| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually common real world sense would say an Axe is needed to chop through bones. In the real world it is the best weapon against something with the structure of bone. Why? Because it has a high striking mass just like a bludgeoning weapon but since it has an edge it focuses all that force on a thin line. So you can see why realism isn't included in the game, the game has the axe as slashing weapon; so no luck using realism in a game fight.
|
But unless you know about undead, why would you think that? It is a bunch of bones. Hell, if you knew about Zombies you might think slashing made more sense, since they are both "undead".It's rock paper scissors. If you see a paper golem, and rock isn't working, you go to scissors. If you see a scissors golem, and paper isn't working, you go to rock.
If I see you're made of rubber and blunt stuff bounces off, I'm going to go with something that cuts. You don't need to know about undead to know that bones break.
And bones also get chopped like firewood. So why do axes not go through?
Hell Bone Cleavers are a thing that exist specifically to cut bones and they would be subject to DR.
If you don't know, you don't know.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so no luck using realism in a game fight.
True, Reality Is Unrealistic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
.... Yessssss, come have a look see ....
I WILL RESIST YOU, SUCCUBUS!!!
...maybe just one or two pages...
*Weeps*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
.... Yessssss, come have a look see ....I WILL RESIST YOU, SUCCUBUS!!!
...maybe just one or two pages...
*Weeps*
Probably the most appropriate username for this situation possible.
Actually, since a skeleton has a small surface area itself, trying to hit it with something with a small surface area doesn't seem like a good idea. You'd be doing a lot of WHIFFS! especially since skeletons aren't just sitting there immobile waiting for you to windup to swing at them.
And since they don't appear to have any flesh, thus no connective tissue, there is no assumption that if you did manage to cut a bone in half, that it couldn't be, perhaps instantaneously, reconnected.
It would seem, your best bet is to crush the bones to powder, or at least as close as you can get to it. In which case, you shouldn't compare skeletons to wood, but instead to something placed into a mortar and pestle.
|
If a player asked me if they knew the abilities of a creature they were facing off against based on what they knew because they can cast polymorph, but had never polymorphed into that creature before, I'd say they don't know - you need a knowledge check for that.That's what's been proposed here. You have summon monster and you are able to summon that specific monster, even though you never did before.
The equivalent example in this case would be the player wanting to know the statistics for the golem, but had never summoned a golem before. In that case, you can't use your summon spell knowledge, you'd need a knowledge check.
Just as a little followup to my earlier posts we had another session today.
We got into a realy nasty fight where our barbarian got killed by another barbarian (same dungeon) and some skeletons (not the crumbly kind) in the second round of the fight.
Anyway, to help out our party I cast Summon V for a Bralani Azathi (I think that was the name). This time he refused to let me control the creature and refused to let me command it to do specific actions (like casting Blur on our fighter or moving into a good position to use Lightning Bolt on multiple creatures). So I'm kinda giving up on the whole Summon line as it is. I'll keep it in the back of my mind as a last resort if we can escape a bad situation, rest up and really use Summons to resolve the situation. But as it is it seems Im better off with more direct spells.
I got our barbarian back up after the fight with a Raise Dead scroll we found in the previous module. And he got full xp :-)
Anyway, party is now 2 lvl 10s and 2 lvl 9s so we are starting to get a bit more control.
My grandfather would tell me it depended on the blade and type of cleaver, point out things called "Bone saws" aren't exactly bludgeoning weapons, and then tell me the only time you use generally use bludgeoning "weapons" in butchery is to tenderize meat... :)
lol, nice red herring, but let's stick to the context at hand. Last time I checked, 'bone saw' isn't on the equipment list, and the goal of tenderizing a sirloin is not to kill it.
And anyone with an inkling of combat (as you said) would think a an Axe (or again a bone saw...) works really well on bones, since it cuts wood (or bones) just fine.
Nope. Take my word for it, wood =/= bone. An axe is certainly better than a sword, but a hammer or mace is better yet.
