have enough hands. But, he can use tiny or diminutive sized shortswords with no penalty.
A large creature can use a huge longsword two-handed, or he could dual-wield medium greatswords in his hands, but they'd be oversized for him, giving him a -2 penalty. He'd be much better off dual-wielding large longswords or two-handing a large greatsword. He also cannot use a huge sized greatsword-- he's too small. Not enough hands! But, he can use a medium or small sized shortswords with no penalty.
Amiri uses a short sword or bastard sword, which is a melee weapon that can be used one handed. It's a large bastard/short sword, so it requires two hands to wield, one up from the one hand it previously required as a medium weapon. Since it's oversized, she gets a -2 to wield it. She'd honestly be better off using a greatsword, but, hey, her decision. Amiri cannot use a large greatsword-- she's too small. She doesn't have enough hands.
*completely home explanation of this ability; a thri-keen could not use a large great sword ><
|
Rather then opposing the optimized player, figure out what they other characters are good at and give them their chance to shine.
This is spot on. And a great piece of advice.
Is the problem really the min/maxed basher or...
The other players making poor PCs because they don't understand the rules or think a Fighter should have Exotic WP, Weapon Focus and Dazzeling disply as feats and wondering why their STR12 DEX18 CHA14 fighter isn't really dishing the damage with his whip?
The GM running combat orientated encounters where the above PC is gimped and not GMing to the other PC's strengths?
To add to that, incoporeal undead wouldn't be touched by the bastard sword he wields while giving the cleric and paladin something to fight against.
Lol, wow. Let me clear up somethings for you sensitive folks.
1. So, a room or corridor or cave or whatever that The Barb can't swing his greatsword also means that ANY Large weapon of the hacky choppy crushy type can't be used. Halberds, 2 handed hammers yadda yadda...good guy bad guy. NO difference. Sorry, tactical situations are NOT picking on one character. And not every corridor, room cave or whatever is this way. Sorry you read that as every encounter. He still holds his own in these fights as he DOES carry smaller weapons understanding TACTICAL situations.
There wasn't a debate about putting the fighter into a situation he wasn't perfectly suited for.
There WAS an issue with incorporating ass-pull rules such as "swing arcs" garbage hanging from the ceiling getting in the way.
There's plenty of stuff already in the rules that can be used to shape the combat without specifically targetting the fighter with made up rules.
I am curious if there are PCs out there lets say a fighter, who does not carry several weapons.
With a melee PC (I like paladin, sue me)
I carry the following weapons
great axe
Big damage, slashingGreat flail, (different type of damage)
Composite short bow (ranged)
hand axe (for tight places)
And usually have quickdraw as a feat.....
So typically small places just mean I change weapons and possibly don a shield......
For martial characters I always carry multiple weapons. It depends on the the character but I always carry a main weapon, a backup for the main weapon (in case of disarm, sunder, etc). And then a ranged weapon (or a melee weapon if ranged is my primary), and an alternate damage type weapon (if my main is slashing, i pick a bludgeoning weapon, if my main is a bludgeoning I pick a slashing).
Lol, wow. Let me clear up somethings for you sensitive folks.
1. So, a room or corridor or cave or whatever that The Barb can't swing his greatsword also means that ANY Large weapon of the hacky choppy crushy type can't be used. Halberds, 2 handed hammers yadda yadda...good guy bad guy. NO difference. Sorry, tactical situations are NOT picking on one character. And not every corridor, room cave or whatever is this way. Sorry you read that as every encounter. He still holds his own in these fights as he DOES carry smaller weapons understanding TACTICAL situations.
There wasn't a debate about putting the fighter into a situation he wasn't perfectly suited for.
There WAS an issue with incorporating ass-pull rules such as "swing arcs" garbage hanging from the ceiling getting in the way.
There's plenty of stuff already in the rules that can be used to shape the combat without specifically targetting the fighter with made up rules.
Agreed, The tactical situations makes perfect sense to me, and often I try to do something similar to challenge my players. The rules about swinging arcs is complete nonsense.
