2. Your players don't consider shields worth it? Dear god, shields are one of the most broken weapons in the game. For half the cost you get an equivalent bonus to AC weapon damage and attack. Further you can keep the AC while attacking if you keep a single feat thats only prereq is shield proficiency. Furthermore, they're the only items in the game that further down the line remove all two weapon fighting penalty.
So they're items that give you not only weapon enhancements for half cost but an equivalent AC bonus, either a 2 for 1 on piranha strike or power attack depending on your choice, and you can completely remove all TWF penalties with them and your players don't think a shield is worth it? My god dual shield wielding is one of the more powerful builds in the game.
No offense this says to me that your players simply aren't that good at building high damage characters and the ranger gets off easy because its really hard to screw up a two handed martial.
TWF wielding shields is absolutely freaking idiotic.
It's probably perfectly rules-legal, but that doesn't make it aesthetically sensible.
It's like something out of a bad superhero comic though even those would probably not go beyond a character wielding ONE single shield as a weapon.
An illusionist who wants to fill her lair with tricks finds that magic aura is her friend.
Or she could cast continual light on stuff and put it behind a thin but light proof covering. It will radiate magic but don't shed light.
@Ganryu: You never have fought as/with a Shield Bearer have you. The most optimal Style is Twin Shields and using them to bash enemies into your partners attack lines. That is followed by a Tower Shield Set-Up.
Two weapon shield fighting can be found in real life.
Yes, but with some very specialised and very heavy shields. They're exotic weapons at the very least, and it doesn't look a very effective attack form to me, based on the video posted some way upthread. Quite good defensively (of course) but reach is very short and you can see what's coming from a mile off.
Making 2-shield combat remotely as easy or effective as it is in RAW PF is absolutely freaking idiotic.
There's some minor clean-up I'd like to see to the Vision and Light rules, namely the adoption of light levels "supernaturally dark" and "supernaturally bright".
Thus, in descending order of brightness:
Supernaturally Bright (normal, LL and darkvision don't work)
Bright
Normal
Dim
Darkness (normal and LL don't work)
Supernaturally Dark (normal, LL and darkvision don't work)
This would do two small things:
1) Reconcile the deeper darkness spell description with the rules on vision and light, and
2) Allow for an illumination level that makes things "too bright to see", which doesn't currently exist (as far as I know), but which makes sense to me.
"Evocation [light]" spells above daylight could be created to raise light levels in the same way that the darkness spells lower them. E.g. face of the gods a hypothetical 5th level spell, raises the light level shed by an existing source by 2. Thus, a torch becomes supernaturally bright to 20, bright to 40, normal to 60, dim to 80 (double for LL creatures).
All the above assumes that this hasn't been done already and I just didn't see the change. :-)
Actually, one could argue that the very nature of Illusion spells would prevent Detect Magic from piercing them so easily. If an Orc casts a spell to look like a human, and that spell gives off a magic aura that Detect Magic easily picks up, that negates the very reason for casting the 1st or greater level spell. Being that Detect Magic is a lowly orison, why should it be able to confound a much higher level spell anyway?
Just thought I would throw that out there. I honestly think that note should be added into the core book.Add on the fact that more powerful spells all radiate even stronger auras and it means that more powerful illusion spells are less effective against 1st level casters.
Strong illusion magic should really be undetectable by a lowly cantrip spell as it renders the magic of disguise and deception much less effective.
That reminds me of another heaping pile in the rules....
In 3.5, you could use still + silent + eschew materials to make your spellcasting undetectable via spellcraft. The 3.5 rules specifically state you must be able to see or hear the spellcasting to identify the spell.
The PF rewrite of spellcraft is a horrid mess. They changed it to an ambigious wording of must see the spell, which basically means that if you are casting a spell, even a spell with no noticible components, everyone withing in line of sight gets a spellcraft check to not only know you are casting a spell, but to know what spell you are casting. This makes it pretty much impossible to use illusions and similar non-violent spells in social situations.
