Cut it's hands off and it loses a function.Cut a golem's foot off and it will lose vital functions.Only if it is not as effective walking on the stump as it is walking on the foot.
Unless that function, like say a slam attack, can work equally well with the rest of the arms as it does with just the hands.
How many golems float?
As others have pointed out, I said "walking on the stump" not floating. As for issues with balance, well as far as I know golems do not have "an inner ear" to help them with their balance and yet they somehow seem capable of walking. I think assuming a magical creation that loses its foot can walk as well as a guy with a peg-leg is not unreasonable.
|
I feel the same way.Oh, another thread reminded me of something else that kinda fits...but it's something I prefer from 3.0, not 3.5.
Weapon sizes.
I much preferred the old way of handling them (medium longsword used by a large creature counts as a short sword - or was it dagger? I forget - and used by a small creature counts as a greatsword). That's one of those things that left me going "huh?" when 3.5 came around.
Do you have any insight into why this was changed? Were there people decrying Fighters picking up Large Longswords and suddenly having medium greatswords?
I dunno. I always figured that, if you allow rogues to sneak attack constructs in general, you'd have to be able to sneak attack all constructs. And, I can't see animated statues, candlesticks, or other objects as having weak points in any way. They move 100% through magic. There is no 1 part of the object that is integral to the creature "living," so a rogue can't really hit the weak spot. They are "defeated" either by destroying the magic or by hacking the object into such small pieces that none of the pieces are capable of doing harm.
I feel the same way about most undead. I can easily see zombies with their arms cut off having the arm able to continue moving anyway.
And, oozes feel the same way. They even have specific mechanics to be split into multiple still-working pieces.
When I created my worlds, that was how I created MY golems, undead, etc. The only "weak point" in golems, undead, elementals, or oozes was the magic that gives them life, in my worlds.
That said, rogues can disarm magic traps, maybe now they can hit the animating magics of golems and undead? That's the flavor I use when GMing Pathfinder.
Like someone else said, magic or no, they still need a spine ;).
Unless you rule it so that chopping off a golem's hand causes the hand to come after you independently :p
Do you have any insight into why this was changed? Were there people decrying Fighters picking up Large Longswords and suddenly having medium greatswords?I feel the same way.Oh, another thread reminded me of something else that kinda fits...but it's something I prefer from 3.0, not 3.5.
Weapon sizes.
I much preferred the old way of handling them (medium longsword used by a large creature counts as a short sword - or was it dagger? I forget - and used by a small creature counts as a greatsword). That's one of those things that left me going "huh?" when 3.5 came around.
I think it had to do with small characters and what weapons were options to them.
I feel the same way.Oh, another thread reminded me of something else that kinda fits...but it's something I prefer from 3.0, not 3.5.
Weapon sizes.
I much preferred the old way of handling them (medium longsword used by a large creature counts as a short sword - or was it dagger? I forget - and used by a small creature counts as a greatsword). That's one of those things that left me going "huh?" when 3.5 came around.
Add me to this list as well.
Do you have any insight into why this was changed? Were there people decrying Fighters picking up Large Longswords and suddenly having medium greatswords?
One of my gaming groups frequently has arguments over this issue and the general idea of small characters getting smaller damage dice. The arguments get very circular, and at least one player refuses to play small characters anymore because of it.
Without getting into the details of the two reasonings (it gives me a headache remembering them,) I can say that there are realistic arguments for both sides of "a halfling can't use a human's dagger as a sword" and "a human's dagger is the same size as a halfling's sword."
To be fair, a Medium Dagger wouldn't have the same proportions (weight/length/width/depth) as a Small Longsword (or Shortsword, depending on rulings.) But, it probably would displace about the same amount of material when stabbed into a guy...
Do you have any insight into why this was changed? Were there people decrying Fighters picking up Large Longswords and suddenly having medium greatswords?
I imagine "realism" was the motivation (e.g. the handle of a dagger is different than the handle of a really small greatsword).
But then they tossed realism out the window with the idea of reach weapons for Small-sized characters. Like a longspear that has reach when a halfling is holding it, but not when a human is holding it. Bwuh?
But then they tossed realism out the window with the idea of reach weapons for Small-sized characters. Like a longspear that has reach when a halfling is holding it, but not when a human is holding it. Bwuh?
