|
And don't even goddamn start with the complaints about realism. D&D is not and has never been a "realistic" or "simulationist" game - these are just tags meant to imply that fighters aren't allowed to portray literary or historical heroes. It's nerd idiocy at it's worse, I think: the smart intelligent nerdy wizard is allowed to become a big powerful shaper of the world, while the dumb jock fighter is fit only to be a slave and bodyguard.
No.
Look throughout history and mythology - fighters are heroes, champions of battle and war, and in most cases, the protagonist. Wizards are just quest givers. Martial classes aren't level 1 guardsmen, they're the things legends are written of. Hell, let's quote directly from the 2e book as to what examples we see from fighters:
"There are many famous fighters from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded with great generals and warriors: El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius."
Those weren't simple infantry. These were great and powerful heroes. "Realism" is ninety nine times out of a hundred just a label used to say: "I want wizard supremacy."
Screw that. Bring on the awesome.
+5 Post of Awesome!
But there's nothing to stop DM's tweaking encounters to suit their group. I don't think it even counts as Rule 0.
I've actually help my Kingmaker DM make a "Father of Them All" dweomercat. He let me help because he knew I'd enjoy seeing it rip the party to shreds as much as killing it. So tweak away DMs of the Gaming World!
|
I will make this short.
I've started to read the APG and I'm slowly getting a bit worried.
Some of the stuff really seem broken.
Point-Blank Master is too good and really breaks the game and game tactics. It's the same as giving spellcasters Improved Combat Casting.
Improved Combat Casting
Benefit: You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when casting spells or use spell-like abilities.Is this just bad or really bad?
I could see Point-Blank Master being acceptable if it was usable 3 times per day or something, but always on? This need to be fixed.
** spoiler omitted **
And if I got it right Shadow Strike + Greater Blind-Fight makes it possible to sneak attack invisible creatures.
I am playing a Ranger with the Archery style. I took a look at Point-Blank Master. I do not plan on taking it.
Why ? Because I did not intend to take WF : longbow. Thus I would need to spend 2 feats to get the advantage.
And this advantage is really not that great. To benefit from it, you have to be in melee already. My build is based on hitting from a distance. CON is one of my average stats, my armor is Light (could not be better than Medium anyway) and I do not have that many hit points. I definitely must not stay in melee.
If I have to spend 2 feats, I would much rather get Dodge and Mobility to get away from the heavy-hitting front-liners than WF : longbow and Point Blank Master which would definitely not prevent them from hitting me with their full-attack routine.
BTW : comparing ranged attacks with combat casting is completely off as ranged attacks can always be made at a range while several spells have to be delivered up close and personal (touch spells, especially the Cure ones for example).
Concerning Shadow Strike + Greater Blind-Fight, you are right on the effect. But then, you have to be a 15th level character (Rogue ?) who dedicated 4 Feats to fighting concealed enemies and you still need to meet the requirements for sneak attacking your invisible opponent. I am not sure that many of your allies can effectively threaten him and give you flank.
|
Shield straps aren't like belts, that can't fall off if they're properly fastened. They're more to keep the shield positioned properly than to keep it on your arm at all costs. That's why shields have to be gripped. If all it needed was a strap, you'd have a free hand instead of having your hand used up by the shield (which, admittedly, is the case for the buckler)....stunned creatures drop everything they're holding, including their shield.How on earth do you drop something that is strapped to your arm?
Realistically...not entirely true. I actually fight with shields, and in one match I had the grip break and I needed to the shield off my arm quickly. Yeah no such luck. The strap actually keeps the shield in place on your arm pretty dang well. What the grip does is allow you to control where you want to move your shield to. So realism has no influence over that bit of RAW. Not that D&D combat is overly realistic so it really doesn't matter.
Realistically...not entirely true. I actually fight with shields, and in one match I had the grip break and I needed to the shield off my arm quickly. Yeah no such luck. The strap actually keeps the shield in place on your arm pretty dang well. What the grip does is allow you to control where you want to move your shield to. So realism has no influence over that bit of RAW. Not that D&D combat is overly realistic so it really doesn't matter.Shield straps aren't like belts, that can't fall off if they're properly fastened. They're more to keep the shield positioned properly than to keep it on your arm at all costs. That's why shields have to be gripped. If all it needed was a strap, you'd have a free hand instead of having your hand used up by the shield (which, admittedly, is the case for the buckler)....stunned creatures drop everything they're holding, including their shield.How on earth do you drop something that is strapped to your arm?
I've MADE shields for use in medieval fairs, park shows, etc. I've also used them in sparring matches (though I am not a trained fighter in any sense of the word) so I have a fair idea of how hard it is to disarm someone of one.
In any case, I believe that either you can get your shield out AND on with a single move action (and it will drop when you are stunned), or it takes two move actions (one to get the shield out, and another to equip it) at which point it simply hangs from your arm when you are stunned.
The rules don't make much sense if you try to have it both ways.
I -invented- the shield, so I trump everyone. *nods* >.>
Note: No offense intended... just playing.
I -invented- the shield, so I trump everyone. *nods* >.>
Note: No offense intended... just playing.
Well I AM a shield. My name is Shield McShieldersen, agent of S.H.I.E.L.D, and I'd like to be on record as saying...I want wizard supremacy.
I just knew that wasn't going to go over well. >.>
|
Cartigan?
So, that's much for realism arguments in D&D rules convo. APG finally fixes one of the most glaring examples of 3.5 devs going "realistic" about crossbows and not noticing that they set sail for fail with it.