There's some minor clean-up I'd like to see to the Vision and Light rules, namely the adoption of light levels "supernaturally dark" and "supernaturally bright".
Thus, in descending order of brightness:
Supernaturally Bright (normal, LL and darkvision don't work)
Bright
Normal
Dim
Darkness (normal and LL don't work)
Supernaturally Dark (normal, LL and darkvision don't work)This would do two small things:
1) Reconcile the deeper darkness spell description with the rules on vision and light, and
2) Allow for an illumination level that makes things "too bright to see", which doesn't currently exist (as far as I know), but which makes sense to me."Evocation [light]" spells above daylight could be created to raise light levels in the same way that the darkness spells lower them. E.g. face of the gods a hypothetical 5th level spell, raises the light level shed by an existing source by 2. Thus, a torch becomes supernaturally bright to 20, bright to 40, normal to 60, dim to 80 (double for LL creatures).
All the above assumes that this hasn't been done already and I just didn't see the change. :-)
That's a pretty nifty idea. I don't know that I'll keep it, but it might see use in a home game of mine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tacticslion: I have used something like that before. It is pretty effective. Once you get everything lined out.
I don't understand why some enchantments may only go on certain item types. I mean, conductive armor spikes make sense, or an ape throwing an improvised barrel of returning should also be possible.
there are some enchantments that should be able to go on anything that isn't anti-magical. Why can't I enchant my broom with a +5 armor enchant if i want to waste that money?
I don't understand why some enchantments may only go on certain item types. I mean, conductive armor spikes make sense, or an ape throwing an improvised barrel of returning should also be possible.
there are some enchantments that should be able to go on anything that isn't anti-magical. Why can't I enchant my broom with a +5 armor enchant if i want to waste that money?
My DM once let me put spell storing on ammunition. It was a really, really bad idea. Basically I was doing archery damage while effectively casting 3-4 level 3 spells per round.
The PF rewrite of spellcraft is a horrid mess. They changed it to an ambigious wording of must see the spell, which basically means that if you are casting a spell, even a spell with no noticible components, everyone withing in line of sight gets a spellcraft check to not only know you are casting a spell, but to know what spell you are casting. This makes it pretty much impossible to use illusions and similar non-violent spells in social situations.
Okay, logically that is ridiculous. If there are no possible signs of actually casting a spell, then there is no way you could identify it.
Okay, logically that is ridiculous. If there are no possible signs of actually casting a spell, then there is no way you could identify it.
The PF rewrite of spellcraft is a horrid mess. They changed it to an ambigious wording of must see the spell, which basically means that if you are casting a spell, even a spell with no noticible components, everyone withing in line of sight gets a spellcraft check to not only know you are casting a spell, but to know what spell you are casting. This makes it pretty much impossible to use illusions and similar non-violent spells in social situations.
Exactly, but I have been involved in no fewer than 3 rules debates over this issue, which is how I know what a mess that section of the rules are. I house rule it to the way it worked in 3.5(IE must be able to see a somatic or hear a verbal component to ID the spell), but a strict reading of the RAW says if you can see the person casting the spell, you get a spellcraft roll.
but a strict reading of the RAW says if you can see the person casting the spell, you get a spellcraft roll.
That is what GM's are for. If yours isn't functioning correctly, take it back and try a different one.
I'm kidding, I know what it's like to be "stuck" with your game group, because choices are limited, or just because they are your friends.
But, seriously, RAW is wrong in this case, just like it is in hundreds of others. There are many situations that don't synch with RAW. Working them out is part of building a good group game experience. It takes diplomacy, persuasion, and yes, rules knowledge.
but a strict reading of the RAW says if you can see the person casting the spell, you get a spellcraft roll.That is what GM's are for. If yours isn't functioning correctly, take it back and try a different one.