Combat in dnd/pfrpg is abstracted for a reason. If the long swing of a great axe is a disadvantage in 'tight spaces' does that mean you are going to give it an advantage in open ground where it has a far greater reach? In dnd, you are at not direct disadvantage for fighting with a dagger when the other guy has a long sword. In real life that is not the case. Mr dagger weilder is in serious trouble. Do you incorporate rules for that? I doubt it. Its a nonsense rule that doesnt need to be added, and is targeting a specific group of weapons. That it the only part I disagreed with.
LOL...
and what happens when his potion isn't "enlarge"? it says it is... but... where did he buy it... "feeble and flunk's marvelous potions"?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny story about that.
A couple years ago, I was running "Red Hand of Doom", and the party was collecting dozens of potions from the hobgoblin soldiers they were fighting. (In the module-as-written, these were cure light wounds potions, but in this campaign I'd changed them to potions of "trollblood", which taste just awful, but which provide both lesser vigor and aid. They made for more interesting tactical decisions, since the bad guy mooks would actually try to quaff them if given time to do so.)
To keep track of these potions, I handed out poker chips with "trollblood" written on them. (Other potions were represented by poker chips, too.)
Well, much of the module addresses the bad-guy army eventually bringing its attention to the PCs and taking steps to deal with them. In this campaign, somebody in the opposing army got smart, and decided to set a trap for the squadron that was blowing up [redacted] and killing [redacted]. It prepared an unsuspected suicide squad of soldiers and sent them on a mission near the PC's location.
The next session, the PCs ran into yet another team of hobgoblins and killed them, took their masterwork weapons and potions of "trollblood," and moved on. But these poker chips had a band of yellow around the outer edge. And so I waited.
I didn't have to wait long. Two sessions later, the party stormed the [redacted]'s lair, and tussled with the Bluespawn Godslayer that I'd placed there in place of the Behir. It was going to be an ugly fight, but the PCs were prepared. They swigged their potions of "trollblood" and moved in. And two of the poker chips handed in had yellow bands on their edges.
So, the next round, I asked those two characters for Fortitude saving throws. Hilarity ensued.
Chris Mortika:
I imagine that the players just went "Same old potions" and moved on without really trying to identify them correct? It wasn't a case of "My PC is always suspicious and is going to fully identify everything we come across" and therefore didn't actually try to detect the (I assume) poison correct?
I say this just to clarify (I'm generally impressed with your DMing) and want to make sure others realize it wasn't just a "screw the players" move -- that if they had thought to simply scan over everything with say the detect poison cantrip they would have noticed the issue.
To Others:
See? This is why you are NEVER complacent with loot. ALWAYS full identify each item so that you don't end up like these adventurers with poisoned potions!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I imagine that the players just went "Same old potions" and moved on without really trying to identify them, correct?I want to make sure others realize that if they had thought to simply scan over everything with, say, the detect poison cantrip they would have noticed the issue.
You are correct.
You are correct.
I imagine that the players just went "Same old potions" and moved on without really trying to identify them, correct?I want to make sure others realize that if they had thought to simply scan over everything with, say, the detect poison cantrip they would have noticed the issue.
Interesting little mechanism there. The chips and cards and such are always great for tracking such things. As a dm sometimes its hard to realize your players are using such an item. Things like that are why my players have always been painfully paranoid (that and a couple premade dungeons that one of our dms ran us through that literally had a trap at every door, corner, turn and place of significance)
Chris Mortika:
I imagine that the players just went "Same old potions" and moved on without really trying to identify them correct? It wasn't a case of "My PC is always suspicious and is going to fully identify everything we come across" and therefore didn't actually try to detect the (I assume) poison correct?
I say this just to clarify (I'm generally impressed with your DMing) and want to make sure others realize it wasn't just a "screw the players" move -- that if they had thought to simply scan over everything with say the detect poison cantrip they would have noticed the issue.