Wait, did you just try to SUMMON Cartigan to a rules thread? I was under the impression that he's always here and is occasionally channeled by other posters when a true rules warrior is needed.
|
|
I've MADE shields for use in medieval fairs, park shows, etc. I've also used them in sparring matches (though I am not a trained fighter in any sense of the word) so I have a fair idea of how hard it is to disarm someone of one.In any case, I believe that either you can get your shield out AND on with a single move action (and it will drop when you are stunned), or it takes two move actions (one to get the shield out, and another to equip it) at which point it simply hangs from your arm when you are stunned.
The rules don't make much sense if you try to have it both ways.
Actually you bring up a good point from a game mechanics balance PoV. The shield requires more actions to re-equip from a drop then a weapon. I personally would houserule the normal shield stays on when stun...but the quick shield from the APG would not.
I am much more concerned about the return of Robilar's Gambit.
I liked Robilar's Gambit from a story perspective, but did not look into the mechanics of it. What's wrong with it?
I am much more concerned about the return of Robilar's Gambit.I liked Robilar's Gambit from a story perspective, but did not look into the mechanics of it. What's wrong with it?
Nothing. One of my favorite feats from the PHB2. IIRC you purposely take a penalty to your AC and get to make an AoO on anyone who attacks you.
They must be referring to the Come and Get Me barbarian ability.
I am much more concerned about the return of Robilar's Gambit.I liked Robilar's Gambit from a story perspective, but did not look into the mechanics of it. What's wrong with it?Nothing. One of my favorite feats from the PHB2. IIRC you purposely take a penalty to your AC and get to make an AoO on anyone who attacks you.
They must be referring to the Come and Get Me barbarian ability.
Are you sure you're not mixing them up? I don't have the PHB2 here, but IIRC Robilar is a famous wizard in forgotten realms, so it wouldn't make sense to have a combat feat named after him. Aren't they possibly talking about the "remove targets from an area effect spell" metamagic that there's thread about?
EDIT: Sorry, got them mixed up. Robillard is the wizard.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Robilar is an extreme old-school CE fighter from Gary Gygax's campaign (Rob Kuntz' character maybe), infamous for, among other things, semi-accidentally breaking Zuggtmoy out of her prison in the original Temple of Elemental Evil. He was written up in the original Rogues' Gallery, which to this day is the only place I've ever seen a girdle of storm giant strength appear in any published D&D product.
By the way, I reject the assertion that only Fighters and Rangers are archers. Paladins make absurdly deadly archers, Cavaliers can use challenge with ranged weapons now which makes them viable at it, there's an entire archetype (which looks quite good) for Monk archers, Bards have always made good archers, and the Gang Up feat makes Rogue archers quite viable. Only Fighters and Rangers can use Point Blank Master, though. It gives those two classes a "master archer" perk which other classes don't get, which is a good thing. Fighters and Rangers should be the best archers.Which reminds me: Gang Up is the feat that most made me stop and go "Wha-?" in the APG. Well, that's a lie - that honor goes to Lingering Performance, as whoever wrote that feat quite obviously did not bother to check if bardic music works differently in Pathfinder than in 3.5*. But Gang Up is one of those "so good why would you not take it" feats. The only justification to not take Gang Up is not having an Int of 13. It turns sneak attack into something you have to work for to something that you will be doing every attack.
Now, I will admit that ranged rogues needed help. But this is silly amounts of good for melee rogues, too (unless it is specifically ruled that you are not your own ally, anyway). And it means that ranged rogues are now probably better than melee rogues - full attack sneak attacks, every round, without having to risk getting into melee.
I am still deciding how I want to house rule this feat. It will probably turn into something like "you are considered to be flanking any enemy that two of your allies are flanking" so that it requires at least some work to set up. Or maybe someone will convince me it isn't that broken. But it certainly seems incredibly powerful.
*I recognize this is hyperbole, but I can't see how tripling your amount of daily bardic performance is worth one feat.
James nelson already ruled that gang up does not work with ranged attacks
Faulty assumption. Not everyone uses APs. In fact, based on how well the core book is selling in my home town, i'd say most are not using them in my area.Sorry ... I'm not sure what that means ...Sorry, I was typing on my droid at the airport, so it was a bit brief.
FAULTY ASSUMPTION: It's no big deal that you don't get your capstone ability because APs don't reach level 20. The reason it's faulty is that the assumption is that everyone is using Paizo APs. In fact, based on the sales anecdotes from my local store owner, they are selling the core/bestiary off the shelf regularly. The are selling more Paizo published stuff than anything else (even most other things combined), but the core is outselling the APs per the anecdote by a large proportion. So, my statement above, which is to say that most of the PF gamers in my local area are using PF, but the majority (may be a slim majority, won't argue that because I only have anecdotal evidence) are using the PF rules without the APs.
Core should always outsell AP due to more players than DM's. I certainly don't want my players owning all the AP's but have no issue if they all have their own core books
|
|
Robilar is an extreme old-school CE fighter from Gary Gygax's campaign (Rob Kuntz' character maybe), infamous for, among other things, semi-accidentally breaking Zuggtmoy out of her prison in the original Temple of Elemental Evil. He was written up in the original Rogues' Gallery, which to this day is the only place I've ever seen a girdle of storm giant strength appear in any published D&D product.
Rolibar is also a real life fencing master of the olden days and rolibar´s gambit is a real move.