I'm kidding, I know what it's like to be "stuck" with your game group, because choices are limited, or just because they are your friends.
But, seriously, RAW is wrong in this case, just like it is in hundreds of others. There are many situations that don't synch with RAW. Working them out is part of building a good group game experience. It takes diplomacy, persuasion, and yes, rules knowledge.
I agree, and I house rule it to work like 3.5 did, but this is a thread about silly or dysfunctional rules, so I think that one deserves a mention.
I agree, and I house rule it to work like 3.5 did, but this is a thread about silly or dysfunctional rules, so I think that one deserves a mention.but a strict reading of the RAW says if you can see the person casting the spell, you get a spellcraft roll.That is what GM's are for. If yours isn't functioning correctly, take it back and try a different one.
I'm kidding, I know what it's like to be "stuck" with your game group, because choices are limited, or just because they are your friends.
But, seriously, RAW is wrong in this case, just like it is in hundreds of others. There are many situations that don't synch with RAW. Working them out is part of building a good group game experience. It takes diplomacy, persuasion, and yes, rules knowledge.
that's not even a houserule, the description has two meanings, I'm sure they intended it to be more along the lines of how you ruled it. but RAW can sometimes be taken more than one way
Okay, this is silly. The core rules shouldn't have to be written out as if it was a lawyer doing it. We are smart enough to be able to figure out the general intent of a given rule, dammit.
Logically, if there is no way to visually or aurally perceive a spell being cast, then there is no way a Spellcraft roll would identify it, period.
For visible stilled silent spells, I always cite the "swirling magical rune" rule. Most pathfinder art depicts bright runic circles around the hands of casters. As metamagic feats, both still and silent have some value beyond concealed casting, so you can only get so upset about it. Sure they're weaker than you thought, but still not useless.
If you really want a stealth illusion enchanter, look no further than the feat Spellsong.
I guess there could be a "hidden spell" metamagic, but honestly I think the SMR rule is a much needed check on caster power.
For visible stilled silent spells, I always cite the "swirling magical rune" rule. Most pathfinder art depicts bright runic circles around the hands of casters. As metamagic feats, both still and silent have some value beyond concealed casting, so you can only get so upset about it. Sure they're weaker than you thought, but still not useless.
If you really want a stealth illusion enchanter, look no further than the feat Spellsong.
I guess there could be a "hidden spell" metamagic, but honestly I think the SMR rule is a much needed check on caster power.
Disagree. The Still, Silent, and Eschew Materials feats not only cost 3 feat slots (the most precious thing in the game), but also up the spell level by 2. That's JUST to cast the spell without leaving traces so that it could be identified by Spellcraft. It is against the intent of those three feats, especially the Still Spell feat, to have visual effects that give away the spell even if all 3 feats are in effect.
Disagree. The Still, Silent, and Eschew Materials feats not only cost 3 feat slots (the most precious thing in the game), but also up the spell level by 2. That's JUST to cast the spell without leaving traces so that it could be identified by Spellcraft. It is against the intent of those three feats, especially the Still Spell feat, to have visual effects that give away the spell even if all 3 feats are in effect.For visible stilled silent spells, I always cite the "swirling magical rune" rule. Most pathfinder art depicts bright runic circles around the hands of casters. As metamagic feats, both still and silent have some value beyond concealed casting, so you can only get so upset about it. Sure they're weaker than you thought, but still not useless.
If you really want a stealth illusion enchanter, look no further than the feat Spellsong.
I guess there could be a "hidden spell" metamagic, but honestly I think the SMR rule is a much needed check on caster power.
The "intent" of Still spell is to allow you to cast without somatic components. Therefore casting while grappled, tied up, or suffering an spell failure chance from armor or load.
I agree, and I house rule it to work like 3.5 did, but this is a thread about silly or dysfunctional rules, so I think that one deserves a mention.but a strict reading of the RAW says if you can see the person casting the spell, you get a spellcraft roll.That is what GM's are for. If yours isn't functioning correctly, take it back and try a different one.