To Others:
See? This is why you are NEVER complacent with loot. ALWAYS full identify each item so that you don't end up like these adventurers with poisoned potions!
If they find a potion in a dungeon and just drink up, they deserve what they get.
If they buy a potion in town and you go "LOL GUESS WHAT, IT'S POISON!" then you're being a bit of a douche of a DM. You can't honestly expect players to identify or check potions they've already bought unless you make that a common theme.
"We got thirty feet down the left corridor today. YAAAY!"
DM: Did you just make a loud noise?
"I mean, yaay."
Yea you laugh, but good lord. 2 players 'let' their characters die, so they could write up skill based characters to help the party rogue with his trap/secret door war of attritian.
Just to add my two cents on the original poster's quandary:
A GM's job is to make sure everyone has fun. That means provided opportunities for everyone to feel like the MVP. If your game is all about straight-up, get-in-his face combats, then I don't know why anyone would play a non-warrior class. As others have said, you shouldn't punish a warrior for being a good warrior. Would you take the cleric aside and have him remake his character if he was healing the other PCs too effectively? Would you make the Sorcerer re-roll if his spellcraft check was too high?
I'm running a game for three friends, two of whom are very into the roleplaying. The other loves the tactical challenge of D&D, and, predictably, he's playing a barbarian. This means I have to find ways to accommodate everyone, which really isn't that hard. When two PCs were having a roleplaying dinner party with local nobles, I drew up a quick set of boxing rules (different checks for different kind of strikes) and gave the barbarian a chance to participate in an exhibition match at a casino. Everyone had a good time that session, because everyone got to do something that they liked and were proficient at.
The GM's job isn't to nerf the barbarian (as long as he's following the rules). The GM's job is, as others have suggested, to provide other encounters that play to other PC strengths. How about an undead-heavy encounter for the Paladin and Cleric?
GMing is about more than consulting CR ratings and throwing monsters at PCs.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If they find a potion in a dungeon and just drink up, they deserve what they get.If they buy a potion in town and you go "LOL GUESS WHAT, IT'S POISON!" then you're being a bit of a douche of a DM. You can't honestly expect players to identify or check potions they've already bought unless you make that a common theme.
What? You don't stop to examine merchandise you buy in a strange town?
Actually, I agree with you, Professor, unless the group role-plays the potion purchase and the GM provides some reason to suspect the seller.
It's worth noting that the trap as I'd sprung it is almost impossible to write up on the level of a game designer or module writer. The "tell" (the yellow ring) relies on the campaign using particular prop conventions, and without that, I wouldn't consider it fair.
If they find a potion in a dungeon and just drink up, they deserve what they get.If they buy a potion in town and you go "LOL GUESS WHAT, IT'S POISON!" then you're being a bit of a douche of a DM. You can't honestly expect players to identify or check potions they've already bought unless you make that a common theme.
What? You don't stop to examine merchandise you buy in a strange town?
Actually, I agree with you, Professor, unless the group role-plays the potion purchase and the GM provides some reason to suspect the seller.
It's worth noting that the trap as I'd sprung it is almost impossible to write up on the level of a game designer or module writer. The "tell" (the yellow ring) relies on the campaign using particular prop conventions, and without that, I wouldn't consider it fair.
Unless the purchase is roleplayed, I think it's a fair assumption that the character in question isn't just blindly groping around a stores, slamming potions down on the counter, and buying them without ever once looking at the label.
Likewise, poisoning a character with a store bought potion only works if it actually IS a plot point. If it's not a plot point, or if Poisoner Bob just happens to have a twin brother in every town, then it's table flipping and sunglasses time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your Barbarian is using his mental stats as dump stats in order to gain a pure strength build, you may want to remind him to play his character as, not exactly slow, but maybe more redneck. Advise him to come up with ideas that his character will think is great, but may cause more plot to develop.
