| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is the argument, it is fine to have weaknesses because only a jerk DM would ever target them?
Which doesn't answer my question. Who would actually bother to do that? :)How many? Who knows. I usually keep it to give to the guy I make carry my stuff... I mean umm... you know, help carry my own things!
More seriously, I don't think strength damage actually affects carrying capacity according to the glossary.
It is arguably true although the section is not entirely clear. Same thing with short duration penalties such as Ray of Enfeeblement.
The glossary specifies that they impose a -1 penalty on skills and statistics related to the ability. It depends on what you think it means by statistic related to the ability.
Ability Drain actually reduces the stat. You can find the relevant section here.
Pretty sure Carrying Capacity is a number derived from your strength score, sounds like a statistic to me.
A anthauled strength of 1 is only 9 pounds of carrying weight. Assuming a spell component pouch and spellbook that leaves you with 6 pounds of weight left. 2 more pounds for a monk/peasants outfit because we really shouldn't be walking around naked.
That leaves 4 pounds left. It is incredibly likely you'll be carrying close to your maximum light load with a 7 strength.
Being encumbered gives ya spell chance failure too.
"A medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or skills that are restricted by armor."
So is the argument, it is fine to have weaknesses because only a jerk DM would ever target them?
The only thing I said it would be jerky to do would be to target a PC and kill them without giving them a chance to react. (The jerkiness of this is of course lessened, possibly to nonexistence, the easier it is for the party to access resurrection magic.) But that's really independent of having a weakness. The DM could send enough greater shadows to kill your character regardless of their strength score.
The argument was that a low ability score is less of a weakness than was claimed. Especially if you take steps to minimize the weakness.
That seems really unclear. Given ASF is not consistent between different types of armour in each category how do you propose to decide how much ASF applies. That seems like the sort of thing that would be specifically called out somewhere.Being encumbered gives ya spell chance failure too.
"A medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or skills that are restricted by armor."
Fullplate has a +1 Max dexterity bonus and a -6 armor check penalty. Matches the penalties for a heavy load.
Medium load matches up with Hide/Kikko Armor somewhat imperfectly but works.
No it does not. Arcane spell failure is linked to the specific armor, not to the weight class. Medium armor doesn't have an arcane spell failure chance (though a breastplate does). The relevant text from chapter 7 doesn't mention anything:Being encumbered gives ya spell chance failure too.
"A medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or skills that are restricted by armor."
Like armor, a character's load affects his maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, carries a check penalty (which works like an armor check penalty), reduces the character's speed, and affects how fast the character can run, as shown on Table 7--5.
Table 7--5 doesn't list any arcane spell failure chance.
No it does not. Arcane spell failure is linked to the specific armor, not to the weight class. Medium armor doesn't have an arcane spell failure chance (though a breastplate does). The relevant text from chapter 7 doesn't mention anything:Being encumbered gives ya spell chance failure too.
"A medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or skills that are restricted by armor."
Like armor, a character's load affects his maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, carries a check penalty (which works like an armor check penalty), reduces the character's speed, and affects how fast the character can run, as shown on Table 7--5.Table 7--5 doesn't list any arcane spell failure chance.
So you believe that though a heavy load is as encumbering as full plate, it shouldn't have the same effect despite it affecting everything else?
"A medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or skills that are restricted by armor."
Point is, all armor has ASF with special exceptions. Thats why its listed on all armor WITHOUT exceptions since they have to say that they don't have ASF otherwise. The Haramaki has an ASF of 0% Arcane Spellcasting is an ability constricted by armor because ASF is listed in the armor section. So it most definitely is linked to armor in general.
"A medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities or skills that are restricted by armor."
If weight encumbrance gave ASF, then it would mention it in the text or table. That sentence is much more naturally understood to refer to abilities like the monk's AC bonus or the barbarian's fast movement---abilities which state that they do not work when under certain encumbrance. Unlike ASF, those are tied to the weight class of armor, not to the specific armor.