I'm kidding, I know what it's like to be "stuck" with your game group, because choices are limited, or just because they are your friends.
But, seriously, RAW is wrong in this case, just like it is in hundreds of others. There are many situations that don't synch with RAW. Working them out is part of building a good group game experience. It takes diplomacy, persuasion, and yes, rules knowledge.
You are quite right. Sorry. Reflex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Craft Wondrous Item is available at 3rd level and can make very nearly anything, from a 50gp Feather Token to a 200kgp Mirror of Life Trapping and the myriad entries for RPG Superstar, that doesn't fall into one of the other categories, including a lot of things that are potions, rods and rings in anything but name.
Conversely, Brew Potion can create potions of spells only up to 3rd level with targeting restrictions*. If you want to make a potion, sorry elixir, of anything else, it's actually a Wondrous Item.
* for low-level 'potions' that aren't, you'd need CWI for these:
- Stinking Cloud in a bottle: throw it to smash by your enemy
- Dunk your arrows into this vial for Flame Arrow
- A block of wax that casts Keen Edge on your sword when rubbed on the blade
- Daylight in a bottle: pour it out.
- Illusions in a bottle: paint it on the wall
- Dispel Magic in a bottle: pour it on the target
- Hypnotic Pattern in a bottle
- Web in a bottle
- Glue that will Make Whole
- Goodberries that stay fresh
and so on. No wonder nobody bothers with Brew Potion and every wizard takes CWI.
An 8th level Pearl of Power costs 64000gp. A Rod of Absorbtion costs 50000gp and (with its 50 charges) can do what that pearl does SIX times. And a whole lot more.
Whatever that rod should cost, it's not 50k. More like 500k.
An 8th level Pearl of Power costs 64000gp. A Rod of Absorbtion costs 50000gp and (with its 50 charges) can do what that pearl does SIX times. And a whole lot more.
Whatever that rod should cost, it's not 50k. More like 500k.
But the rod only works 6 times ever. The pearl of power works once a day.
The thing I can never get past with the "infinite cantrips means I cast them all day" is the sheer tedium involved. Imagine jotting down a simple math equation you could do in a couple seconds in your head. Now imagine performing that equation - not just knowing the answer, but mentally walking through the steps - 10 times a minute for 8 hours straight. No variation, just the same tedious thing over and over, distracting you from everything else you do over the course of your day. Want to check the mail? Do the equation, walk to the door, do the equation, open the door, do the equation, walk a bit, do the equation, walk to the mailbox, do the equation, open the mailbox, do the equation, remove your mail, do the equation arrghjkfblvx. It's all the tedium of writing lines as a punishment. I can't imagine any sane character that could do that for one day, let alone every day. It's like stating that your character attacks an adjacent empty square every waking round just in case of invisible foes.And now imagine if you got paid to do it say just 20-40 times a day? You don't need to spam something an infinite time for it to break the world - just enough to eliminate the mundane, non-magical need to invest in the skills and training to do so. I don't think a tinker would stay in business if mending is readily available and spammable in any world.
I appreciate the arguments to accept the spammable spells switch from 3.5 to PFRPG, and people here are going to great length to explain, justify or modify things to accommodate that change in world expectation. I just don't think the gamist reason (spell caster should always have spells they can cast) for the change is a good enough reason for me to change +30 years of AD&D world expectations. The reasons and justifications just don't cut it for me. Should a caster always be able to cast ray of frost? Maybe if he is an evoker? I considered a mod to my 4+ caster stat modifier use per day by allowing one spammable, but I would...
