Apache and Viking didn't use longspears, their spears were 'spears', that could be thrown, and used one or two handed. As I noted about "One saga does mention a spear so very long that a man had to stretch his arm to touch the rivet (that would be a long spear). This was considered notable and highly unusual." Mycenaean's were Greeks.Remember that Pathfinder defines its longspear as an ~8 foot weapon (spear ~5ft, shortspear ~3ft). That's significantly shorter than the Greek dory, or many other single handed melee spears (which crop up literally all over the world, in the hands of elite and non-elite alike - the spear is history's commonest weapon).
You have to go down to ~3ft before Pathfinder will allow it to be a one handed weapon.
A longspear and shield wielder need not be a hoplite, he might be This Apache guy or this Viking guy or this Mycenaean guy or these Assyrian guys.
I
If you're arguing that Apaches demonstrate that longspears should also be throwable, I suppose that's a position that might also have merit. I honestly don't know enough about it. The photo is obviously not representative of a Pathfinder spear or shortspear however since its length is well above the height of its wielder, whereas Pathfinder shortspears (3ft) or spears (5ft) would both be shorter.
Mycenaeans might have been Greek, but their civilization fell apart more than half a millennium before the cited period.
Going back to this:
Many other peoples used a shorter spear with a shield, yes, but the Hoplite was the main long spear and shield user- and note, these troops were well drilled disciplined elite soldiers. Also note the hoplite was only dominant on the battlefield for a brief period- from about 500BC, ending in 338 BC at the battle of Chaeronea when the Macedonians switched from the long spear and Aspis (heavy shield) to the sarissa or pike.
Mycenaean civilization is held to have ended by about 1100 BC, and, more broadly, the earlier Mycenaean style of a long spear and large shield formation was AFAICT falling out of favor well before then.
(It's hard not to see a cyclical parallel with the much later Roman wars in Greece, and indeed, the author makes one in his conclusion)
More broadly, you find the shield and long spear (or other polearm) combination all over the world at different times. As far as I can tell, it does tend to rise and fall cyclically based on what types of weapons, armor and tactics have risen and fallen in their turns for it to be pitted against, based on economic factors (shields are far more economical than heavy body armor, for example), or based on whatever else may be at work. It's certainly not limited to Greece ~500-338.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take 20 on traps...I mean, if a thief is searching for a trap and doesn't find it, wouldn't it stand to reason they do "find" it and trigger it?
Only if he never listened to Mommy when she told him to look with his eyes, not with his hands. I can't speak for everyone, but my mental image of searching for traps does not include things like poking, prodding, groping or trampling the area that I'm searching.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take 20 is a perfectly straightforward rule. If it didn't exist, players would actually sit and roll until they got a 20. It's purely a timesaver.
Can you reroll without getting your head blown off? Then you can take 20.
The stat bumps for gaining levels...
Ever increasing AC...
Multi-classing. Why does BAB stack, yet your non-caster class have no effect at all on your caster level capabilities?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take 20 is a perfectly straightforward rule. If it didn't exist, players would actually sit and roll until they got a 20. It's purely a timesaver.
Can you reroll without getting your head blown off? Then you can take 20.
This. If it isn't feasible to fail a check without 'bad stuff' happening... then you don't get to take 20. Just because it assumes you 'eventually' roll a 20 in that time... you also 'eventually' rolled 1-19 too....
I could see a lot of traps where the DM just says no on that.
Honestly, my issue is more with the 'I didn't notice anything... I want to look again' aspect of it. This is a BIG dungeon... if that spot looked clear, the character would move on. He doesn't KNOW he rolled a 3 there...
(some exceptions apply of course... If a hallway goes to a dead end... I as a player, AND as a character will recognize the 'weirdness' of that lay out and double or triple check for a secret door.)
The stat bumps for gaining levels...
I absolutely LOVE this. 2E had you retiring with the same stats you had when left the farm... That was annoying.
unless you found a 'magic book' that only ONE person could read...
If anything I want MORE natural stat bumps... and less 'magic hat/belt/etc'
Let the CHARCTER grow from his adventures... not just his horde...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because BAB is a general attribute. Caster level is specific to class of caster. You take on the BAB specific to your new class level, so it remains specific to class, but the number there applies to the general attribute, BAB. The different casting classes function differently and are separate concepts as far as caster level goes. This is intentional and prevents a ton of shenanigans. A concern that doesn't exist with BAB and AC.The stat bumps for gaining levels...
Ever increasing AC...
Multi-classing. Why does BAB stack, yet your non-caster class have no effect at all on your caster level capabilities?
Yeah, I think that's a dumb design. Multiclassing should be roughly equally desirable for all classes.
