In terms of Options-Guns, I hate guns. big guns little guns, guns with gnolls, guns with magic, (need to find trash can ) gunslingers....I'm just glad they are in an optional book. I don't want them anywhere near any home game I run.
Respect your position here, as a matter of personal preference, but I have to ask why? They're not anachronistic... primitive firearms pre-dated the full-plate armor and even the rapier.
In terms of rules, i guess it irk's me that the Druid/ Cleric/ Oracle gets medium Base attack bonus, D8 hit points, and Full Casting.
This. So much this. I absolutely agree. Full BAB allows you to have up to 4th level spells, Medium BAB allows you to have to up to 6th level, and you should only be able to get 9th level spells by taking a Poor BAB.
As for the tall elves I like them most of the other races are shorter than humans why not have a few tall ones. And for the record I am 6'3" and weigh a mere 175 (which if you are not good at visualizing makes me "lanky") I would say I am far less clumsy than I am strong : )
Heh. I am more than half a foot shorter than you and more than 100 pounds heavier. I'm not clumsy by any stretch of the imagination, but I am slow.
I was a SCA Heavy Weapons fighter. Yes, TWF is OK, but it’s far surpassed by Sword & board. True, in some fencing styles and eastern styles, it was used- but mainly because they didn’t use or carry a shield.
A twohanded reach weapon is also great- behind a line of guys with shields.
Re: TWF being "ridiculous," I've trained with paired sticks, and with them individually, and there isn't really THAT big of a difference between the two, effort-wise. Then again, I'd be hard-pressed to fight effectively with a hanbo in one hand and a sledgehammer in the other.
As far as fighting multiple opponents goes, that works by mobility -- chasing them into each other so that they get in each other's way; you can do that with one weapon, with two weapons, or with none, for that matter.
Compare a Pug to a Greyhound. Who is more nimble and agile? Probably the Greyhound, regardless of size. How you carry your weight is very important.
A Greyhound weighs a lot more than a Pug. And a Greyhound isn't more nimble/agile just because he is fast.
Speed doesn't have to do with agility/dexterity. In fact, in Pathfinder speed is also dependent on size. The smaller the slower the base speed is.As for the tall elves I like them most of the other races are shorter than humans why not have a few tall ones. And for the record I am 6'3" and weigh a mere 175 (which if you are not good at visualizing makes me "lanky") I would say I am far less clumsy than I am strong : )
I'm not talking about "lanky" elves. These guys are skeletal. We're talking about a 6'3" elf weighing 133 pounds. That's 24% less weight than you.
The Strike Back feat.
The Interplanetary Teleport spell.
The Vital Stike line of feats.
The first two are "new" options that limit things you could already do. Such "options" drive me up the wall!
Before the Strike Back feat came out, I've NEVER had a GM tell me I couldn't prepare an action to attack the limb of a creature that was attacking me. (A fantasy staple I might add!) You shouldn't need a feat to attack the limb of a creature trying to snatch you out of your cave cover! You just don't!
Before the Interplanetary Teleport spell, all I needed was Greater Teleport's infinite range. Now, suddenly, infinite range is somehow not good enough to planet hop. What the heck?
The Vital Strike feat line's inability to synergize well with anything else as well as the lack of synergistic options for maneuverability builds in general means you NEED to stand in place like a moron swinging away to be the most optimal build.
RD the option the Strike Back feat gives you was never available, not even in 3.5. A creature does not occupy a square it can reach into. It only occupies a square its body is in, and you(the character) can only attack a creature by reaching the square it is in.
As for the interplanaterary teleport I think that was done because Paizo plans to use other planets actively eventually, and it helps explain why cross planetary issues are not more of a concern. <--Not saying I agree or disagree, but that is just my opinion on the issue.
RD the option the Strike Back feat gives you was never available, not even in 3.5. A creature does not occupy a square it can reach into. It only occupies a square its body is in, and you(the character) can only attack a creature by reaching the square it is in.
Even if you are right, it's still not cool. As written, it is impossible for a guy to stab a giant's hand that reaches into his home to pull him out unless you have this feat.
Such a common fantasy staple as that should not be so restrictive and nonsensical.
If a dragon has to put his face into my cave to bite me, I SHOULD be able to slash his snout! To say I can't do that defies all logic!
I can't understand why so many people want to take so many things away from the game. I can get behind changing mechanics as there are several that I'm not thrilled with. There are also several options that I'll probably never use, but I don't rule them out. The thing is, I understand that other people are going to like and want those options in their game and Paizo is trying to provide for all of us, not just me. To do otherwise is just bad business.
I don't particularly like the PF mechanics for guns but I've used guns before in Eberron as all my friends thought it was a natural fit. In the current world I'm making, it doesn't really fit the theme so it might only show up as npc only in some lost atlantis-like civilization. I'll still probably get more use out of those chapters in UC than I ever will for the Vehicles section.