Do a combination. Have some of them slotted with limited uses, and then allow the cast to pick a certain number of spam able spells a day from a list that doesn't include the ones you think would break the world.
|
Do a combination. Have some of them slotted with limited uses, and then allow the cast to pick a certain number of spam able spells a day from a list that doesn't include the ones you think would break the world.And now imagine if you got paid to do it say just 20-40 times a day? You don't need to spam something an infinite time for it to break the world - just enough to eliminate the mundane, non-magical need to invest in the skills and training to do so. I don't think a tinker would stay in business if mending is readily available and spammable in any world.
I appreciate the arguments to accept the spammable spells switch from 3.5 to PFRPG, and people here are going to great length to explain, justify or modify things to accommodate that change in world expectation. I just don't think the gamist reason (spell caster should always have spells they can cast) for the change is a good enough reason for me to change +30 years of AD&D world expectations. The reasons and justifications just don't cut it for me. Should a caster always be able to cast ray of frost? Maybe if he is an evoker? I considered a mod to my 4+ caster stat modifier use per day by allowing one
This is the way I was leaning - to give a spammable attack or trick that was relevant to the specialist type.
But then again, my players and I come from a background of 1st and 2nd ed AD&D - where running out of spells was a real issue that they considered when they created their characters (second high stat was Dex, and they would use darts - no one complained). Also I don't think spammable spells are really needed (imo) beyond low level play - yet they make ahuge impact on how the world works (not a good trade off for what amounts to a gamist fix).I might go with a combination or customized list for specialist per specialist school, maybe a 2-3 spammable list per specialist, making up spells to fill any gaps.
Make any Cantrip from their Specialist School be Spammable. Make any opposed the Slotted and make all others the 3+(Casting Stat).
Rules that seem silly or broken to me:
(1) Encumbrance table, where ranges of weights are given instead of threshold values. On my character sheets I simply write these stats out:
Medium Load: <minimum for medium load>
Heavy Load: <minimum for heavy load>
Maximum Load: <limit for maximum load>
(2) Bonus spell slots from a high ability score for a given level not being available until/unless you can actually cast spells at that level. (not even metamagics?)
(3) Rods and rings that behave like they should be Wondrous Items instead. Just about any other magic item group can be described with a specific range of functions (weapons harm, shields/armor protect, potions imbue with magic, wands and staves cast spells.) I guess I would like a little more consistency and predictability.
(4) The Wondrous Item magic item group being so darn big compared to the other groups. While the Wondrous Item group is the only one that should *not* have a predictable range of functions, this huge collection of stuff could be organized a little better. I'd like to see WI's divided into Magical Garb (i.e. wearable slot items), Magical Transports (actual physical vehicles and objects of similar function), and then a reduced Wondrous Items group (everything else). Magic Garb would have minimum caster level of 3rd, vehicles also 3rd (but since they're non-slot items and usually hard to construct, they are divided from the main group of WI's), and then the rest of the Wondrous Items (min. caster level 5th).
(5) There is never a reason for a party not to declare a Knowledge skill check to identify a monster and its abilities which they've never encountered before "on screen", as the very first thing to do in an encounter, ever. Yet a character with a high modifier will have a pretty good chance of identifying it; this detracts from whatever mystery or shock value a DM might be hoping to deliver by using a monster the players (not the characters) have not seen in the campaign yet.
(6) Letting Darkvision be so common a trait. What is the point of including all the different kinds of light sources if you are almost guaranteed to have at least one PC with DV 60 ft?
(7) The suggested methods for breaking Initiative ties. Relying on base initiative bonus and a second roll doesn't seem intuitive. Instead I will go by higher Dexterity score wins. Failing that it's higher Wisdom, then higher Intelligence, and THEN the "coin flip".
(8) The Masterwork rules just don't "do enough"... I would think there would be some ways to have additional "levels" of masterwork without having to resort to magical enchantment. Instead, all master-crafted weapons and armor are basicaly the same, no matter the skill level of the creator. How about a masterwork weapon that does +1 to damage instead of +1 to attack, or has slightly more hit points than normal, or has a better crit range than others of its type? Or masterwork armor with a slightly higher max dex bonus, or slightly lower arcane spell failure, etc.?