I would ask you as a player if you knew an NPC Wizard had this weakness would you target it? Of course you would if it was the best tactic.
That's a big if.
I'm going to have to disagree Scavion. There is nothing there that says you gain arcane spell failure.
If weight encumbrance gave ASF, then it would mention it in the text or table. That sentence is much more naturally understood to refer to abilities like the monk's AC bonus or the barbarian's fast movement---abilities which state that they do not work when under certain encumbrance. Unlike ASF, those are tied to the weight class of armor, not to the specific armor.
I would ask you as a player if you knew an NPC Wizard had this weakness would you target it? Of course you would if it was the best tactic.That's a big if.
So a Monk's AC bonus or Barbarian's fast movement is removed due to pseudo penalties but aren't actually wearing armor of that type, but the Wizard's abilities that are ALSO hampered by armor are unharmed. Since it doesn't state specifically that it grants an ASF despite giving all the same penalties as fullplate it doesn't harm Wizards.
Interesting.
Do note that all medium and heavy armor have ASF, no exceptions. So logically, one would assume being treated as though having medium or heavy armor would bring it along.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a Monk's AC bonus or Barbarian's fast movement is removed due to pseudo penalties but aren't actually wearing armor of that type, but the Wizard's abilities that are ALSO hampered by armor are unharmed.
I actually just checked. The text for the monk's AC bonus and barbarian's fast movement actually both mention explicitly weight encumbrance.
Do note that all medium and heavy armor have ASF, no exceptions. So logically, one would assume being treated as though having medium or heavy armor would bring it along.
All medium and heavy armor provide an armor bonus to AC, no exceptions. So logically, when under a medium or heavy weight encumbrance, a wizard gets a boost to AC.
So a Monk's AC bonus or Barbarian's fast movement is removed due to pseudo penalties but aren't actually wearing armor of that type, but the Wizard's abilities that are ALSO hampered by armor are unharmed.I actually just checked. The text for the monk's AC bonus and barbarian's fast movement actually both mention explicitly weight encumbrance.
Do note that all medium and heavy armor have ASF, no exceptions. So logically, one would assume being treated as though having medium or heavy armor would bring it along.All medium and heavy armor provide an armor bonus to AC, no exceptions. So logically, when under a medium or heavy weight encumbrance, a wizard gets a boost to AC.
Sigh. I'm done. Yall win. Surely you can see how it makes sense for the Wizard to be hampered by weight in his casting.
The caster martial disparity grows.
Sigh. I'm done. Yall win. Surely you can see how it makes sense for the Wizard to be hampered by weight in his casting.
The caster martial disparity grows.
Can't help RAW. Nothing to win or lose here really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't help RAW. Nothing to win or lose here really.Sigh. I'm done. Yall win. Surely you can see how it makes sense for the Wizard to be hampered by weight in his casting.
The caster martial disparity grows.
Just leaves a rotten taste in my mouth. Everyone else gets penalized and loses their abilities, the Wizard gets a Get out of jail free card with an exception.
So is the argument, it is fine to have weaknesses because only a jerk DM would ever target them?The only thing I said it would be jerky to do would be to target a PC and kill them without giving them a chance to react. (The jerkiness of this is of course lessened, possibly to nonexistence, the easier it is for the party to access resurrection magic.) But that's really independent of having a weakness. The DM could send enough greater shadows to kill your character regardless of their strength score.
The argument was that a low ability score is less of a weakness than was claimed. Especially if you take steps to minimize the weakness.
What if they don't get a chance to react because of the weakness. Shadows popping out of the wall and attacking wouldn't be a problem for a high level group unless a character has dumped strength. Then they become much more susceptible which might have been what was meant in the original example. The character with a dump stat has a smaller window then the character without a dump stat. Does the GM have to avoid the dump stat?