Yep that still hurts my head
Yeah, I really don't have an answer on the weapon sizing issue of 3.5. I had an article about it on my site for a while but some people disputed my numbers/photos so I took it down until I could evaluate their criticism... and never got around to putting it back up again. :p
|
Unless that function, like say a slam attack, can work equally well with the rest of the arms as it does with just the hands.Cut it's hands off and it loses a function.Cut a golem's foot off and it will lose vital functions.Only if it is not as effective walking on the stump as it is walking on the foot.
No, it can keep it's slam attack, but it loses the ability to hold things or manipulate things that require fingers, like some triggers, door knobs, and some release levers. I would also impose a penalty to any grapple checks it tries to make.
And of course, if you aim for the shoulder and take the whole arm off...
you can be beowulf!
My my you people must be really hard on your melee characters what with limbs flying off with every attack.
only if they fail their fortitude saves :3 Yay for high fortitude saves!
|
|
I intend to rework the weapon damage scale such that larger weapons have a higher minimum damage instead of maximum. For example, greataxes deal 1d12, large greataxes deal 2d6. 2-12 instead of 1-12. I think larger damage dice on top of higher Str scores is unnecessarily addressing the 'big things hit harder' idea twice. The only trouble is finding appropriate dice combos to represent these things.
Do you have any insight into why this was changed? Were there people decrying Fighters picking up Large Longswords and suddenly having medium greatswords?
The first thing is, you had funky interactions with class proficiency lists. A druid is proficient with the scimitar, for example, but not with the falchion or kukri. So, when you've got a different-size druid, do you have him proficient with the scimitar (so the Large druid is using a light weapon and the small druid is using a two-hander), or do you have him proficient with the falchion/kukri?
The second thing is, you had size-determined weapons anyway, whenever dealing with a creature larger than L or smaller than S. (Consider the Huge cloud giant, where he was wielding a Gargantuan morningstar in two hands. If he can do it, shouldn't my cleric be able to buy a Large morningstar and wield it in two hands? Or is it a martial weapon when upped to two-handed size?)
Going to sized-for-character weapons simply took a system that already existed and spread it to the S/M/L sizes, in the process getting rid of the weapon proficiency questions.
Do you have any insight into why this was changed? Were there people decrying Fighters picking up Large Longswords and suddenly having medium greatswords?The first thing is, you had funky interactions with class proficiency lists. A druid is proficient with the scimitar, for example, but not with the falchion or kukri. So, when you've got a different-size druid, do you have him proficient with the scimitar (so the Large druid is using a light weapon and the small druid is using a two-hander), or do you have him proficient with the falchion/kukri?
The second thing is, you had size-determined weapons anyway, whenever dealing with a creature larger than L or smaller than S. (Consider the Huge cloud giant, where he was wielding a Gargantuan morningstar in two hands. If he can do it, shouldn't my cleric be able to buy a Large morningstar and wield it in two hands? Or is it a martial weapon when upped to two-handed size?)
Going to sized-for-character weapons simply took a system that already existed and spread it to the S/M/L sizes, in the process getting rid of the weapon proficiency questions.
That is a good point, of course it really points out that the weapon profiency system needs a good overhaul.
Even in 3.5/PF A druid could wield a scimitar sized for a large creature with a -2 size penalty, but if the druid tries to wield a falchion, they take a -4 non-profiency penalty. If anything, I would think the falchion would be easier to wield than a large scimitar.
That is a good point, of course it really points out that the weapon profiency system needs a good overhaul.
Even in 3.5/PF A druid could wield a scimitar sized for a large creature with a -2 size penalty, but if the druid tries to wield a falchion, they take a -4 non-profiency penalty. If anything, I would think the falchion would be easier to wield than a large scimitar.
Yeah. The 3.5 system caused its own troubles (Small characters were now penalized in damage output potential, characters couldn't use a looted size L magic scimitar without a penalty), but it simplified two different weapon size systems into one that worked consistently, if not optimally.
I personally would patch those specific problems directly, rather than switching back to the 3.0 rules. First, magic weapons (and armor) should re-size themselves just like rings and worn wondrous items. (I mean, hey, they're magic anyway.) Second, halflings and gnomes should have a racial feature that lets them ignore the -2 penalty for using weapons for Medium-sized creatures. It's not like letting halfling druids choose whether they prefer small scimitar-and-shield or two-handed use of a medium scimitar is a serious balance problem against human druids.