(9) I dislike the "all damage or nothing" aspect of combat damage. I would like to see armor hardness/DR playing some part in the normal rules for combat. This would make a high Touch AC worth something, though it would laso require a Star Wars-like class-based Defense bonus (probably three tiered, high/medium/low, where sneaky types get the best Defense, the beefy warriors an average improvement, and the bookworms the worst).
Hitting the target's Armor Class still deals full damage (same as RAW), while hitting a target's Defense Class (equal to touch AC) inflicts the same damage, but this damage is subject to the armor's DR.
This would probably hurt unarmored casters the most, because bowmen with high-powered, long-range projectiles will turn the glass cannons into pincushions with little trouble. The armored front-line warriors, on the other hand, will benefit greatly, because their armor will help them survive the more deadly combat that results; the sneaks and assassins will survive anyway without a lot of armor because of their class bonuses.
In another way, this completes the rock-scissors-paper of checks and counters: tanks crush shooters, shooters crush casters, casters crush tanks.
As an aside, I highly recommend 101 New Skill Uses by Rite Publishing. There are a few items in it which I disagree with the implementation of, and a few that seem unnecessary, but 95% of the material does a great job of expanding the usefulness of skills.
For visible stilled silent spells, I always cite the "swirling magical rune" rule. Most pathfinder art depicts bright runic circles around the hands of casters. As metamagic feats, both still and silent have some value beyond concealed casting, so you can only get so upset about it. Sure they're weaker than you thought, but still not useless.
If you really want a stealth illusion enchanter, look no further than the feat Spellsong.
I guess there could be a "hidden spell" metamagic, but honestly I think the SMR rule is a much needed check on caster power.
At that point, you are using an artist's rendering to justify your interpretation of RAW. Hopefully, we can all agree that "The picture shows them doing it like this" is not a good way to go about interpreting the rules.
The 3.5 wording was very clear about when you got a Spellcraft check. The PF wording is different and not is a good way.
(5) There is never a reason for a party not to declare a Knowledge skill check to identify a monster and its abilities which they've never encountered before "on screen", as the very first thing to do in an encounter, ever. Yet a character with a high modifier will have a pretty good chance of identifying it; this detracts from whatever mystery or shock value a DM might be hoping to deliver by using a monster the players (not the characters) have not seen in the campaign yet.
I don't know how you would "fix" this mechanically. They need actual skill points in the Knowledge skills (you can't roll untrained Knowledge checks), so if they've devoted character resources, they should get some sort of benefit out of it. And each piece of information given steps the DC up by 5 points- they don't get to just look at the Bestiary entry right then and there.
Re-skinning monsters so that they no longer "count" as the Bestiary entry players might be familiar with (but still uses existing statistics), and then just giving bits of information out like the Skills entry says, should go a long way to keeping the mystery alive.
(My first two D20 gaming groups all knew the Monster Manual by memory, and had no qualms about jumping right in to tactics their characters had no reason to know. I had to get pretty good at re-skinning monsters I wanted to use, in order to fight that.)
A Few Classes can get around the Untrained Knowledge Checks. Plus if the DC is less than 10 it can be tested. So some of the more "Common" of the monsters can be recognized.
Heck, I can see a Wizard trained in an Academy or Archmage's Tower getting access to knowledge that others might not have access to or a Bard picking up the Knowledge from Stories & such while knowing how to decipher fact from fiction.
Two weapon shield fighting can be found in real life.TWF wielding shields is absolutely freaking idiotic.
It's probably perfectly rules-legal, but that doesn't make it aesthetically sensible.
It's like something out of a bad superhero comic though even those would probably not go beyond a character wielding ONE single shield as a weapon.
No, it can't. Got a cite?
Never seen a Scottish Shield Bearer in Action have you... Twin Targes are devastating when back-up by a Claymore.