Just leaves a rotten taste in my mouth. Everyone else gets penalized and loses their abilities, the Wizard gets a Get out of jail free card with an exception.
It would be a really easy and reasonable house rule to add.
Just leaves a rotten taste in my mouth. Everyone else gets penalized and loses their abilities, the Wizard gets a Get out of jail free card with an exception.Can't help RAW. Nothing to win or lose here really.Sigh. I'm done. Yall win. Surely you can see how it makes sense for the Wizard to be hampered by weight in his casting.
The caster martial disparity grows.
Never said I agree with it. That said, armor is one of those things that I think could use a revamp, for both casters and martials.
Wizards wearing full plate without penalty would hardly widen the gap. It's not as if under the current setup, the balancing factor for wizards is that they cannot wear full plate.
Its how everything adds up. Encumbrance is a factor in building a character. When you don't have to worry in the least about it, it grants more power in other areas.
Rules as makes bloody sense is what I play.
Does it make sense to me that when encumbered, folks lose access to abilities that depends on light armor? Sure yeah.
Does it make sense for there to be an exception in wording for a class that is most dependent on not wearing armor to avoid the penalties that come from wearing medium/heavy armor especially when that penalty is intrinsic to all medium and heavy armor? Not in my games.
The armor bonus shenanigans makes no sense because these are supposed to be penalties. Why would gaining a bonus ever come into it? I feel like you were trying to deride my statement.
What was the point of that statement?
So is the argument, it is fine to have weaknesses because only a jerk DM would ever target them?Nope, rather that those weaknesses aren't really weaknesses as they can be covered for by well prepared play. Nothing is perfect of course so you may sometimes come a cropper but that is true for anything.
Investing 4 stat build points to have a 10 strength 11 wisdom on your wizard is a far worse deal than having 7 strength 14 wisdom. I will take an extra +2 on perception and will saves any day over -2 CMB/CMD and the theoretical chance that shadows or strength poisons might incapacitate me.
They can be covered, sure, but you cannot cover everything all the time. Do you only face one kind of threat at high level? Can the DM only use threats the party has prepared against? Is variety a jerk move?
What if they don't get a chance to react because of the weakness. Shadows popping out of the wall and attacking wouldn't be a problem for a high level group unless a character has dumped strength.
The low strength contributes nothing to your ability to avoid being being jumped by shadows.
Does the GM have to avoid the dump stat?
I think the point was a GM attacking your weak stat on purpose compounded with an almost impossible to avoid situation because you can't react because adversarial. I hate when you can't avoid a death or failure because control is something that is very important to me in a game. If I don't have control then I'm probably going to walk.
Wait, no, this isn't the rebellion thread...
What if they don't get a chance to react because of the weakness. Shadows popping out of the wall and attacking wouldn't be a problem for a high level group unless a character has dumped strength. Then they become much more susceptible which might have been what was meant in the original example. The character with a dump stat has a smaller window then the character without a dump stat. Does the GM have to avoid the dump stat?
Going by the CR table in the CRB, 16 greater shadows is a CR 16 encounter. Bump that up by 1 because they ambush through the walls and we get an CR 17 encounter. Each greater shadow has a +11 to their touch attack versus (probably) flat-footed touch AC. Let's assume that only half of them manage to succeed on that roll. They each do 1d8 strength damage for an average total of 36 strength damage. That's going to kill just about any 20th level PC. Of course, all this is in the surprise round.
If the DM wants to kill a PC, they can do it, regardless of whether the player dumped their character's strength score. If the shadow ambush through the walls kills the wizard, the root cause is not that the wizard only has 7 strength.
Of course, this isn't to say that you cannot throw such an encounter at your party. But you shouldn't do things like "forget" to give the players perception checks. Working in the perception penalty for listening through a foot thick wall, the greater shadows have an effective stealth modifier of 30. There's an excellent chance the party notices at least some of the shadows before the ambush. There's also class abilities and spells that keep one from being surprised. The wizard might have a relevant contingency. Death ward outright makes one immune to the shadow's strength damage. With all this considered, it's not an unfair encounter. But then the wizard isn't going to die just because they only have 7 strength.