The damage reduction is a magical ability, not a logical one. Just like slashing on Zombies is no more productive than any other weapon logically, but as a construct of the game it is.
Sorry, I'm not going to take your word on this one. Believe what you like, but take my word for this: If you're ever attacked with a knife, block with the outside of your arm. (The bony side.) If you're ever attacked with a bludgeon, block with the inside of your arm. (The fleshy side.) It's going to hurt either way, but it just might save your life.
I didn't see oceanshieldwolf's post, but the answer was when we got back from that adventure we did research on what we fought at the local church as part of the adventure.
You directly answered the post in question right here.
Basically we investigated a place, skeletons appeared, we fought them and then took our findings back to the authorities. As part of that research we learned the general weaknesses of skeletons.
I maintain my opinion that your anecdote is an example of taking knowledge checks to cartoonish extremes, but to each their own.
I'm not saying you can't have a reason to summon an archon. I'm saying his reason was google and that is metagaming.
Oh undoubtedly. I just think it's funny how many knee-jerk reactions I've seen here to something that, if acted upon by a more savvy player, would have likely been called 'good strategy.'
Unless I am mistaken summons only attack the nearest of your enemies unless you can communicate with them to issue alternate orders.
This time he refused to let me control the creature and refused to let me command it to do specific actions (like casting Blur on our fighter or moving into a good position to use Lightning Bolt on multiple creatures).
Run for the hills, my friend, 'cause it's only going to get worse. No gaming is better than bad gaming!
|
|
Sorry, I'm not going to take your word on this one.
I like how this was in the sentence after
"Take my word for it, wood =/= bone. An axe is certainly better than a sword, but a hammer or mace is better yet."
Fortunately you don't need to take my word..
"A cleaver is a large knife that varies in its shape but usually resembles a rectangular-bladed hatchet. It is largely used as a kitchen or butcher knife intended for hacking through bone. The knife's broad side can also be used for crushing in food preparation (such as garlic)."
While holding the bone in place, probably against a cutting surface. I'm not sure how well it would work in combat.
In real life there are weapons that are known for being capable of cleaving through bone with slashing force(by hacking through the whole corpse...). Using a cleaver or butcher's knife to cut meat is likely much different than beating up an animated and armored skeleton with your kitchen knife, great sword, or small mace though I'd wager.
While holding the bone in place, probably against a cutting surface. I'm not sure how well it would work in combat.
Do we know if they cut through the bone or the joint?
"A cleaver is a large knife that varies in its shape but usually resembles a rectangular-bladed hatchet. It is largely used as a kitchen or butcher knife intended for hacking through bone. The knife's broad side can also be used for crushing in food preparation (such as garlic)."
Thanks bro, I never knew what a clever was until now.
/sarcasm
You're focused on this poor comparison that you pulled out of your nether regions, which has only a superficial relationship to the topic at hand. Butchers use cleavers because they have to cut through bone and meat without making a bone-splintery mess. And you'd better bet they hate all the time they have to spend honing those cleavers, because blades aren't ideal for chopping bone. Give it up already, do yourself a favor, and talk to someone who has a clue about the topic at hand. I.e., someone who might be said to have a +1 BAB in game terms.
Until then, we'll just have to agree to disagree. End of discussion.
Anyway, to help out our party I cast Summon V for a Bralani Azathi (I think that was the name). This time he refused to let me control the creature and refused to let me command it to do specific actions (like casting Blur on our fighter or moving into a good position to use Lightning Bolt on multiple creatures). So I'm kinda giving up on the whole Summon line as it is. I'll keep it in the back of my mind as a last resort if we can escape a bad situation, rest up and really use Summons to resolve the situation. But as it is it seems Im better off with more direct spells.
That's a pity. Would it work to suggest getting control back of your summons if you have max ranks in the associated knowledge skill, especially when they have truespeech and are more than intelligent enough to act on your directives?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As stated, you need a few languages (six or seven), and you need a good Knowledge (planes) to use the summon spells well.