A Few Classes can get around the Untrained Knowledge Checks. Plus if the DC is less than 10 it can be tested. So some of the more "Common" of the monsters can be recognized.
Heck, I can see a Wizard trained in an Academy or Archmage's Tower getting access to knowledge that others might not have access to or a Bard picking up the Knowledge from Stories & such while knowing how to decipher fact from fiction.
True. I suspect that the "common" monsters aren't causing the qualms here, though. And Bards have a class ability for Knowledge, so I don't have any problem with them getting mileage out of it. 'S why it's there.
Still, the best thing to do in order to create shock and awe is palette-swap a monster, maybe with one or two more weird traits on it. Then allow the high-modifier characters to identify some of the abilities not demonstrated yet so that they feel awesome. If they roll 20 over the DC to identify the monster, they have only unearthed five pieces of useful info about it (which can include Type, Vulnerabilities, Special Qualities, Special Attacks, and I usually lump "preferred tactics" in there, but that's technically house treatment I do to favor monster hunters). That's hardly comprehensive for the more unusual monsters you run into, except at the lower levels when monsters are usually more "boring" anyway.
Three different examples of how to isolate useful info on a monster without giving away the farm:
"The bog beast's maw is discolored around its teeth and lips, and there is a faint sour smell- it probably has a breath weapon, likely either acid or fiery swamp gas." (Hell Hound re-skinned for use as a wolf-like swamp construct in a game of mine from years back.)
"The beast's muscular hide isn't truly armored- it's a patchwork of scar tissue. It probably heals quite quickly." (Done with a mutant in a gladiatorial arena- it had DR and Fast Healing)
"The thing's eyes flicker from light to light, darting back to your torches. It's probably afraid of the fire."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(1) Encumbrance table
I don't see what the problem is. You can write it down however you like; it's the same information.(2) Bonus spell slots
I have no problem with this. It keeps low-level SAD casters vaguely balanced. Otherwise a 1st level wizard with 18 Int would get another 4 spells, which is a bit much.
(3) Rods and rings=Wondrous Items
Agreed as noted upthread, though metamagic rods are qualitatively different
(4) The Wondrous Item magic item group being so darn big
Agreed as noted upthread
(5) Knowledge skill check to identify a monster
The real problem is that the DC is based on the CR, not the rarity of the monster. 1e had a 'frequency' characteristic for monsters; 3e & PF don't. House rule it.
(6) Letting Darkvision be so common
Yes, at least 1 PC in each party does have darkvision. Meanwhile the others are floundering about in the gloom. Seems OK to me. Of the 5 PCs IMC, one has darkvision, one low-light and the other 3 normal.
(7) Initiative ties
YMMV. Can't say I care.
(8) Masterwork
Agreed. I have Masterwork Sharp (+1 damage too if you look after it) and Craft (straight +1). And whilst we're on the subject, the flat +300gp MW pricing is stupid. IMC it's x20 + 50gp.
(9) The problem with heavy use of DR is that it doesn't scale well with level. If your plate gives DR 5/- (as is perhaps realistic) you're immune to goblins at 2nd level but it scarcely helps you at all against the cloud giant at 12th. If you want that sort of realism, go play GURPS or Runequest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the rod (of absorbtion) only works 6 times ever. The pearl of power works once a day.
Hmf. Silly me. I read the Rod rules wrong 30 years ago and it stuck. Now I can unban it.
The heat dangers rule (p444) is strange. Above 90 degrees farenheit (32 celsius) you take 1d4 non-lethal damage per hour if you fail a fortitude save, then 1d4 lethal damage after you fall unconscious.
So, children with just 2hp would probably faint and die within 2 hours if left outside to play on a summer's day.
It should just do straight Con damage instead of HP damage. I feel similarly regarding falling damage; you should take ability damage from falling, not just HP damage.