What was the point of that statement?
I was trying to say that ASF isn't a balancing point for wizards. But anyway, I deleted that comment almost immediately after posting it because it wasn't really relevant. I wasn't trying to deride your statement and I apologize. I think it would be quite reasonable to house rule that weight encumbrance adds ASF.
It does suck to be a monk or rogue, but that's because those are flawed classes. A barbarian is going to lose fast movement and nothing else. A ranger is very unlikely to hit heavy load. If he's dex based he's wearing light armor and keeping his encumbrance light. If he's strength based his medium load limit is quite generous. A ranger has to be either dex based or strength based or a useless waste of space.Just leaves a rotten taste in my mouth. Everyone else gets penalized and loses their abilities, the Wizard gets a Get out of jail free card with an exception.Can't help RAW. Nothing to win or lose here really.Sigh. I'm done. Yall win. Surely you can see how it makes sense for the Wizard to be hampered by weight in his casting.
The caster martial disparity grows.
The point was that when Strength damage/penalties/drain is brought into play, it harms folks disproportionately who are supposed to be penalized for medium/heavy armor. The ranger who hits heavy load loses all his combat style feats. The monk loses all his AC practically, fast movement, and Flurry. A Barbarian loses his fast movement and deals a bit less damage. A wizard is....relatively unharmed. No loss of features, damage, just a little frailer.
Personally... I rule that if your Str goes down, you suffer an appropriate a penalty to everything related to Strength. Everything.
Sames goes for any other attribute.
However, it does make sense that a penalty to Str is more harmful to classes that depend more on Str... That too is the same for every ability score.
A penalty (or bonus) to Attribute X will obviously be more significant to character and classes that are more reliant on Attribute X. That's not a problem.
Personally... I rule that if your Str goes down, you suffer an appropriate a penalty to everything related to Strength. Everything.
Sames goes for any other attribute.
However, it does make sense that a penalty to Str is more harmful to classes that depend more on Str... That too is the same for every ability score.
A penalty (or bonus) to Attribute X will obviously be more significant to character and classes that are more reliant on Attribute X. That's not a problem.
Of course. My problem with it is that Arcane casters are penalized when wearing armor, but when they are considered as wearing armor, it doesn't grant the meaningful aspect of wearing armor for them, ASF. So it doesn't really hamper casting as armor should, but penalizes everyone else.
What if they don't get a chance to react because of the weakness. Shadows popping out of the wall and attacking wouldn't be a problem for a high level group unless a character has dumped strength. Then they become much more susceptible which might have been what was meant in the original example. The character with a dump stat has a smaller window then the character without a dump stat. Does the GM have to avoid the dump stat?Going by the CR table in the CRB, 16 greater shadows is a CR 16 encounter. Bump that up by 1 because they ambush through the walls and we get an CR 17 encounter. Each greater shadow has a +11 to their touch attack versus (probably) flat-footed touch AC. Let's assume that only half of them manage to succeed on that roll. They each do 1d8 strength damage for an average total of 36 strength damage. That's going to kill just about any 20th level PC. Of course, all this is in the surprise round.
If the DM wants to kill a PC, they can do it, regardless of whether the player dumped their character's strength score. If the shadow ambush through the walls kills the wizard, the root cause is not that the wizard only has 7 strength.
Of course, this isn't to say that you cannot throw such an encounter at your party. But you shouldn't do things like "forget" to give the players perception checks. Working in the perception penalty for listening through a foot thick wall, the greater shadows have an effective stealth modifier of 30. There's an excellent chance the party notices at least some of the shadows before the ambush. There's also class abilities and spells that keep one from being surprised. The wizard might have a relevant contingency. Death ward outright makes one immune to the shadow's strength damage. With all this considered, it's not an unfair encounter. But then the wizard isn't going to die just because they only have 7 strength.