As stated, you need a few languages (six or seven), and you need a good Knowledge (planes) to use the summon spells well.
That's the theory, but with this GM, will even that be enough to make proper use of one's summons? Or will it always be an exercise in frustration as the GM runs them with sub-par tactics?
A GM who wants to run the summons is asking for a zogging lot of bookkeeping to do. It will balance itself out after a few sessions. =)
Looking over the original issue here, and having played through that particular fight fairly recently, 3 points need addressing here:
1) Seriously, what's with the level thing? Pathfinder dropped all the weird XP spending/rubber banding stuff from 3.5 and makes "negative levels" a status condition. There really is no reason I can think of for everyone not to have the same experience total, and the way Kingmaker is structured, with the whole non-linear sandbox thing going on, he shouldn't have set the events into motion leading you to that area until you were the appropriate level or close to it. Honestly, if you're playing in character, you tend to end up diving into every major area under-leveled because it's presented as a pressing concern and why would you go explore everywhere else first, but still, close to the right level. Having a party member just disappear because a player was absent isn't something I can really get behind either, particularly if you aren't compensating on the fly for handicapping the party like that.
2) While your GM was pretty well in the wrong for sending you into the nastiest area in that chapter a PC short and massively under-leveled, it is never cool to go online and look up how to strategies for a game of any sort, so sure, fair to call you a cheater for it. In this context though I'm not sure that's the real heart of the issue because...
3) There is more direct divine intervention going on in that chapter of that AP than I can recall finding in anything else Paizo has ever published.
So... I don't know if your GM did a bad job of conveying the context, or you just weren't going along with the proper spirit of things, but either way, using that particular tactic for that particular encounter really just completely ruins the story of that particular adventure.
A GM who wants to run the summons is asking for a zogging lot of bookkeeping to do. It will balance itself out after a few sessions. =)
It seems he is doing it just to spite me. His argument was that it was too much "metagaming". I read the Summon spell description loud to him but he wouldnt hear any of it. So I just plain out told him he was cheating. I mean common, we are using tiles and pawns to symbolize monsters and getting a tactical overview. Metagaming? Every dang encounter is done by metagaming from start to finish.
He is definitely being an arse and I'll call him out on every single fault he does. Like yesterday when he was slaughtering our barbarian he was doing a full attack and greater cleave at the same time while giggling to himself and saying how nasty this badboy was. And I called him out on hit that -no- he could not do a fullattack AND a greater cleave at the same time.
Its all starting to be a bit anoying. This is supposed to be our weekly fun social gathering. It seems more and more to me that he is taking the sides of the monsters more than is interested in creating a fun storyline and good atmosphere.
So... I don't know if your GM did a bad job of conveying the context, or you just weren't going along with the proper spirit of things, but either way, using that particular tactic for that particular encounter really just completely ruins the story of that particular adventure.
As we have progressed down into the dungeon we have started to get the feeling that something is strange. We havent really seen any burial chamber at all, just a series of puzzles/traps/obstacles.
Right now we have passed the Gorum cleric, which was mostly a battle of attrition up until he ran out of spells. The Gorum barbarian afterwards was much worse in terms of pure damage output but we were able to take him down before dealing with the skeletons. He did kill our barbarian but I was able to cast Raise Dead on him so it didnt really disrupt our progress much.
As for why we would be in the spot in the first place. We have all along been told how the campaign is sandbox in nature and that we need to go around exploring. We started exploring along the lake in this area but the bog was just too hard to travel through. So we ended up going north and west where it was more hills instead and easier to travel. So it was not the GMs fault that we stumbled upon this place.
I used the spoiler tag in the post since it contains a heavy flavor of information in regards to what/where of our adventures.
|
Well, if you'd met one of my players, he'd have suggested lantern archons as the solution before you even explained what the problem is. He solves everything with lantern archons.
(Well, almost everything. It didn't work at all in a certain castle, and doesn't work very well against dragons with frightful presence.)