It should just do straight Con damage instead of HP damage. I feel similarly regarding falling damage; you should take ability damage from falling, not just HP damage.The heat dangers rule (p444) is strange. Above 90 degrees farenheit (32 celsius) you take 1d4 non-lethal damage per hour if you fail a fortitude save, then 1d4 lethal damage after you fall unconscious.
So, children with just 2hp would probably faint and die within 2 hours if left outside to play on a summer's day.
Nonlethal con damage huh?
It's an idea for falling, but for uncomfortably warm summer days stat damage is a bit too much.
Just raise the threshold then. But really, you're never going to be able to get a workable system for temperature effects that mimics reality unless you want to get excessively complex.
YesNo, it can't. Got a cite?Two weapon shield fighting can be found in real life.TWF wielding shields is absolutely freaking idiotic.
It's probably perfectly rules-legal, but that doesn't make it aesthetically sensible.
It's like something out of a bad superhero comic though even those would probably not go beyond a character wielding ONE single shield as a weapon.
That's just a guy trying to capitalize on wu-shu mania by marketing a vid.
By 'real life: I mean a historical example, used by a military.
(5) There is never a reason for a party not to declare a Knowledge skill check to identify a monster and its abilities which they've never encountered before "on screen", as the very first thing to do in an encounter, ever. Yet a character with a high modifier will have a pretty good chance of identifying it; this detracts from whatever mystery or shock value a DM might be hoping to deliver by using a monster the players (not the characters) have not seen in the campaign yet.
.
That's just the DM trying to metagame. I mean, why shouldn't an expert be able to ID some critter? My degree is in Biology, specifically Littoral Ecology, I can ID most any animal to at least it's Class, and tidal species usually to Genus- even if I have never seen that species before. In fact, on several fieldtrips that's exactly what we'd say about some variant of limpet- "Hmm, some Acmaea species, , let's look it up...."
How would you "fix" this "OK, by DM fiat I declare you can't know anything about this monster because knowing about it would detract from the mystery or shock value". Heck, even in Call of Cthulhu you can ID abominations that drive you insane just thinking about them....
Yes
That's just a guy trying to capitalize on wu-shu mania by marketing a vid.
By 'real life: I mean a historical example, used by a military.
Military Soldiers wouldn't use it. Skirmishers and Duelists would use is.
Might look into the Twin "Buckler" Styles used by some German Duelists. I use "Buckler" simply because the Shields are more akin to the Klar.
@SCPRedMage: You can always use it as a basic shield and not a spiked shield.
You jump off an aerial mount (or knocked off, or it dies on you, etc...) at , let's say, 10,000 feet. You have a ring or spell prepared of feather falling. 6 seconds later or less you're on the ground, no damage because the spell SLOWS your fall. You duplicate the same scenario but remove the feather fall. 6 seconds or less later you're on the ground but taking 20d6 damage. Increase the height to the upper limits of the stratosphere, same results. Lower it to 200 feet, same result. I hate rules for falling. I understand that there is maximum velocity in physics. However, I believe the cap on damage should go higher than 20 dice. Falling rates for high distances should be incorporated. I have abused this rule to devastating affect and so have my players. I have created house rules to fix it. If we geeky gamers that play all these games can create massive, expansive rules for every thing under the sun, why not falling? Imagine a special forces team parachuting in behind enemy lines in a HALO (High Altitude Low Opening)jump that could get to the ground in 6 seconds from 24,000 feet? If that sounds ridiculous to you, then we need to cry out for new falling rules.
Used by a historical military? So you don't allow the whip, club, rapier, sickle, net, trident, or any monk, double, or nonhuman racial weapons in your games? That's ridiculously harsh for a game that is about heterogeneous adventuring parties rather than organized militaries.
That's just a guy trying to capitalize on wu-shu mania by marketing a vid.By 'real life: I mean a historical example, used by a military.
Didn't the French Musketeers wield Rapiers? Don't modern MPs or at least at some time carry billy clubs? I also remember gladiators using both trident and net in battles.