Come on now, the only way to use a shadow against a APL 16 party is not just to simply throw 16 shadows at them. Shadows may be the mooks in a boss fight, or small random encounters in a dungeon, or accompanied by shadow mastifs, part of a horde of various undead etc. etc.
Also shadow is not the only thing in the game doing strength damage. Spells, poison, other bestiary monsters do strength damage as well.
The point was that if you dump strength too far you leave a glaring vulnerability.
Now if that vulnerability causes the character to die, you can just complain the DM was antagonistic?
And what if he is running published adventure material, is the DM antagonistic for not removing the sources of strength damage?
What if they don't get a chance to react because of the weakness. Shadows popping out of the wall and attacking wouldn't be a problem for a high level group unless a character has dumped strength. Then they become much more susceptible which might have been what was meant in the original example. The character with a dump stat has a smaller window then the character without a dump stat. Does the GM have to avoid the dump stat?Going by the CR table in the CRB, 16 greater shadows is a CR 16 encounter. Bump that up by 1 because they ambush through the walls and we get an CR 17 encounter. Each greater shadow has a +11 to their touch attack versus (probably) flat-footed touch AC. Let's assume that only half of them manage to succeed on that roll. They each do 1d8 strength damage for an average total of 36 strength damage. That's going to kill just about any 20th level PC. Of course, all this is in the surprise round.
If the DM wants to kill a PC, they can do it, regardless of whether the player dumped their character's strength score. If the shadow ambush through the walls kills the wizard, the root cause is not that the wizard only has 7 strength.
Of course, this isn't to say that you cannot throw such an encounter at your party. But you shouldn't do things like "forget" to give the players perception checks. Working in the perception penalty for listening through a foot thick wall, the greater shadows have an effective stealth modifier of 30. There's an excellent chance the party notices at least some of the shadows before the ambush. There's also class abilities and spells that keep one from being surprised. The wizard might have a relevant contingency. Death ward outright makes one immune to the shadow's strength damage. With all this considered, it's not an unfair encounter. But then the wizard isn't going to die just because they only have 7 strength.
My point was, and I think it's getting lost here, is not that a DM can kill you if you want but that weaknesses are weaknesses. Yes 36 Str damage will probably take out any character but it only takes 7 to take out the one who dumped Str. One hit by one greater shadow could kill your wizard. Would that be a jerk move? One shadow, meant to show the mansion is haunted, that is supposed to be destroyed it less than one round can kill your wizard by following tactics common for a shadow. That is a small window.
Come on now, the only way to use a shadow against a APL 16 party is not just to simply throw 16 shadows at them. Shadows may be the mooks in a boss fight, or small random encounters in a dungeon, or accompanied by shadow mastifs, part of a horde of various undead etc. etc.
Also shadow is not the only thing in the game doing strength damage. Spells, poison, other bestiary monsters do strength damage as well.
In case you aren't in a situation where you get ambushed by shadows before you can react, you do the usual things you do when facing an enemy that potentially kill you quickly: you kill them first. By mid to high levels in Pathfinder, there's loads of creatures that can kill you in a round or two. Shadows killing you through strength damage versus hitpoint damage or save-or-die effects doesn't really matter.
Now if that vulnerability causes the character to die, you can just complain the DM was antagonistic?
I only said it's antagonistic if you aren't given a chance to react. (I parenthetically mentioned this before, but I might as well do it again: the easier it is for your party to access resurrection magic, the less jerky it is for your DM to kill your character without giving you a chance to react.) It's not exploiting the weakness that makes it jerky and antagonistic.
it only takes 7 to take out the one who dumped Str. One hit by one greater shadow could kill your wizard. Would that be a jerk move? One shadow, meant to show the mansion is haunted, that is supposed to be destroyed it less than one round can kill your wizard by following tactics common for a shadow. That is a small window.