We're talking about rules we find absurd, not saying we don't know why they exist :)
Multiclassing should be roughly equally desirable for all classes.
Why? I'm actually curious to see why you want multiclassing to be viable. There are classes and PrCs to replace most classic multiclassing ideas like the maguc and mystic theurge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Erm...PrCs ARE multiclassing.
And most of them suuuuck.
If you're arguing that Apaches demonstrate that longspears should also be throwable, I suppose that's a position that might also have merit. I honestly don't know enough about it. The photo is obviously not representative of a Pathfinder spear or shortspear however since its length is well above the height of its wielder, whereas Pathfinder shortspears (3ft) or spears (5ft) would both be shorter.Apache and Viking didn't use longspears, their spears were 'spears', that could be thrown, and used one or two handed. As I noted about "One saga does mention a spear so very long that a man had to stretch his arm to touch the rivet (that would be a long spear). This was considered notable and highly unusual." Mycenaean's were Greeks.Remember that Pathfinder defines its longspear as an ~8 foot weapon (spear ~5ft, shortspear ~3ft). That's significantly shorter than the Greek dory, or many other single handed melee spears (which crop up literally all over the world, in the hands of elite and non-elite alike - the spear is history's commonest weapon).
You have to go down to ~3ft before Pathfinder will allow it to be a one handed weapon.
A longspear and shield wielder need not be a hoplite, he might be This Apache guy or this Viking guy or this Mycenaean guy or these Assyrian guys.
I
"A longspear is about 8 feet in length." I guess that Apache is then about 7 1/2 feet tall? ;-)
No doubt, the text sometime is a little lacking. And of course that's a posed picture, he's not using either in battle.
I absolutely LOVE this. 2E had you retiring with the same stats you had when left the farm... That was annoying.
unless you found a 'magic book' that only ONE person could read...
Oh gosh darn, not even close. Dungeons were full of pools and fountains and wishes and such like so that your stats were constantly growing, in fact much more so that in D20. And those books were pretty common too.
Oh gosh darn, not even close. Dungeons were full of pools and fountains and wishes and such like so that your stats were constantly growing, in fact much more so that in D20. And those books were pretty common too.
I absolutely LOVE this. 2E had you retiring with the same stats you had when left the farm... That was annoying.
unless you found a 'magic book' that only ONE person could read...
Classic problem that people have is assuming if they don't get something through class features or the big 6 items it doesn't exist in "real" games.
I never played 2E, and only a handful of 3E sessions before we switched to 3.5 (Player's Handbook wise anyway). But a number of my friends and players had a number of 2E campaigns and they've mentioned, on several occasions the Belt of Giant Strength and Hammer of Thunderbolts combo (or at least I thank that's what it was) which let your have something like a 24 strength (which is a huge difference compared to Pathfinder I'm told).
However, beyond that, they mentioned that things like Pools of water that permanently increased your strength by 1 point, but could only be used once, or rituals to increase your intelligence and stuff were quite common (at least in their games). Common in the sense that you could be expected to encounter 1 or 2 for your character through-out an entire campaign, so your character was probably stronger, smarter, tougher etc. than at character creation.
Because then you wouldn't need 30 base classes and a bunch of PrCs?
EDIT: Also, if spell/magic advancement was unified, you wouldn't be left with lame duck situations where taking PrCs that advance casting are ONLY worth taking with full casters, because they are balanced around the idea that a full caster will take it.
A lot of bards for example could make good use of dragon disciple but then they are doubly behind on casting, because dragon disciple advances casting expecting a sorcerer to take it.
The reverse is also bad, when some PrCs in 3.5 were expected to be taken by 6/9 casters and gave full casting, but then could be easily taken by full casters who wouldn't give up anything, but would be advancing class features they got in exchange.
It does feel like Paizo has gone so far in their efforts to rein in the crazier 3.5 multiclassing builds and general Prestige Class spam that they've really hurt the tamer uses of those abilities. It's definitely a move in the right direction to make single-classing viable, but making an archetype for every single concept the multi-classing could cover is just about impossible.
I do kind of miss 2nd edition's multi-classing system. For all its flaws, it did make multi-class characters a lot simpler to set up and have keep pace mechanically. Hopefully the Advanced Class Guide can help with that.
However, beyond that, they mentioned that things like Pools of water that permanently increased your strength by 1 point, but could only be used once, or rituals to increase your intelligence and stuff were quite common (at least in their games). Common in the sense that you could be expected to encounter 1 or 2 for your character through-out an entire campaign, so your character was probably stronger, smarter, tougher etc. than at character creation.
This sounds about right... Maybe.
I've never encountered these pools people are talking about. What were they?? Were they in the DMG?