EDIT: And patch 3, treat wrong-sized weapons as nonproficiency (-4), not -2, to bring the falchion-and-scimitar into line. Halflings and gnomes would still have a racial feature that waived the penalty for Medium-creature weapons, not just reduced it by 2.
EDIT2: Or reduce the nonproficiency penalty to -2 instead. Is there any case where a -2 for nonproficient isn't itself big enough to discourage regular use?
Do you have any insight into why this was changed? Were there people decrying Fighters picking up Large Longswords and suddenly having medium greatswords?The first thing is, you had funky interactions with class proficiency lists. A druid is proficient with the scimitar, for example, but not with the falchion or kukri. So, when you've got a different-size druid, do you have him proficient with the scimitar (so the Large druid is using a light weapon and the small druid is using a two-hander), or do you have him proficient with the falchion/kukri?
The second thing is, you had size-determined weapons anyway, whenever dealing with a creature larger than L or smaller than S. (Consider the Huge cloud giant, where he was wielding a Gargantuan morningstar in two hands. If he can do it, shouldn't my cleric be able to buy a Large morningstar and wield it in two hands? Or is it a martial weapon when upped to two-handed size?)
Going to sized-for-character weapons simply took a system that already existed and spread it to the S/M/L sizes, in the process getting rid of the weapon proficiency questions.
That is a good point, of course it really points out that the weapon profiency system needs a good overhaul.
Even in 3.5/PF A druid could wield a scimitar sized for a large creature with a -2 size penalty, but if the druid tries to wield a falchion, they take a -4 non-profiency penalty. If anything, I would think the falchion would be easier to wield than a large scimitar.
I am *trying* to work on this for my homebrew, which lists weapons proficiencies by weight and scale as opposed to simple/martial and size respectively.
I am *trying* to work on this for my homebrew, which lists weapons proficiencies by weight and scale as opposed to simple/martial and size respectively.
I would start with the fighter's weapon groups, and work from there.
Axes, Heavy Blades, Light Blades, Bows, Close, Crossbows, Double, Flails, Hammers, Monk, Natural, Pole Arms, Spears, Thrown
It isn't a perfect list, but I think that would make a good martial profiency list.
So instead of martial profiency(scimitar), you would take martial profiency(heavy blades).
The other idea I have seen floating around here is the idea that weapons get better based on your profiency with the weapon.
For example, a rapier.
You can use a rapier as a simple weapon, it is a 1d6 x2 weapon.
If you have martial profiency for rapiers, it becomes a 1d6 18-20/x2 weapon.
If you have exotic profiency for rapiers, it gains the disarm property.
I think if you put those two together, you can make a pretty nice profiency system.
When I wax nostalgic, I tend to go further back than 3.5, to the hoary days of AD&D or 2nd Edition. That said, I think overall PF is an improvement and natural evolution of 3.5, and strongly approve of most changes.
My only caution is of a general nature. PF did continue what I see as a continuing power creep throughout the entire evolution of the game. PCs have gradually, and sometimes not so gradually, become more powerful with each new edition, necessitating an increase in the power of their opponents to provide the same level of challenge. It has reached the point where many posters here credibly describe the upper levels of PF as more of a superheroes game than a classic heroic fantasy game. I'm fine with this, but I wouldn't want to see the power inflation continue forever. If anything, I would be more interested in a power down. I'm probably swimming against the tide here, as I'm sure the reason the inflation occurs is the heavy demand for more powerful/cooler characters from players, and the fact they snap up products that will make their characters more powerful. I don't think I'm alone in wanting to stop at some point before 1st level characters are able to one-shot Thor.
Yes. This. You are not alone in that assessment.
Seriously not alone about the power creep concerns..... we need to institute the gaming industry equivalent of the old Roman army process of Decimation.
I am *trying* to work on this for my homebrew, which lists weapons proficiencies by weight and scale as opposed to simple/martial and size respectively.
I would start with the fighter's weapon groups, and work from there.
Axes, Heavy Blades, Light Blades, Bows, Close, Crossbows, Double, Flails, Hammers, Monk, Natural, Pole Arms, Spears, Thrown
It isn't a perfect list, but I think that would make a good martial profiency list.
So instead of martial profiency(scimitar), you would take martial profiency(heavy blades).
The other idea I have seen floating around here is the idea that weapons get better based on your profiency with the weapon.
For example, a rapier.