Your DM should consider himself lucky that they weren't hasted ...
|
|
"A cleaver is a large knife that varies in its shape but usually resembles a rectangular-bladed hatchet. It is largely used as a kitchen or butcher knife intended for hacking through bone. The knife's broad side can also be used for crushing in food preparation (such as garlic)."Thanks bro, I never knew what a clever was until now.
/sarcasm
You're focused on this poor comparison that you pulled out of your nether regions, which has only a superficial relationship to the topic at hand. Butchers use cleavers because they have to cut through bone and meat without making a bone-splintery mess. And you'd better bet they hate all the time they have to spend honing those cleavers, because blades aren't ideal for chopping bone. Give it up already, do yourself a favor, and talk to someone who has a clue about the topic at hand. I.e., someone who might be said to have a +1 BAB in game terms.
Until then, we'll just have to agree to disagree. End of discussion.
Your stating things in italics is more convincing to me than facts. How can I compete with slanted lettering...
And your personal "+1 BAB in game terms" isn't your characters "+1 BAB in game terms"
You aren't your character. Using your knowledge out of game knowledge in place of your characters in game knowledge is the definition of metagaming.
And I ran a game in recent years for a group of noob high school/middle school kids and when they encountered skeletons they too did not consider that the sword was doing less damage. But they gleefully hacked away until an int check revealed what we all now know.-MD
I'd just like to point out that by the rules, they SHOULD know after the first hit.
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective).
|
|
And I ran a game in recent years for a group of noob high school/middle school kids and when they encountered skeletons they too did not consider that the sword was doing less damage. But they gleefully hacked away until an int check revealed what we all now know.-MD
I'd just like to point out that by the rules, they SHOULD know after the first hit.
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective).
And at my tables they do, generally because the GM says "Mark that minus 'x'" on the board.
That doesn't mean I then know what weapon would work.
And I ran a game in recent years for a group of noob high school/middle school kids and when they encountered skeletons they too did not consider that the sword was doing less damage. But they gleefully hacked away until an int check revealed what we all now know.-MD
I'd just like to point out that by the rules, they SHOULD know after the first hit.
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective).
that's weird- what about situations where the damage reduction isn't enough to negate the damage entirely? I've encountered that far more often than not. I've always ruled that it doesn't take much to figure out a weapon isn't doing as much damage as it could, but unless the DR is sky high, the pcs are still having an effect.
And I ran a game in recent years for a group of noob high school/middle school kids and when they encountered skeletons they too did not consider that the sword was doing less damage. But they gleefully hacked away until an int check revealed what we all now know.-MD
I'd just like to point out that by the rules, they SHOULD know after the first hit.
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective).
If you are a stickler for rules then yes you are correct.
You know, I explained that to them via flavorful text. For instance: "Your weapon clanks akwardly on the hardened bones of the dead. They seem to shrug off much of your swing and continue forward grasping at you."
I'm not fond of breaking that wall. You might like to just state the rule to the players but I'm fond of letting them listen to the flavor and make (or not make) that connection themselves. So then I had them roll that int check hoping they might make that mental connection to my description.
But anyway these are Jr. Highers we are talking about. They are not the brightest of bulbs when hopped up on Mtn Dew.
Besides most of the kids did not have back up weapons since they blew all the cash on the most awesome epic giant two handed weapon they could find.
Fun was had by all
As stated, you need a few languages (six or seven), and you need a good Knowledge (planes) to use the summon spells well.
I haven't scoured the Summon Monster lists, but doesn't pretty much everything with a 3+ Intelligence understand common? Heck, even pegasi understand common, despite being completely unable to speak! And last time I checked, all PC races speak common too. If so, language isn't an issue. Your summoned critter either understands you perfectly well, or it's an animal, in which case no amount of linguistic breadth is going to help.
that's weird- what about situations where the damage reduction isn't enough to negate the damage entirely? I've encountered that far more often than not. I've always ruled that it doesn't take much to figure out a weapon isn't doing as much damage as it could, but unless the DR is sky high, the pcs are still having an effect.