I know every stat had a book you could find that one person in the group could use before it disappeared. Wishes? I think were 9th level... not sure how powerful limited wish was. We had access to those once or twice but the 'phrase it carefully' terrified the wizards so nobody exploited them like that.
Belts of Ogre/giant strength... THOSE I ran across quite often, but only one per campaign and the one fighter who could get the most damage inevitably got it.
At the end of the game, every character MAY have had one stat go up... but again, in 2E the stats didn't really start giving you cool bonuses till around 15 or 16... So unless you put it in your high stat already, it wasn't much use.
I never saw anything close to the way the stats jump in this game. People can start the game now with the Int or Str at 20, and only go up from there... The scale has shifted somewhat, but it's still fun to watch your character improve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely HATE the taking 10/20 rules.
The general idea and execution of them seems absurd to me.
So, I try really hard to do my best, and have a range of 1-20. But if I just give it average effort I get 10.
The take 20 falls into the same category. I can do the absolute best I am capable of doing, it just takes me 20 times as long.
This pops up most with perception. What I don't get, much like Phantom mentioned above, is why they don't believe their results enough that they feel the need to try it at least 20 times. The only times most people would typically spend 20 times as long looking for something is if they KNEW or were made to belive that the object or something they are looking for is most certainly in that area.
I've actually roughly taken 20 on perception (IRL) before. Certain Army training to make your way out of a minefield, only after you know you are in one, therefore have a reason to assume every 3 square inches of dirt could have one. When you're patrolling though, you don't always assume every 3 square inches of dirt is trapped, and move at a tactical pace.
Why is it, that they know they did such a poor job the first look that they will do it 20 more times? Just because they didn't find anything? The whole mechanic is way too metagamey for me. I remove it any time I run, refuse to use it as a player, and try to convince any of my GM's to remove it also.
So, you have time to climb the rope, but not the skill? Take 20. I mean it works so well for the middle-school kids that couldn't get up the rope right? They have 20 times the time, and then they succeed, because all they needed was that extra 19 times. Or they should have just taken 10, given it their average effort, and made it. The problem is they were trying too hard.
Before I get told the DC's of the rope in gym class, the Str scores of the kids who couldn't, or somesuch about why you wouldn't be able to dur to threat or distraction, change it to a wall. One low enough that a fall wouldn't hurt you, therefore no risk, yet the 10 Str average joe just averages their way up it, or just tries 20 times so they can auto-succeed. I would imagine, trying to do it 20 times would actually make it harder to do the more you tried, as you fatigue yourself constantly pushing yourself to get up this wall you can't seem to climb.
"Otherwise, they would just be rolling twenty times." Why? Why get more than one roll? "You tried to climb the wall, but you just don't seem to have the skill to do so. Maybe your friends can devise a way to help you up." Or is it wrong to ask them to try and improvise a way to overcome the obstacle/issue, other than just throwing dice at it OOC 20 times, or even worse just saying "I take 20 times as long, and succeed no problem."?
This is one of the rules I find absurd, just my opinion. I've heard plenty of arguments for it, and have yet to be swayed, so please don't derail the thread trying to convince me I'm wrong. This is just about opinions, and as the OP said "Please don't attack others' comments. Simply list those YOU dislike and why."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The worst place for a human rogue to meet someone is in a dark alley.
"Just sneak attack him!"
"I CAN'T! HE HAS CONCEALMENT!"
However, beyond that, they mentioned that things like Pools of water that permanently increased your strength by 1 point, but could only be used once, or rituals to increase your intelligence and stuff were quite common (at least in their games). Common in the sense that you could be expected to encounter 1 or 2 for your character through-out an entire campaign, so your character was probably stronger, smarter, tougher etc. than at character creation.This sounds about right... Maybe.
I've never encountered these pools people are talking about. What were they?? Were they in the DMG?
I know every stat had a book you could find that one person in the group could use before it disappeared. Wishes? I think were 9th level... not sure how powerful limited wish was. We had access to those once or twice but the 'phrase it carefully' terrified the wizards so nobody exploited them like that.
Belts of Ogre/giant strength... THOSE I ran across quite often, but only one per campaign and the one fighter who could get the most damage inevitably got it.
At the end of the game, every character MAY have had one stat go up... but again, in 2E the stats didn't really start giving you cool bonuses till around 15 or 16... So unless you put it in your high stat already, it wasn't much use.
I never saw anything close to the way the stats jump in this game. People can start the game now with the Int or Str at 20, and only go up from there... The scale has shifted somewhat, but it's still fun to watch your character improve.
Just about every one of my PC's had his stats change materially over a campaign.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love and encourage the take 10 and take 20 rules in my games.