You can use a rapier as a simple weapon, it is a 1d6 x2 weapon.
If you have martial profiency for rapiers, it becomes a 1d6 18-20/x2 weapon.
If you have exotic profiency for rapiers, it gains the disarm property.I think if you put those two together, you can make a pretty nice profiency system.
I really, really like the second system and I could see that getting really, really popular. I know it was posted in another thread though(I'm not sure if you came up with it or not), and I'd like to talk to the author. I'm not sure if I'm going to use that for my homebrew *just* yet though, as I am not up to the weapons. I'd like to put that next to the "weapons by weight" idea and see how it works.
Yes. This. You are not alone in that assessment.
I'll say it again... while 3.5's mook classes got a lot stronger in PF, the high end classes (e.g., the only ones still played by players experienced enough with the system to know better) of 3.5 are anything but in PF.
Overall, PF characters made by people that I play with are weaker than 3.5 characters made by the same players. YMMV.
Yes. This. You are not alone in that assessment.I'll say it again... while 3.5's mook classes got a lot stronger in PF, the high end classes (e.g., the only ones still played by players experienced enough with the system to know better) of 3.5 are anything but in PF.
Overall, PF characters made by people that I play with are weaker than 3.5 characters made by the same players. YMMV.
Yes, I heard.
However, I was ignoring you:)
No go away...or I shall taunt you another time!
Regards,
Bruce
|
Yes. This. You are not alone in that assessment.When I wax nostalgic, I tend to go further back than 3.5, to the hoary days of AD&D or 2nd Edition. That said, I think overall PF is an improvement and natural evolution of 3.5, and strongly approve of most changes.
My only caution is of a general nature. PF did continue what I see as a continuing power creep throughout the entire evolution of the game. PCs have gradually, and sometimes not so gradually, become more powerful with each new edition, necessitating an increase in the power of their opponents to provide the same level of challenge. It has reached the point where many posters here credibly describe the upper levels of PF as more of a superheroes game than a classic heroic fantasy game. I'm fine with this, but I wouldn't want to see the power inflation continue forever. If anything, I would be more interested in a power down. I'm probably swimming against the tide here, as I'm sure the reason the inflation occurs is the heavy demand for more powerful/cooler characters from players, and the fact they snap up products that will make their characters more powerful. I don't think I'm alone in wanting to stop at some point before 1st level characters are able to one-shot Thor.
Not just power creep. I'm also concerned with the rules creep. Pathfinder is a great game, but there's a lot of rules, so one combat round takes a long time.
It is worth noting though that the DPR of PC damage builds DID decrease from 3.5 to PF. Their foundations were undermined. Enemy damage didn't really drop much though. If anything it increased, because it was rare to see enemies running around with Shock Trooper builds and such.
I agree with your conclusions.
Interestingly, I think a DPR build is more viable in PF even though the DPR has gone down, because a character build optimized to dish DPR in 3.5 is basically a mistake -- it's like handing in War and Peace as math homework. In PF, maybe it's not such a bad idea because save or die has, relatively, dropped way out of the game.
|
I miss Spot, Listen, Search, Open Locks, etc etc. I enjoyed the RP elements I was able to gain from a more diverse skill selection.
-Vaz
It is funny how people can play the exact same game and get completely different things from it. Nothing wrong with that, I just think it is interesting.
I always hated having so many skills when it is so much easier to combine like skills under one heading. Honestly I wish they'd condense the skill list even more.That's like combat. People say combat takes too long, but for my group it is quick and painless. That's because our combat is pretty straight forward. Most of my players have never read the rulebook or are too young to remember a bunch of details about encumbrance, adjacent squares, etc... so we just ignore them.
+1 to this. I never learned a whole system before start to play - just step by step.
About the skills.. yeah, different skill can be great.. if you have enough skill points to spare. If you don't have, it's a pain for a fighter just pimp spot and listen to be a decent guardian.
It's better how skills are handled now, IMHO. We have skills point to customize, but there are not "no you can't, no way" for certain classes.
Meanwhile HP is still a boolean,
You keep using this term after that discussion with me... FYI, I used it to say that fights in 3.5 with shock trooper were all-or-nothing. The amount of damage made them this way. And I admit it was a forced metaphor.
Use the term with every issue concerning HP in 3.5 pathfinder is, at best, a mistake, just for the amount of effects that come into play after a critical strike or sneak attack or another move.