Let's say your wizard has 12 strength. Not only did you not dump strength, you spent 2 points from your point buy on it! The chance that touches from two shadows kills you is only slightly less than the chance that a touch from one shadow kills the 7 strength wizard.
Two hits from two greater shadows could kill your wizard. Would that be a jerk move? Two shadows, meant to show the mansion is haunted, that are supposed to be destroyed in less than one round can kill your wizard by following tactics common for a pair of shadows. That is a small window.
it only takes 7 to take out the one who dumped Str. One hit by one greater shadow could kill your wizard. Would that be a jerk move? One shadow, meant to show the mansion is haunted, that is supposed to be destroyed it less than one round can kill your wizard by following tactics common for a shadow. That is a small window.Let's say your wizard has 12 strength. Not only did you not dump strength, you spent 2 points from your point buy on it! The chance that touches from two shadows kills you is only slightly less than the chance that a touch from one shadow kills the 7 strength wizard.
Two hits from two greater shadows could kill your...
So should I assume that's a yes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's not the shadows themselves that are an antagonistic move
it's the use of shadows with any of the following situations or factors applying
1. no chance to react!
2. a desire to kill the filthy munchkin wizard because he dared to dump strength!
3. being upset at something the wizard did, in game or out of game!
4. completely ignoring the wizard's listed defenses and singling them out when there are other dangerous PCs to deal with
5. sending a swarm of shadows to take out one Wizard
I only said it's antagonistic if you aren't given a chance to react. (I parenthetically mentioned this before, but I might as well do it again: the easier it is for your party to access resurrection magic, the less jerky it is for your DM to kill your character without giving you a chance to react.) It's not exploiting the weakness that makes it jerky and antagonistic.
What if the dungeon was designed before characters were generated? The last person to enter the room gets jumped by two shadows. They lurk in the walls, thus are impossible to spot.
Generally the DM gives ques as to what you may be facing in the dungeon. Is that the part you refer to as a "reaction"? Or is it specifically acting before the enemy tries to kill you? If no one was searching for traps and it kills someone, is that jerky and antagonistic?
Is a "You might get jumped by incorporeal undead so be careful" enough?
What if the dungeon was designed before characters were generated? The last person to enter the room gets jumped by two shadows. They lurk in the walls, thus are impossible to spot.
Of course, this isn't to say that you cannot throw such an encounter at your party. But you shouldn't do things like "forget" to give the players perception checks. Working in the perception penalty for listening through a foot thick wall, the greater shadows have an effective stealth modifier of 30. There's an excellent chance the party notices at least some of the shadows before the ambush. There's also class abilities and spells that keep one from being surprised. The wizard might have a relevant contingency. Death ward outright makes one immune to the shadow's strength damage. With all this considered, it's not an unfair encounter. But then the wizard isn't going to die just because they only have 7 strength.
And yeah, if the party knows in advanced to watch for shadows, that does help.
I only said it's antagonistic if you aren't given a chance to react. (I parenthetically mentioned this before, but I might as well do it again: the easier it is for your party to access resurrection magic, the less jerky it is for your DM to kill your character without giving you a chance to react.) It's not exploiting the weakness that makes it jerky and antagonistic.What if the dungeon was designed before characters were generated? The last person to enter the room gets jumped by two shadows. They lurk in the walls, thus are impossible to spot.
Running as written for a home game always seemed bleh to me for that reason actually. DnD unfortunately isn't very fair when you do, dontcha' know!
Of course. My problem with it is that Arcane casters are penalized when wearing armor, but when they are considered as wearing armor, it doesn't grant the meaningful aspect of wearing armor for them, ASF. So it doesn't really hamper casting as armor should, but penalizes everyone else.Personally... I rule that if your Str goes down, you suffer an appropriate a penalty to everything related to Strength. Everything.