Don't like the Vancian system? Rather then demanding Paizo changes it to spell points, find a copy of Unearthed Arcana. The one listed there will still work.
So PF and DnD are games about Medieval Europe and elements of Asain culture ruin this for you? Don't use them. There are still plenty of people who want them and can use them in ways that aren't "I'm a Samurai from not-Japan". Someone may want Orcs that have one part Native American culture, one part Klingon, some random other stuff, that ride large wolves, and fight giants that invaded their territory in the frigid south to have the Samurai class. Another might find it a wonderful fit for the Holy Halfling Not-Roman Empire to use the class while riding giant eagles and raining death down on all who oppose them. The game should be able to provide tools to give people the ability to make a game that fits with whatever they imagine. Also PF has about as much to do with Medieval Europe as John Carter on Mars, try Pendragon or Burning Wheel instead.
As far as races go, its a system that revolves around magic and doesn't have to be constrained by real world science or stereotypes. In my games Dwarven women have the ability to grow beards as often as it occurs in human women, while you might stand by all Dwarves have beards. Why do Half-Elves and Half-Orcs have to be part Human? What if they were Elves who lost their innate magic and Orcs who became more civilized?The Midnight setting didn't have either but they did have Halfbreeds like Elflings (Elf/Halfling) and Dworgs (Dwarf/Orc). This was because all-nonhumans were Fey in origin and cross fertile while humans were not.
It's fine to not like certain options, but sometimes it's good to try to think outside the box.
RD the option the Strike Back feat gives you was never available, not even in 3.5. A creature does not occupy a square it can reach into. It only occupies a square its body is in, and you(the character) can only attack a creature by reaching the square it is in.Even if you are right, it's still not cool. As written, it is impossible for a guy to stab a giant's hand that reaches into his home to pull him out unless you have this feat.
Such a common fantasy staple as that should not be so restrictive and nonsensical.
If a dragon has to put his face into my cave to bite me, I SHOULD be able to slash his snout! To say I can't do that defies all logic!
The rules don't allow it though. That feat allows you to do it. I am not arguing how much sense it makes, but then again if an AoO can negate reach then why bother with having reach? I think reach was intended to be very powerful so can stand back from the danger and still bring the pain. Now it is normally the monsters with the reach so many players don't get to miss it so they might vote to hit the attacking limb.
I guess you can try to get an official houserule(for your groups) in that negates reach when someone goes for a combat maneuver or unarmed strike.
PS:You know the game defies logic in many situations.
Keen and improved
Crit don't stack, and you can be paralyzed and still get a reflex save.
Monks only remember how to do stunning fist(hit someone on a pressure point) a limited number of times. <--Really you just hit someone in between their 3rd and 4th rib(example) and all of a sudden you can't do it again.
If giants were real and you tried to use a shield to block an attack your arm and that shield would probably be broken.
Look at page 138 of the CRB, the beginning of the equipment chapter. What is a shield going to do against that?
In short it boils down to verisimilitude.
In short it boils down to verisimilitude.
That it does.
Oh, and creatures with reach are still incredibly powerful even if one can ready an action to get a SINGLE attack against their FULL attack.
In short it boils down to verisimilitude.
That it does.
Oh, and creatures with reach are still incredibly powerful even if one can ready an action to get a SINGLE attack against their FULL attack.
Some combat maneuvers take standard actions. :) I get your point though.
I removed a post and the descending replies to it. Let's try not to refer to human beings as 'garbage'.
I guess somebody peed in the pool.
|
If I were GM, many of their opponents--even the lower intelligence ones--would think, "What's that one doing? Just standing there drinking potions? Easy prey!!! Let's take him out first and thin their numbers!!! C'mon everyone!! Get him!!!" And then I'd have them dog-pile on him. Painfully and with much enthusiasm. Guess what? The very next time he tried that--same thing, baby. Wash, rinse, repeat until he gets the message that battle is f*cking battle--it is messy and chaotic, not casual or (usually) optional. What kind of support is he giving his "allies" while they risk their necks as he quaffs his potions? I'd nip that in the bud.fair point, fair point. were i gm in that situation, i would take up that strategy to be sure. as a fellow player it is irritating though. we have a few such individuals in our local PF Society scenario days that rotate around. mostly i dodge those tables and sympathize with their gms. but i think the real issue is one of perspective. i simply wanted to state the point that coming at gaming from a cooperative standpoint and faced with those that view said options as a way to be "the winner" is seriously fun-sucking.
Problem here is PF Society environment : you are supposed to build and play a character that can survive adventuring with complete strangers. Having to rely on one of them being a healer for example can be deadly for your own character real fast.
BTW : ganging up on the one character who is not actually hurting you or your fellows just screams metagame to me. And a wrong use of it at that.