If the system allow you to use divine caster as meleers, good.
But don't sell it as the only thing possible because you will lose.
The PF core Cleric and Druid can't match a full BAB class in the DPR department. Sorry, try again.
Divine casters have better things to do. Them being better at meleeing than the actual melee classes is a testament to just how little said classes have to offer.
The Pounce Druid + Animal Companion can out DPR the fighter over the mid-levels (which are generally considered to be the most important) due to the synergy of high strength, reliable full attacks and 5 attacks with a pounce + rake. Even at 3/4 BAB that can definitely scale up the DPR vs the fighter.
However I think he was referring specifically to the ability of full casters to bypass the HP/AC method of defeating enemies and use the SoS/SoD method of defeating enemies. Considering that PF did not solve the Save vs Save DC math (it chopped away at some of the Save DC modifiers but kept casting stat unchanged which is the big modifier) in a way that makes SoS/SoD spells more risky, but instead generally made it so that afflicted targets have saves in future rounds. This results in the typical stunlock scenario where the caster keeps the target stunned or useless and the martial classes do clean up.
The changes to the Bestiary do help somewhat and an experienced DM will avoid the 4 PCs vs 1 BBEG scry-n-fry alpha strike in their game but I do sympathize with people who feel that the casters are still too powerful. I don't however agree that turning the game into one round alpha strikes with megacasters and uberchargers is the right solution either.
The optimal solution would've been to nerf the caster cheat code (SoS/SoD) more and give the martial classes better defenses while still keeping the martial character can kill a CR appropriate foe within 2-3 rounds (charge + 2 full attacks). I think Pathfinder got part way there but backed off short of the goal-line due to the desire to maintain backwards compatibility
Direct save or dies have. But those were never that good to begin with. Plenty of things are naturally immune to death, and the ones that aren't can easily get Death Ward or similar. They are the easiest save or ______ spells to shut down.
Right, but almost all of the save-or-suck spells got it too. (Or, not even save and still suck.) Glitterdust? Not as good as 3.5. Ray of enfeeblement? Not as good as 3.5. Solid fog and its descendents? Disintegrate? Implosion? Entangle? Forcecage? Irresistable dance? Maze? ALL those spells and many, many, many more got hit with the nerf stick, and deservedly so.
There is also nothing stopping you from importing any non core spells you like. You're even encouraged to do this and they will work fine.
Sure, because backwards compatability is supposed to be a big selling point of PF. However, if you do that, you can't really blame PF for being balanced or not anymore, and it's not really relevant to discussing the balance of PF.
Consequently PF is one big flash and slash game. Cleric, Druid, Wizard... playing anything else is either a weaker version of one of those three, or more likely nominates you as the party mascot.
This is much, much less true in PF than it was in 3.5, although those probably still are the best classes.
The DPR olympics chose a really unfortunate plateau for the full BAB classes (namely just before they get their 3rd iterative) as such they tend to match up poorly vs the DPR olympic's druid (which assumes both the druid and animal companion have charge lines to get full attacks - but featureless white room is the set-up).
I'd say the Druid is still too powerful (but that's mainly due to pounce+rake being ridiculously powerful- a druid in bear form with a bear companion is much closer to the median) but as always YMMV.
Personally if druid warforms frustrate you I'd suggest creating a houserule making it so that rake does not work on a pounce (only on an grapple action). 3 natural attacks at 3/4 BAB is far weaker than 5 natural attacks. It's still nice because you are still mobile but your DPR is more in keeping with that of the martial classes.
I miss there being a weapon or two on the exotic list worth taking.
I grant EWP a +1 to hit against anyone that doesn't have that one...and a -1 against anyone that does. This simulates my experience with weapons training, back in the day. Most 'EW' did well against those unfamiliar with them, but were inferior against those who actualy knew their strengths and weaknesses. Our 'sensei' made a point of showing us the capabilities and the problems with an array of funky weapons (And: no, I mastered none of them.). There is a reason they are 'exotic' and thus not 'common', regional variations aside. A Gnome weilding a Dwarven War Axe would be a surprise wotrthy of a +1, for example.
The MA types that played my 3.0/5 game have lobbied for -2. This does not apply to Monks' weapons. One used to do the competative stuff and loved defusing his opponents by pushing the 'fight' into the weapon's zone of weakness (evasion against in close, pressure against those needing space, etc). Serious Bruce Lee fanboy.