Sames goes for any other attribute.
However, it does make sense that a penalty to Str is more harmful to classes that depend more on Str... That too is the same for every ability score.
A penalty (or bonus) to Attribute X will obviously be more significant to character and classes that are more reliant on Attribute X. That's not a problem.
What do you mean by "considered as wearing armor"? You mean encumbrance? Yeah, it's odd that it doesn't affect casters... I don't really mind it, though. I think encumbrance rules as a whole could be re-calibrated.
What annoys me is ACP. It gives character a penalty for using armor, but the game doesn't give any real alternative to armor... So you're basically being punished for something you're forced to do. And what does it affect? It affect one of the very few ways martial characters can actually do something out of combat (Clerics don't really care about a -3 to Acrobatics or Climb, they have spells! However, mundane classes can be royally screwed by ACP, especially since the penalties are grossly exaggerated, IMHO.
Personally, I rule that ACP does not apply if your character is proficient with the type of armor he's using (ASF is still there, though).
This makes Armor Training somewhat less valuable (it still raises max-Dex-bonus to AC, though), Fighters are more than compensated for it, so no hurt feelings.
it's not the shadows themselves that are an antagonistic move
it's the use of shadows with any of the following situations or factors applying
1. no chance to react!
2. a desire to kill the filthy munchkin wizard because he dared to dump strength!
3. being upset at something the wizard did, in game or out of game!
4. completely ignoring the wizard's listed defenses and singling them out when there are other dangerous PCs to deal with
5. sending a swarm of shadows to take out one Wizard
Again, my point is not singling out the wizard and trying to kill him. My point was a character with a dump stat is more susceptible to the threat than someone without a dump stat.
The level one aristocrat NPC, that the party is escorting is frightened and weakened. The level twenty whatever class PC with the 7 Str is dead. Dumping stats can have consequences. It seems odd that people feel that the DM has to take steps to avoid those weaknesses or he's a jerk.
it's not the shadows themselves that are an antagonistic move
it's the use of shadows with any of the following situations or factors applying
1. no chance to react!
2. a desire to kill the filthy munchkin wizard because he dared to dump strength!
3. being upset at something the wizard did, in game or out of game!
4. completely ignoring the wizard's listed defenses and singling them out when there are other dangerous PCs to deal with
5. sending a swarm of shadows to take out one Wizard
Again, my point is not singling out the wizard and trying to kill him. My point was a character with a dump stat is more susceptible to the threat than someone without a dump stat.
The level one aristocrat NPC, that the party is escorting is frightened and weakened. The level twenty whatever class PC with the 7 Str is dead. Dumping stats can have consequences. It seems odd that people feel that the DM has to take steps to avoid those weaknesses or he's a jerk.Especially if it's also a jerk move to not pull your punches if it's hit point damage. Or maybe that only applies to fighters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems odd that people feel that the DM has to take steps to avoid those weaknesses or he's a jerk.
No one in this thread has expressed feeling that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my issue with the system, is the concept of negative levels and ability damage.
here is what negative levels and ability damage provide
1. a means to completely bypass hit points with some arbitrary fluff attached
2. a means to target a much weaker reserve and treat it as a substitute health pool
3. they are usually attached to a no save touch attack that ignores armor and the like
4. they are usually attached to creatures that are highly resistant to weapon damage, possess mountains of hit points, have ridiculous DCs due to their DC stat also being their HP and Fort Stat, usually possess flight, and are generally immune to ability damage themselves
Essentially a Touch Attack that inflicts ability damage or negative levels of any Kind, without a save bypassable reliably in it's own CR range to completely negate it, is a big 'screw you' to PCs whom rely on hit points and armor class as a primary defense, which is just about any PC.