One of my favorite characters was one I played at an exhibition game at a small convention right after 3rd edition was released. I was playing a half-"ogre" barbarian. (Half-orc, but big, dumb, and ugly enough that it was an in-character running gag that he must be part ogre. Another running gag was that he had trouble remembering his name, since he always just called himself "me".)
He ended up with a Str of 19, and I gave him an int of 6. I kept doing things that would have gotten the other characters extremely angry, except that it always made the players bust out laughing in the process.
Example:
The group had finally gotten a pretty good haul of cash from an adventure, and I played it as though it was the most money "me" had ever seen. So, the group stops at the first small town they reach to buy supplies. While the others were going through the shops, the DM said there was a farmer driving his cattle to the market, so "me" asked him how much for a leg, and dug a small handful of coins out of his pouch (equivalent of a few gold). The farmer answered that for that much he'd sell the whole cow. My answer: Eyes widen and "me" says, "I can have the whole thing?" and hands over the whole money pouch and says "I'll take them all!"
Hilarity ensued as I had to try to make untrained Profession(Farmer) checks to try to drive the cattle towards an inn, and then grapple a cow to drag it inside to ask the inkeeper to cook it for him. (Ok, so the grapple wasn't strictly necessary, I was just trying out the new {at the time} rule.)
In the meantime, the other characters had talked to the mayor and gotten a quest to clear out a group of goblins in a nearby cave. However, the promise of payment turned into a threat of 'do it or end up in jail' when a constable told him what my character was currently up to. (They had already described our group to him so he would know who to pay.)
So, as we were being kicked out of town, "me" is driving his cattle down the road towards the cave/dungeon. Another round of uproarious laughter came about due to the conversation as to what I intended to do with the cattle:
"Me": They're my cows, I'm taking them with me.
Cleric: But you can't take them into the dungeon!
"Me": Sure I can. I yell, they run. They can run into cave.
Rogue: What if one falls in to a pit?
"Me": Mmm, roasting pit!
The DM was almost laughing too hard to do a facepalm.
(And really, folks, 7 or 8 isn't that low. It's 25th percentile. Out of 40 people waiting in line at the market, ten of them are going to be Intelligence 7 or below.)
Actually, thats incorrect. (RL basis has no relation to the society and world of pathfinder's "commoner" NPC types)
ALL Generic Pathfinder NPC's have a minimum of INT 8, based on the NPC array's found in the core rulebook. That means (excluding racial penalties to INT, which none of the core races suffer from), all generic commoners have only (at worst) a -1 modifier.
Given that most commoners/experts in the game prioritise INT, WIS and CHA however (because they have little to no need for STR, DEX, CON since they have no effect or bearing on Profession/Craft which is their bread and butter), anyone with INT less than 8 is not normal for the setting (doesnt make them unplayable, it should just impair their decision making and reasoning skills which are specifically called out in the decription of what INT is in the core rulebook, it should be something that is roleplayed)
Apart from characters, and DM's who create subpar INT NPC's, every other occupant in the campaign world of a civilised culture should be sitting with a minimum of INT 8 or better. (And typically, in 90% of cases or better, the INT will be 10 or superior to that).
|
If your Barbarian is using his mental stats as dump stats in order to gain a pure strength build, you may want to remind him to play his character as, not exactly slow, but maybe more redneck
Firstly, that's offensive, and secondly, that's backwards.
"redneck" is a negative stereotype that suggests both a lack of intelligence and a lack of education, among other negatives.
"slow" or "stupid" describes someone with low intelligence and wisdom, just like "weak" or "frail" describes someone with low strength and constitution.
If your Barbarian is using his mental stats as dump stats in order to gain a pure strength build, you may want to remind him to play his character as, not exactly slow, but maybe more redneckFirstly, that's offensive, and secondly, that's backwards.
"redneck" is a negative stereotype that suggests both a lack of intelligence and a lack of education, among other negatives.
"slow" or "stupid" describes someone with low intelligence and wisdom, just like "weak" or "frail" describes someone with low strength and constitution.