I try only to ask for rolls when characters are stressed or distracted. That means skill checks are made only when it MATTERS, and a character who puts resources in a skill is rewarded with consistent success in non-combat situations.
However, beyond that, they mentioned that things like Pools of water that permanently increased your strength by 1 point, but could only be used once, or rituals to increase your intelligence and stuff were quite common (at least in their games). Common in the sense that you could be expected to encounter 1 or 2 for your character through-out an entire campaign, so your character was probably stronger, smarter, tougher etc. than at character creation.This sounds about right... Maybe.
I've never encountered these pools people are talking about. What were they?? Were they in the DMG?
Not sure which books, but there was pretty odd assortment of stat buffs.
A female PC could bathe in a nymphs pool and get a +2 CHA until the next time she bathed. Awkward, obviously. And if you stole a lock of nymphs hair you could weave it into a piece of clothing to get a +1 CHA buff while wearing it. Maybe I'm remembering that wrong though. Been a while.
I think the pools made it as far as 3.5 in the DMG. Probably somewhere in the chapter on dungeon features.
The worst place for a human rogue to meet someone is in a dark alley.
"Just sneak attack him!"
"I CAN'T! HE HAS CONCEALMENT!"
Ouch... burn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ahah! a brightly lit alley! I sneak up on him and sneak attack him!
You can't
Why not?
You need concealment to sneak and you don't have any
but.. i.. you.. but... ARRRGH!!!!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's an app for that.
feat tax that rogues should have gotten for free as a default feature.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wild empathy takes a minute, but the animal is generally trying to eat you now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's an app for that.
There is, but with all of those patches in the SS rogue there's nothing left for the sails. Feats are supposed to expand and enhance your abilities, not merely get them to work.
DrDeth, I think we can probably agree to disagree on the issue. I still consider that the longspear and shield pairing is well attested outside of the aforementioned hoplitic time, or place.
Callback to the first page of the thread, I don't mind alignment, but I am not a fan of alignment restrictions on classes in Pathfinder (Paladin possibly aside, but even then, I've never heard a good argument against Paladins of Freedom or similar).
One of the iconic literary barbarians, Beowulf, is blatantly Lawful. "Any non-lawful" is a bad restriction on the barbarian class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shouldn't it be 'of Ninjitsu' or 'of the Ninja'?
|
If you don't want the app, there's a sexy case you can buy instead.
I know what my next trip to the bazaar is for!
Hang on. What exactly is considered precision damage other than a sneak attack? Called shots?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hang on. What exactly is considered precision damage other than a sneak attack? Called shots?
I think the swashbucklers precise strike is the only other thing in the game thats precision damage. In 3.5 the rangers favored enemy bonus was but that got removed.
Precision damage is one of those undefined terms you're just sort of supposed to 'know' without being told.
Aha. Ancient Chinese Secret.
I'll dig through the srd and put whatever I can find in a thread of it's own, no need to clutter up this one with yet another tangent.
That'd be absurd.
I've actually roughly taken 20 on perception (IRL) before. Certain Army training to make your way out of a minefield...
So, you have time to climb the rope, but not the skill? Take 20.
If you read the rules for taking 20, you'd see that you can't take 20 whenever there's a penalty for failure. So you can't take 20 in a minefield (fail = step on mine and blow up). You can't take 20 climbing a rope (fail = fall to the floor for 1d6 damage).
A female PC could bathe in a nymphs pool and get a +2 CHA until the next time she bathed. Awkward, obviously. And if you stole a lock of nymphs hair you could weave it into a piece of clothing to get a +1 CHA buff while wearing it. Maybe I'm remembering that wrong though. Been a while.
Nothing like that is ringing a bell for 1st edition. I mostly skipped 2e, so not sure if it popped up there.
Gun misfire rules. I refuse to believe that, in a world where with so many special materials, so many ways to improve crafting, so much magic, and the possibility of literal divine inspiration, they can't make a gun that doesn't risk exploding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fine. They can't make a non-magical gun that doesn't risk exploding.
Every problem in Golarian is solved with magic.
Every problem in Golarian is solved with magic.
Except firearms supposedly come from a magic-dead area of the world, meaning, it's more than likely that the nation would attempt to come up with a non-magical way of solving the "1 in 10 or 20 times, your gun risks breaking and blowing up in your hands" problem.
Every problem in Golarian is solved with magic.Except firearms supposedly come from a magic-dead area of the world, meaning, it's more than likely that the nation would attempt to come up with a non-magical way of solving the "1 in 10 or 20 times, your gun risks breaking and blowing up in your hands" problem.
Well they failed. Now it's Magic's turn.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Druid armor limitations.
It's METAL.
It comes out of the ground. It's on the periodic table of elements.
It's completely natural.