my issues with touch attacks that inflict ability damage or negative levels of any kind are, they ignore 2 core defenses that most PCs don't get to ignore, and often ignore a third, they are often on monsters with both, an immunity and/or resistance to several conventional attack forms, and are often on creatures that can utilize whole new tactics exclusive to their subtypes
pretty much
i hate incorporeal creatures and i hate how they get to bypass so many defenses and blatantly ignore so many rules while forcing you to fight them on their terms, where even at 20th level, you can be screwed by the creatures known as shadows and other incorporeal creatures, because the boons that allowed you to survive those levels, the incorporeal creatures can outright ignore
i blame this on
1. the incorporeal subtype
2. touch attacks
3. ability damage and other ability reducing properties
4. negative levels
5. the fact that monsters are created willy nilly with no concern for whether or not PCs are prepared for those abilities at those levels
6. the fact that incorporeal creatures can apply special incorporeal only tactics
It seems odd that people feel that the DM has to take steps to avoid those weaknesses or he's a jerk.No one in this thread has expressed feeling that way.
This is exactly correct and largely the thrust of my Planar Binding comments. Yes, the DM can have npcs react to the PC using Planar Binding and killing off the called creature before the service expires. The issue is when they attempt to balance the spell by dictating that "Oh yeah using that brings down the wrath of heaven/hell". Realistically, there's literally infinite outsiders, the chances of anyone missing, let alone caring that one has gone missing and furthermore cares enough to investigate, and then also having the resources to investigate is... low. If you do it a lot sure, maybe you do tip someone off, but thats not 1 or 2 uses or even 20 or 30.
Does the Wizard with a 7 STR have a weakness? Sure. Is it antagonistic for an opponent that acutally knows he has a low STR to capitilize on it? Of ourse not. The issue is when the GM uses this weakness to punish the player by continually exploiting it. It would be the same thing if an Archer only encountered enemies who were buffed with Fickle Wind, or a Fighter who got hit with 10-11 Will saves a fight.
In my opinion dump stats is a problem only at low leves. High leves has too many ways to overcome this.
In my opinion dump stats is a problem only at low leves. High leves has too many ways to overcome this.
Which is part of why the math in Pathfinder breaks down at high levels: it's too easy to cover for weaknesses.
How is that a breaking down of the system, Vivianne? Aren't there SUPPOSED to be far less weaknesses at high levels?
Unrelated: If everything broke down evenly at all levels, there wouldn't be much point in leveling up. It has to be a curve, not a line.
High levels doesn't equate to less, or no weaknesses. Without weaknesses you can't have challenges. Without a challenge, why play?
Unrelated: If everything broke down evenly at all levels, there wouldn't be much point in leveling up. It has to be a curve, not a line.
Well somethings are mostly a line, like HP/AC. Somethings are a line going roughly down, like touch AC. Somethings stay roughly same, like combat options for martials. Somethings are exponential, like spellcasters. And somethings are on a crazy phycho curvy thing that goes upward at intervals like full BAB DPR. Not all of these lines add up quiet right with their reciprocals, which is debatably good or bad depending on what we're talking about.
High levels doesn't equate to less, or no weaknesses. Without weaknesses you can't have challenges. Without a challenge, why play?
You can have a pretty higher power and epic battle without glaring and obvious weaknesses, save or dies, or rocket tag. Maybe not in this game, but in a game's design you totally can! Two super powers duking it out without exploiting any weaknesses other than the ones they create, now that's epic imo.
Without weaknesses you can't have challenges.
Not true. Something can be a challenge to you because it's simply better than you at what you're good at. "To win the hand of the princess, you must first wrestle a stone giant into submission, outclimb an awakened giant lizard with monk levels, and dive deeper than a blue whale."
The problem is that something that is challenging to one character -- my grapple-focused monk trying to outwrestle the stone giant -- would be flat-out lethal to other characters. A first level monk isn't THAT much better a grappler than a first-level rogue. At fifteenth level, it is probably not mathematically possible for the rogue to win an opposed check.