I live in arkansas and we do have rednecks in fact rednecks were our state bird for awhile.....
That being said the other terms you have submitted are in my regional experience OK as long as they are followed by the statement bless his/her heart....
For example...
Poor billy-bob he is as dumb as a box of rocks, bless his heart.
Poor Lucy she has loose morals and 6 bastards, bless her heart....
Hmm, people being offended by me using a self-descriptive. I just so happen to be a redneck farmboy from the middle of Missouri who went to college and became a Unix admin. Building a nice house on the south end of the farm with the good salary too. (Just sucks not being able to get good broadband out here.)
Best part of living in the country: Nobody questions large bonfires or explosions. Sometimes, it means the neighbors ask if they can come over.
If your Barbarian is using his mental stats as dump stats in order to gain a pure strength build, you may want to remind him to play his character as, not exactly slow, but maybe more redneckFirstly, that's offensive, and secondly, that's backwards.
"redneck" is a negative stereotype that suggests both a lack of intelligence and a lack of education, among other negatives.
"slow" or "stupid" describes someone with low intelligence and wisdom, just like "weak" or "frail" describes someone with low strength and constitution.
I live in arkansas and we do have rednecks in fact rednecks were our state bird for awhile.....
That being said the other terms you have submitted are in my regional experience OK as long as they are followed by the statement bless his/her heart....
For example...
Poor billy-bob he is as dumb as a box of rocks, bless his heart.
Poor Lucy she has loose morals and 6 bastards, bless her heart....Hmm, people being offended by me using a self-descriptive. I just so happen to be a redneck farmboy from the middle of Missouri who went to college and became a Unix admin. Building a nice house on the south end of the farm with the good salary too. (Just sucks not being able to get good broadband out here.)
Best part of living in the country: Nobody questions large bonfires or explosions. Sometimes, it means the neighbors ask if they can come over.
I love the country. And fire. And explosions. And guns. And four-wheelers. Did I mention I love the country. Bless his heart.
aaah. so i need 200 players in my game to get a good average?
Egads, I now live in fear of opening the thread and discovering that the poster is my GM, and *I* am the problem player. I begin to think he likes min-maxed bashing characters *best,* and finds subtlety to be something akin to uncooperativeness.
|
Egads, I now live in fear of opening the thread and discovering that the poster is my GM, and *I* am the problem player. I begin to think he likes min-maxed bashing characters *best,* and finds subtlety to be something akin to uncooperativeness.
Well if you play gnomes then you are a problem player. :p
Egads, I now live in fear of opening the thread and discovering that the poster is my GM, and *I* am the problem player. I begin to think he likes min-maxed bashing characters *best,* and finds subtlety to be something akin to uncooperativeness.Well if you play gnomes then you are a problem player. :p
Hee hee, I know, right?
I've actually only played one gnome. She *was* kind of a problem child, and she had the knives and the gnome hat to prove it. (My messageboard handle is what my GM would say to me every time I failed an attack roll or took a hit. 'But I'm just a gnooooome!' It's from some kind of game I don't even know).
Right now, however, I am a half-orc in trouble (apparently) because I can cast two first level spells, one of which is Grease. A spell which, I am informed, is FAR TOO POWERFUL!!!
|
|
Egads, I now live in fear of opening the thread and discovering that the poster is my GM, and *I* am the problem player. I begin to think he likes min-maxed bashing characters *best,* and finds subtlety to be something akin to uncooperativeness.Well if you play gnomes then you are a problem player. :pHee hee, I know, right?
I've actually only played one gnome. She *was* kind of a problem child, and she had the knives and the gnome hat to prove it. (My messageboard handle is what my GM would say to me every time I failed an attack roll or took a hit. 'But I'm just a gnooooome!' It's from some kind of game I don't even know).
Right now, however, I am a half-orc in trouble (apparently) because I can cast two first level spells, one of which is Grease. A spell which, I am informed, is FAR TOO POWERFUL!!!
Yeah I posted in our obscuring mist thread as well. :)