And I ran a game in recent years for a group of noob high school/middle school kids and when they encountered skeletons they too did not consider that the sword was doing less damage. But they gleefully hacked away until an int check revealed what we all now know.-MD
I'd just like to point out that by the rules, they SHOULD know after the first hit.
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective).
I think that some of us are reading 'ineffective' as 'partially ineffective,' and some of us are reading it as 'completely ineffective.' Three cheers for ambiguous RAW!
that's weird- what about situations where the damage reduction isn't enough to negate the damage entirely? I've encountered that far more often than not. I've always ruled that it doesn't take much to figure out a weapon isn't doing as much damage as it could, but unless the DR is sky high, the pcs are still having an effect.
And I ran a game in recent years for a group of noob high school/middle school kids and when they encountered skeletons they too did not consider that the sword was doing less damage. But they gleefully hacked away until an int check revealed what we all now know.-MD
I'd just like to point out that by the rules, they SHOULD know after the first hit.
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective).
"Your sword isn't cutting in as deeply as you'd expect."
"Your spear feels like it's sliding right through without resistance from anything vital."
"It snaps back from the impact of your swing with surprising elasticity."
Add "... but it does at least seem to be doing SOME damage" as necessary.
Pfft,
Googleshng , if players can't figure it out from any one of those great descriptions you wrote than so be it. I see no need for the "add" other than to placate the Pathfinder Society.
The kids are all running around as barbarians swinging two handed swords. DR 5 is no defense for the kind of damage they were dealing. If I felt they were in danager yeah, I might have said it strait out at some point. But I just let the kids have fun then explained it via story after they examined the skeletons.
That poses a conundrum. Should a Raging barbarian even get an int check? But I digress...
-MD
If you are a stickler for rules then yes you are correct.
You know, I explained that to them via flavorful text. For instance: "Your weapon clanks akwardly on the hardened bones of the dead. They seem to shrug off much of your swing and continue forward grasping at you."
I'm not fond of breaking that wall. You might like to just state the rule to the players but I'm fond of letting them listen to the flavor and make (or not make) that connection themselves. So then I had them roll that int check hoping they might make that mental connection to my description.
But anyway these are Jr. Highers we are talking about. They are not the brightest of bulbs when hopped up on Mtn Dew.
Besides most of the kids did not have back up weapons since they blew all the cash on the most awesome epic giant two handed weapon they could find.
Fun was had by all
Ah, gotcher. Yeah, I wasn't implying you should outright say "Yeah they have DR against your attack", but that you should let them know in some way that their attack was ineffective.
At that point if they don't figure it out, it's on their heads.
Carry on! =)
If you are a stickler for rules then yes you are correct.
You know, I explained that to them via flavorful text. For instance: "Your weapon clanks akwardly on the hardened bones of the dead. They seem to shrug off much of your swing and continue forward grasping at you."
I'm not fond of breaking that wall. You might like to just state the rule to the players but I'm fond of letting them listen to the flavor and make (or not make) that connection themselves. So then I had them roll that int check hoping they might make that mental connection to my description.
But anyway these are Jr. Highers we are talking about. They are not the brightest of bulbs when hopped up on Mtn Dew.
Besides most of the kids did not have back up weapons since they blew all the cash on the most awesome epic giant two handed weapon they could find.
Fun was had by all
Ah, gotcher. Yeah, I wasn't implying you should outright say "Yeah they have DR against your attack", but that you should let them know in some way that their attack was ineffective.
At that point if they don't figure it out, it's on their heads.
Carry on! =)
That's how it should be. And it seems like the GM here did let the player know in a "muahahaha fashion" that the creature had spell immunity, so I think summoning would be a logical leap for the character regardless of the source of the player's idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not switching sides, because no one is on MY side.
Aw. I'll be on your side, TOZ. Just let me know when you need a hand. I got your back! :D